I remain totally underwhelmed by Computer Generated Images.

A good example would be recent Star Wars films... Doesn't matter how beautiful the clips of a sun setting over Coruscant may look, there is no joy in looking at what you know is synthetic.

Films seem to have less impact when they are set against a background that could be described as 'cartoon like'.

Whereas older films (such as 'Jaws') depend on using real images, but use them in an artistic and economical way.

Give me the real image any day... Let's see an end to these 'cartoon' films!

The real innovations of CGI are the bits you don't even realise are CGI. You'd be hard pressed to find a film nowadays that doesn't have it in some respects, even if it is airbrushing a celebrity throughout a film. One of my favourite sequences from a film is CGI, though you forget that when you see it.

It is from a film called 'The Rules of Attraction' based on the novel by Brett Easton Ellis. In one particular sequence the character is outside after an emotional scene, it starts to snow and a snowflake falls into the corner of the characters eye as they look up and it melts, turning into a tear. It's cinematic genius and it is all CGI.

I am sick of fully rendered CGI though, the stuff in Star Wars is shocking, if beautiful in a very fake way. Me thinks that Lucasfilm has let it's CGI go in one particular direction too much and it has stopped thinking of CGI as an addition to reality and has started thinking, we can do it all, which is way more complex than their ambitions allow for.

It could also have something to do with digital film-making. Digital as opposed to film suffers in terms of gradiation of light. With actual film having about 20% more grades of light than digital has, so anything filmed in digital as opposed to film ends up looking fake.

Wilf

Although, in general, I am against the use of CGI when a set/ location can be used, I think if used to the right effect CGI can be great. Take Sin City for example. Practically the only thing real there was the cast. Everything, from the backgrounds, to the cars, to the furniture was CGI....and it worked, managing to capture the comic book feel and film noir aspects perfectly.

In addition, David Fincher uses CGI for quite a few 'slick' shots...but it works. Fight Club has the "appartment explosion" scenes in CGI amongst a few others. Panic Room has the camera track shot from upstairs, down, to the door. These scenes are done well, and work brilliantly.

I think it boils down to this...the skill of the director in using CGI effectively. Lucas simply doesn't have it!

Originally posted by Beakerzoid
In addition, David Fincher uses CGI for quite a few 'slick' shots...but it works. Fight Club has the "appartment explosion" scenes in CGI amongst a few others. Panic Room has the camera track shot from upstairs, down, to the door. These scenes are done well, and work brilliantly.

The one shot in Panic Room where the camera works it's way round the house as Forrest Whitaker tries all the doors and windows - gorgeous.

Although it does look quite CG-ish it's done in such a cool way. And the whole movie is shot in quite a clean slick way, so it doesnt look out of place.

The 'Ikea Condo' scene in Fight Club is wonderful also.


But on the whole I agree with Deavon - I get fed up of entire films being artificial. Often I fail to be impressed by shots I know are artificial.

The unnoticed CG - Black Hawk Down being a memorable example - is good, as it does it's thing without being too intrusive. Just adds to the atmosphere.


I think it's just too easy these days for the director to say whatever he wants - no matter how outrageous - and it can be done. So unbelievable crap ends up spoiling movies when something a bit less OTT would have done.

I was watching some of the Matrix the other day, I think it was Re-loaded ? Anyway the fight scene between Neo and Agent Smith where there are hundreds of Smith fighting one Neo, excellent fight scene, but at points its so very obviously CGI that it takes away the magic of it - I would have prefered just the two of them going all out !! but then again i love old fashioned movies the most :)

I think replying on CGI as much as they do, film makers are becoming a bit lazy.
I wonder how many directors realise it's still possible to make a decent film without turning to computers?


Mind, I suppose these days it's cheaper to employ a bunch of computer artists than it is to build huge sets, close city streets, destroy buildings, employ thousands of extras etc etc.

Originally posted by BrainThrust
With actual film having about 20% more grades of light than digital has, so anything filmed in digital as opposed to film ends up looking fake.

Wilf

High Dynamic Range Images (HDR) contain more information than it is possible to cram onto chemical film, and effectively capture the full range of exposure. But each frame file then balloons in size.
Of course a good HDR camera is going to set you back, but if you are cooking up CG animation sequences, then that isn't a problem.