Special Effects & CGI in Film

Ok apart from being a drunk irishman all the time, i happen to watch films and read lots of manga. But i was watching the trailer of van helsing and realised how crappy the CGI (computer graphic something or other) was. And then i realised how cool the old models used to be.

Take starship troopers for example. The special effects were amazing almost life like, and that kind of thing could only be done with models in that film. In starwars (episodes IV,V and VI) all the ships were models not CGI and they looked great.

So why use CGI when models look so much better? the only thing i can think of is because you can do more with CGI. But some films are simply famous due to their CGI like league of extrodinary gentlemen, i dont know about anyone else but that sucked. It used CGI to make the film not the acting i mean whats the point?

Maybe i dont get out enough or something. O FFS dropped my damn beer. Er anyway please Reply

CGI can be good. They have problems when its suppose to be human like. They never get the face right 😖
In Ven Helsing, Mr.Hyde, IMO, is the only special effect that looks crappy.

I always think of "The Thing". When that was being filmed the actors were acting alongside heads sprouting legs and huskies exploding so part of the shock they were portraying was real. With CGI theres no way you can get the actors to react the same with something they can't see. "OK mate, theres a big monster in front of you that you can't see but you'll see it when the film comes out, we don't know what it looks like yet coz the computer nerds haven't designed it yet. Act scared, Action!"

'The Thing' was one of my all time favourite horror films. But yes your right, there was abit of clay model effects at the end but my point with CGI is that you can always tell when a thing is CGI whether models look so life like.

If you want more proof look at star wars, look at the difference between the yoda in empire strikes back compared with the one in attack of the clones and he just looks crap.

Although yoda kicks ass whatever the weather.

Yeah I guess after Yoda died in Return of the Jedi they had to use CGI to replace him in the prequel trilogy. A bit like when Oliver Reed threw a seven midway through filming Gladiator.

CGI can be one of the most effective tools in movies, if used correctly. In Van Helsing it was very effective, except for Mr Hyde (agreeing with Kes). Lord of the Rings was an example of the pinnacle of effectiveness.

Often times, however, they're just used to try and make the movie look cooler, which end up making it look crappy. If someone REALLY wants to make a movie great, then they would try using special effects in real time, instead of adding it in post. Underworld did that, and the result was it looked incredibly realistic

Originally posted by Lord Soth
CGI can be one of the most effective tools in movies, if used correctly. In Van Helsing it was very effective, except for Mr Hyde (agreeing with Kes). Lord of the Rings was an example of the pinnacle of effectiveness.

Often times, however, they're just used to try and make the movie look cooler, which end up making it look crappy. If someone REALLY wants to make a movie great, then they would try using special effects in real time, instead of adding it in post. Underworld did that, and the result was it looked incredibly realistic

I agree. CGI is a good tool of moviemaking, but i think nowadays, they are used excessively. and i think it limits the directors creativity because they can depend on CGI so they don't think as much to achieve the look they want. Does that make sense?
And Lord Soth, can you change your font and colour to something simpler cos i find it hard to read. thank you.

I totally agree, Soth. Also, yes IV-V-VI Star wars were awesome, i can see your point Aku with that, but that's how it's done nowadays, it's easier and a great tool.

CGI is just like any other tool available to the director. It's not really the CGI per se that has a problem. Most often than not, it's the director.

The thing is, most directors think that CGI 'is' the whole movie. They forget about their story and their characters.

I too am irritated by the seemingly never-ending releases of movies with weak stories and pumped up CGI effects. The only thing I think I can do is not watch these movies and hope others don't too. In that way, maybe movie producers and directors will eventually "get the picture".

Although becoming an animator is something I want to be I am really disapointed the way that films have neglected the 'old school' approach like working with real-life models like the Alien films and Dog Soldiers. Films like the new Star Wars trilogy are basically a pile of dog turd because of overuse of CGI, when you consider the originals were made with the minimum of technology and finances and are still rated much better. The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions are basically negating plot and characters for this overload of CGI, when I ask anyone about the good points of the two movies all I get back is ' the 100 Agent Smith fight scene' and ' the attack on Zion' both well versed in the art of CG.

true but then again the fight with the agent smiths was not completeley CGI they had to do like 125 shots of that part just filming agent smiths reactions to each punch and kick. But starship troopers.....the aliens look amazing, even the brain bug looks incredible im sure its either brilliantly done CGI by someone who knows what there doing or models. Not like Van Helsing where they god some Univeristy student to do it (probably)

If you look at Gollum, then you really can see what can be done.
Its incredible! but that also had alot to do with Andy Serkis, acting his arse off... One of the worst examples iv'e seen is the Warlocks from the time Machine Re-make.

The alien movies are a good example of CGI. The first two were done completly with suits and minatures. The third ushered computer generated alien and the fourth was a mix between both.
Alien 4, most action shots were done completly in CGI. Ex. The scene underwater. But, scenes upclose were done with a guy in a suit. Ex. When the aliens were in the the cells. You tell me which aliens look better. And thats why i think Alien Vs Predator is going to good is because the directory is not using CGI very much.
I love the old way in doing action movies, or horror movies without extensive use of CGI. James Bond is example on where stunts and props make the movie alot better. I think CGI is only effective if its part of the story.

has any1 seen "Dreamcatcher"????? its based on a Stephen King book
and has good f-x in it! the aliens look really believible 2!!!
i recomend it 2 ppl who luv aliens and fx!!!!!

O yeah and independance day has amazing effects in. Or should i say MODELS. Ah cant people see? Van Helsing isnt just a crap story line but the CGI IS CRAAAAAAAP. 💃

I like old cinema. Is more like theather. Of course special effects are good. Things like Blood pumps, make up, latex limbs, is cool. But lately movies care too much for CGI. I feel is boring! I want to see actors playing parts and having dialogues. Not a bunch of computer animation. Keep the CGI for Anime, not for the Cinema.

A really good example of CGI gone wil is Star Wars Episode 2: AOTC. It's virtually a handful of human actors in front of CGI environments, characters, and vehicles. Case in point, the entire "Clone War" battle on Geonosis is CGI.

As mentioned before, LOTR features some of the most seamless CGI ever, in Smeagol/Gollum. It's all good in moderation, but to have it carry your film. i.e. AOTC or that failure of a Final Fantasy movie, spells certain death.

I guess its ok to have enitre scenes with all CGI, for instance the clone war, it was all in CGI so it blended in, but when they have human actors fighting cgi oponents, now thats just f**king annoying

meh.......i thorght van helsing was ok but i can think of worse movies.....and better 1's!!!!

Originally posted by Aku
Not like Van Helsing where they god some Univeristy student to do it (probably)