Computer Graphics Effect and Characters -second thoughts

[metron07]

Everyone, wanted to bounce a question off you that has been troubling me for some time.

Lately with this whole CG era so big in films, are the folks in our group really feeling connected to the current group of comic heroes when we all know that the stunts they are doing are not even them physically but a CG version of them.

In the early Indiana Jones films Harrison Ford did most of his stunts so you really felt connected. Now in newer films like Iron Man I do not connect ( or buy) with a shot of Robert Downey's face with lights projected on it or his face superimposed on the CG character. In short, I'm not walking away from newer CG laden films wowed as much as for example LOTR which I think had done the best job of mixing CG and live action, even better than Star Wars.

CG for me has become noticeable and predictable even in the newest Indiana Jones film. Is the current crop of CG in films just not done well enough or have we become too sophisticated as movie viewers to be wowed anymore.

I would very much like to hear from anyone who would wish to chime in on this.

Thanks for hearing me out on this gang!

[Meds]

Well I have to agree with you. You can't beat seeing the real thing. Thats the reason why the Bond films went crap (Die another Day was terrible), but Casino Royale come out doing proper stunts with actual actors an stunt man and you come out of the cinema feeling alive. (Its ironic i say this as at the moment I'm filming using Green Screen and It really does not feel the same as filming in a field where it is set). Anyway i think this is the problem with the Hulk films, you know its just a computer and not a bloke dressed up. I'd probably feel better if it was a actor padded up and filmed like LOTR's was in a deceptive filming angle to make the actor look bigger.

Star Wars is probably one of th best examples on how CGI can really screw up a film. Models feel real, actors in suits are real, CGI ships and yoda's do not look real.

[Geekyfanboy]

Very rarely do I say.. "oh that looks CG'd" it's not that I don't have a good eye, I do work in the entertainment industry and see how all his is made, but I guess when I go into a move that is fantastical/sci fi'ish I try and immerce myself into that world. I don't go in to it thinking to myself.. well that's a 12 foot green person.. he's not real.

Movie audiences are becoming more and more demanding. Take Superman.. back in the day watching the original Superman fly was amazing. It was done with wires and green screen. But with the recent Superman movie that would not work with audiences. They would expect cooler bigger effects and with cooler bigger effects comes CG. Another example is Spiderman, there is no way a human/stunt man could do the moves of Spiderman in those movies.

Not all CG looks great I'll give you that.. but if the story is good and you can suspend your disbelief and immerse yourself in there world then I think CG is an great addition to movie making.

[metron07]

Kenny,

Agreed. One has to emerge oneself and turn off the analytical part of the brain. But I've noticed with movies like LOTR I can watch it 20 times and still be able to do that. Where with a movie like Spiderman, I can only do it with the first viewing maybe, after that not so much. "I am Legend" was another one, I could not be scared as I new all the infected, and the animals where CG. Will Smith sold it for me and that is a credit to him as an actor he also did it in Independence Day.

The amazing thing is the original Star Wars films even with outdated optical printing and stop action are still enjoyable.

I guess what I'm sensing is all of the current movies are made to be sort of "disposalable" in that sense. I know I may be nit picking here, but it's sort of nagging me lately and I had to talk about it and see if anyone else has noticed this. I guess I may be talking about excellence in the work. They seem to be squandering this great medium for the sake if expediency and cost. These are not internet fan films, these are full budget "major" motion pictures.   :worthy?

[Geekyfanboy]

I think Star Wars (the original) stands up to the test of time for us (middle aged men/women) because we saw it as a child/young adult and they became such a huge part of our lives. If you show Star Wars Episode 1 and Star Wars Episode 4 to a child/young adult now (2008) I can almost bet that they will enjoy Episode 1 more then Episode 4 because of the effects and CG.

As for being able to watch movies over and over and enjoy the CG I think that depends on the story/movie and your taste.. I'm with you.. I can and do watch LOTR over and over and never get tired of it.  I also have the dvd's of Spiderman I, II and III and have watched them once or twice since I have purchased them. It's not because I don't believe in the CG or dislike the movies ( I did buy them on DVD)..  they just don't appeal to me as much as LOTR's or Firefly or Star Wars or Star Trek or Harry Potter or so many other great things that I enjoy. Transformers is another example.. loved the movie, effects were some of the best i've seen, but I don't watch it over and over again.. and it's not because the effects/CG it's just not something "I" can watch over and over again... does that make sense??

I feel like I am rambling here.. what I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter what kind of CG a movies has if I love the story/characters/concept I'll watch it over and over.

[Rico]

For me it's like Kenny said, the movie is the thing.  If I enjoy the movie and the CG is used well then I'm good with it.  But I do think it gets a bit overused sometimes.  I do tend to like films where they try to keep the CG down to a degree.  I actually felt they tried hard to do this with the most recent Indy movie.  The temple stuff at the end and some of the earlier bits were a bit more real than they might have been in a different movie.  Of course they used some CG but I think they did try to not overuse it.  Anyway, the truth is we are kind of stuck with the situation.  The genie is out of the bottle.  Even a simple movie these days has some CG somewhere in it.

[Meds]

For me the only film that has used CGI which has worked (and i mean you have to really look to see) is LOTR's with Gollum. Even now seeing Gollum talking to himself is brilliant. Now in a few shows time Rico you are dong a podcast devoted to the great Ray Harryhausen, now you look at his work and we all know it is stop animation and not real but because you know you can touch these things then in essence you believe they are real. In pure CGI you simply know nothing is there and a little bit of the film (for me) is ruined. Now OK I'm always going to go to the cinema and if CGI is excellent (like LOTR or King Kong) then of course I'm going to enjoy the film, but if the CGI is bad (Die Another Day) then what do you talk about when you come out of the cinema? .... the film? the performance? or do you say "man that CGI surfing bit was rubbish" I know what i talked about when i came out of Die Another Day.