CGI, blessing or evil?

[Clinton Huxley]

Next question. Which historical scene would you like to see done in CGI?

(The CGI in "10,000" of the pyramid building was an example of something I'd like to see done properly. Hollywood can afford much better computers than a Uni, but once the program is written it can be donated to a research project.)

The Seige of Constantinople would be good....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Next question. Which historical scene would you like to see done in CGI?

(The CGI in "10,000" of the pyramid building was an example of something I'd like to see done properly. Hollywood can afford much better computers than a Uni, but once the program is written it can be donated to a research project.)

The Seige of Constantinople would be good....

The Siege would be even better.

I would have thought you'd want to see the Charge done properly?

[Clinton Huxley]

Next question. Which historical scene would you like to see done in CGI?

(The CGI in "10,000" of the pyramid building was an example of something I'd like to see done properly. Hollywood can afford much better computers than a Uni, but once the program is written it can be donated to a research project.)

The Seige of Constantinople would be good....

The Siege would be even better.

I would have thought you'd want to see the Charge done properly?

Dangnabit! Spelling corrected by a Merkin, I'll never hear the end of it at the United Services....

Charge of the LB would be awesome. Or maybe some of the battles waged by Genghis Khan in China....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Dangnabit! Spelling corrected by a Merkin, I'll never hear the end of it at the United Services....

Hmmm. Blackmail.

Charge of the LB would be awesome. Or maybe some of the battles waged by Genghis Khan in China....

The Golden Horde, yes! The Punic Wars, very , I think. The Battles of Lepanto, Trafalgar, The Nile, The Virginia Capes.

[FBM]

When CGI is used to inadvertently portray something in RL that is not actually possible (or didn't happen) in RL ... very bad.

As in some of the flying scenes in Pearl Harbour, with aircraft flying ridiculously close to the ground. One more black mark against what was already a big, fat, Christmas dinner of a turkey.

I've never seen Pearl Harbour and I never will. I never heard one good person say anything good about it. Its not even supposed to be bad in a good way.

It's ours and we named it Pearl Harbor.

I'm done. I won't belabour the point. Harbour a grudge if you like.

[Clinton Huxley]

CGI could create the bit where the first of the sons of Adam tried to get a harness on a velociraptor. I'd pay to see that done properly...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

CGI could create the bit where the first of the sons of Adam tried to get a harness on a velociraptor. I'd pay to see that done properly...

It would solve the mystery of whether T. rex was a carnivore or a scavenger. And whether rex liked humans over merinos.

[eXcommunicate]

The problem with CGI occurs when they make things that are normally "real" perform "unrealistic" acts. When the artists get the physics right, then the CGI is believable. But if they do not get the physics right, and by "physics" I mean "physical motion," then it is too obvious. Any time Hollywood CGIs wolves or other animals and they don't move correctly according to what we perceive as correct physics, then the CGI is blatantly obvious, no matter how realistic the fur looks. The CGI in the Spiderman movies is for the most part way beyond the pale, especially in the Spidey swinging scenes. Spiderman looks rubbery like a toy when he moves, and the physics during the combat and swinging around are unconvincing.

Another problem with CGI is that is sometimes allows the director too much freedom. Some things should be left up to the imagination. In the past, many times monsters were not shown on screen because of physic effects limitations. This had a side effect of being scarier and more effective (think JAWS by Steven Spielberg; the shark was rarely shown in full view because of technical limitations, so imagine Jaws being made today with CGI -- Spielberg wouldn't be able to help himself!). Another reason it gives too much freedom is in the cinematography. Part of the immersion of most films is point of view of the camera and by extension the audience. With CGI directors are afforded complete freedom with the camera shots, sometimes hurting immersion by allowing the camera to fly around in mid air, giving shots that would not realistically be viewed by a 3rd party observer from the ground.

But when directors "get it right" the CGI can be amazing. It has to be used with skill and a steady hand, understanding its limitations.

[JimC]

I want to see the whole of "The Wheel of Time" series done in CGI. It would only take about 35 hours...

Trollocs, fades, the one power being used, the list goes on...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm looking forward to the day when they can easily integrate CGI into movies. Erase that city on the horizon and put another, older, city in its place, like Percilean Athens. Sailing ships that don't look like bathtub models lined up off Spain for one last great clash of the titans. Legions of troops engaged in deadly battle on the Somme.

[fuck you & fuck your god]

Did anybody think CGI during Indiana Jones Crystal Skull to give Ford a wee bit of a speed bump? Too old, sad.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did anybody think CGI during Indiana Jones Crystal Skull to give Ford a wee bit of a speed bump? Too old, sad.

I said that was a "flag-passing" movie when I saw it. TNG time for the Jones Franchise.

[I'm With Stupid]

I don't think it has any bearing on the quality of a film tbh. It's just the same argument you're always going to get when it comes to comparing budgets. You could make the same argument about the decision to build a huge set recreating a historical scene, compared to a film that doesn't have the budget so finds creative ways around it instead. It might add something, or it might turn into a 2 hour visual wankathon with no substance, encouraging lazy filmmaking. I'd also be interested to compare the quality of the acting between someone who is able to get totally into the role and someone who's in some weird suit on a green screen. One of my favourite films of the past decade was Dogville, and that didn't even have a set.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think it has any bearing on the quality of a film tbh. It's just the same argument you're always going to get when it comes to comparing budgets. You could make the same argument about the decision to build a huge set recreating a historical scene, compared to a film that doesn't have the budget so finds creative ways around it instead. It might add something, or it might turn into a 2 hour visual wankathon with no substance, encouraging lazy filmmaking. I'd also be interested to compare the quality of the acting between someone who is able to get totally into the role and someone who's in some weird suit on a green screen. One of my favourite films of the past decade was Dogville, and that didn't even have a set.

So, "Waiting for Godot" wouldn't be eye-candy?