Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 21:05:24 GMT
I find them grating and obnoxious.
I was just watching the Guardians of the Galaxy movies- which I enjoy- but man, the CGI backgrounds and images are really excessive. It makes me long for movies with actual sets and locations.
What say you?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Bond on Mar 15, 2018 21:07:40 GMT
CGI should only be used when absolutely necessary, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Mar 15, 2018 21:25:34 GMT
I agree. CGI spaceships in Star Wars SEQUELS look too video gamey because the ships in the background are always as clear as the ships in the foreground. There is no depth of field. Backgrounds should have a blur to look correct. Why the hell don't the effects people of ILM know this? Are they just being lazy?
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 15, 2018 21:50:40 GMT
Agreed Mr Ackbar. CGI should be avoided at all costs. Nolan does this very well. His films like Inception, Dunkirk and Intersrellar have full use of practical effects when feasible and minimal CGI. And it shows, the final product is much more immersive. Black Panthers ending was awful. Terrible CGI rhinos and terrible video game fight between Killmonger + BP.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 15, 2018 21:57:50 GMT
I don't mind at all. If it's ugly or excessive like GREEN LANTERN or GODS OF EGYPT, yeah I don't like it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 23:33:14 GMT
Agreed Mr Ackbar. CGI should be avoided at all costs. Nolan does this very well. His films like Inception, Dunkirk and Intersrellar have full use of practical effects when feasible and minimal CGI. And it shows, the final product is much more immersive. Black Panthers ending was awful. Terrible CGI rhinos and terrible video game fight between Killmonger + BP. Yeah, Black Panther had some very poor CGI. That scene in the ancestor's realm was especially bad. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Mar 15, 2018 23:48:49 GMT
I find them unwatchable; I've tried to watch a couple of films that rely heavily on CGI, rather than just using it to create a backdrop; each time I've had to turn them off less than a half-hour in because they're so cartoonishly unreal.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 16, 2018 0:13:20 GMT
Only use CGI when it's necessary. I prefer practical effects, sets, makeup/prosthetics, etc. The more CGI you use, the more your film risks being style over substance.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on Mar 16, 2018 1:44:26 GMT
It depends on the movie. If the movie is good, then what's the problem? The CGI in GOTG was very well done, and the movie itself was quite good. Now, if a movie relies only on CGI effects as the selling point (Transformers) without offering any other redeeming qualities, then that's a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 1:49:53 GMT
I prefer as little CGI as possible, it should only be used when its necessary.
But at the same time i am not really bothered that much if there is a lot of it. But if i had to pick i would rather have less of it than alot of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Mar 16, 2018 1:51:45 GMT
I can't stand it when a movie uses too much CGI. Makes it look like a glorified video game.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 16, 2018 2:18:44 GMT
It's best when used with practical effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Mar 16, 2018 4:26:35 GMT
I like CGI as long as it's well done. The effects in Valerian was the only thing that kept me interested in the film. But when it is poorly done like in A Sound of Thunder, it's a distraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 16, 2018 4:37:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 16, 2018 4:41:42 GMT
CGI often used because it's easier (and cheaper) than trying to find actors that can actually fly (or live underwater) and paying for them to travel to mythical locations or galaxies far far away ?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 16, 2018 5:02:55 GMT
Heavy CGI can be exhausting to watch and often gives everything an unreality. The original Jurassic Park, which had a perfect mix of practical puppetry and CG, should be the gold standard on how to use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 16, 2018 5:48:00 GMT
Heavy CGI can be exhasting to watch and often gives everything an unreality. The original Jurassic Park, which had a perfect mix of practical puppetry and CG, should be the gold standard on how to use it. That's why I miss guys like Stan Winston. |
|
|
|
Post by The Social Introvert on Mar 16, 2018 8:48:14 GMT
Practical effects all the way - enhanced by CGI if necessary. I hate the modern over-reliance on CG when it isn't needed and I hate when they don't put enough money/time into the CG so it looks fake and distracting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Mar 16, 2018 9:58:17 GMT
I agree. CGI spaceships in Star Wars look too video gamey because the ships in the background are always as clear as the ships in the foreground. There is no depth of field. Backgrounds should have a blur to look correct. Why the hell don't the effects people of ILM know this? Are they just being lazy? what are you talking about?
- The OT used practical models.
- The PT - contrary to popular believe - mostly used practical models unless in the far background or not doable. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvpMVirLsY0 www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhpFsO8wUoI
- The ST only use CGI-models, but I think this is one of the few things done well in the new trilogy.
Can you provide shots and vids to back that up?
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Mar 16, 2018 11:08:13 GMT
It's generally a negative thing.
it's possible there could be exceptions here and there but movies that use too much CGI tend not to be good but it could partially be for me that I am not a fan of animated stuff in general and CGI can sort of go down this route.
|
|
