The Great CGI Debate

[Fried Gold]

It takes no actual artistic talent to do that stuff. It just takes computer knowledge.

It took no actual artistic talent for Ray Harryhausen to do his work. It just took knowledge of plasticine.

Its the difference between creating a cartoon character from scratch by hand and some guy using a pre-made computer program that will make a cartoon character for you.

"Some guy" often tends to have to write a computer program himself in order to get the results he wants, and in order to animate this cartoon character. That would be like asking a "traditional" animator to manufacture his own acetate cels, pens and pencils as well as animating.

Peter Jackson sitting in a computer room on a couch eating chips n dip while some guys on 100 computers in a building whip up some crappy looking King Kong footage?

Him sitting down eating while visual effects are being produced would be independent of the visual effects medium. It's also ridiculously poorly considered to think that a director would play no creative role in the visual effects process on his film. And with Peter Jackson he used a ton of practical effects in King Kong, which were too seamless to notice...likely due to the use of computer compositing.

However you want to call it, I still think (most) CGI is lazy.

Say what you want about it, but your arguments so far have been lazy.

[Retardo_Montalban]

I don't have a career in any of this hoo haw at all, but I did attend at one of the colleges that Disney hires straight from, so I have a little insight into what you guys may be arguing about. The thing about CGI is that it isn't strictly an artist medium. There's that whole technological side to it. Art is left brain thinking and it takes a right brain thinker to mess with all them commands.It is very difficult to find an artist who can use CGI to express beauty and emotion while at the same time not getting 4 tran errors (whatever the hell they are). There are a lot of unartistic computer technologists who can make that crazy computer make whatever the hell they want, but the imagination and flow seems to be missing, because these people are too technical minded to make these life like creations have any personality. I couldn't take doing CGI for a living. It's tedious as all hell. Maybe one day some genius programmer will come up with a super user friendly CGI program where I can literally reach my fingers into the computer screen and manipulate objects, like I would clay. Basically, it takes a person of tremendous talent to be able to master both elements and get paid to do it. I don't think there are enough of these people to satiate the demand for today's CGI. Pixar seems to be hiring all these people at least.

[havocSchultz]

I recently looked at some schools that would teach cgi and visual f/x and what-not...
To maybe see if I could branch out and possibly maybe take some courses...

So, that being said, if CGI only requires use of a computer, and no artistic talent, then technically I should've been able to get into any of these schools...
Except for the fact they all ask you for some sort of portfolio - drawings, sketches, designs, etc...
I can't draw worth a shit...so for the most part, I'm out of the equation...
Why would they test me for artistic talent?
I've been using computers for years...

Winslow, from what I recall you use photoshop and/or something similar to create those cool Avs and pics you've done in the past...
Would it be cool if we told you they were lame and unimpressive, because all you did was click a few buttons...?
Or was there still some sort of artistic talent involved as well...?

You prefer old school filmmaking...
We know that...

But something like the old car driving with some rear projection background put in like all the old movies - still looks like a car sitting still with some images flashing behind it...
That's been done forever, and it has never looked real or good...
But some people will still choose that over CGI...

It's just a random example...

Both have their pluses...as well as their minuses...
Just like everything in film...
Anything done without the time or care to do it right, will look bad...
I don't care if it's CGI or if it's practical fx...

Practical fx have been around a lot longer, and in the end, there are a lot more examples over the years of it looking bad...
Both require talent and effort and care to look good...
That's why these days so many filmmakers are mixing them both together...

I can't wait till QT throws some cgi backdrops and/or blood in Inglorious Bastards...
Rodriguez will get to him yet!!!
It's bound to happen!!!

[papalazeru]

Whoa! Hold on Winslow.

Kaga is right. It does take as much skill to create CGI as any other form of special effect.

While a modeller in real life creates a pasticine model in real life so does a modeller on computer. They still have to create an 3d respresented object from scratch, now that takes time and effort.

It's the same with animation, you have people who animate using stop frame which takes painstaking hours of moving and taking pictures. With computer animation, it also takes time, analysing how a create or person should move, it's kenetics and skeletal structure, etc. All of that takes time and both cost a shit load of money.

If you see dodgy computer, you notice it, right? It's usually because there is either a limited timeframe to get everything done in, or the studios are too cheap to spend a bit more money and either hire someone better or extend the project.

The process can still be just as arduous on model animation as it is on computer.

[havocSchultz]

I can literally reach my fingers into the computer screen and manipulate objects, like I would clay.

You can reach into my screen and manipulate my clay any day...

[Retardo_Montalban]

I can literally reach my fingers into the computer screen and manipulate objects, like I would clay.

You can reach into my screen and manipulate my clay any day...

You're not tricking me again. Last time I did that, I ended up in the hospital with electrical burns and 27 stitches.

[havocSchultz]

Whoa! Hold on Winslow.

Kaga is right. It does take as much skill to create CGI as any other form of special effect.

While a modeller in real life creates a pasticine model in real life so does a modeller on computer. They still have to create an 3d respresented object from scratch, now that takes time and effort.

It's the same with animation, you have people who animate using stop frame which takes painstaking hours of moving and taking pictures. With computer animation, it also takes time, analysing how a create or person should move, it's kenetics and skeletal structure, etc. All of that takes time and both cost a shit load of money.

If you see dodgy computer, you notice it, right? It's usually because there is either a limited timeframe to get everything done in, or the studios are too cheap to spend a bit more money and either hire someone better or extend the project.

The process can still be just as arduous on model animation as it is on computer.

Somebody also still has to create all these CG characters...
Somebody will usually draw them out first to get the design...
From what I've seen, a real clay (or something like that) model is made, and scanned into a computer so as to have an entire 3D object...

If I had a simple "create" button on my computer for CGI that's all I'd be doing all day...
CGI hentai...

[Retardo_Montalban]

Another thing is that CGI is a relatively new medium. practical effects have generations upon generations of master who have been refining their craft for the better part of the last Century. The people teaching CGI animation nowadays are the same people who animated that Dire Straits video.

[Fried Gold]

If I had a simple "create" button on my computer for CGI that's all I'd be doing all day...
CGI hentai...

Adobe Photoshop -> Image -> Enhance -> Auto Hentai -> Filter -> Render -> Flesh

[WinslowLeach]

LOL. I made myself laugh with the "press buttons and get CGI" statement. I know theres more to it then that.

With everyones backing up the artistry behind CGI, I cant help but agree. I think I did admit a couple posts back it does take artistry to do it. Its just that most CGI comes off like its a bunch of people on computers taking a short cut to what would be better in live action. Of course theres exceptions (Jurassic Park, Terminator 2 come to mind) I dont know what the answer is here. CGI is going to keep getting better and probably easier to do as time goes on though. So all that laziness that I keep talking about will probably be true in a way. You really think the CGI guys in Hollywood arent going to make it easier to create CGI as time passes so they dont have to spend so much $$? Theyll probably make CGI programs like Adobe Photoshop where everyone will be using the same program to do things in CGI. In no time, people with hardly any original artistic talent only computer talent will be creating CGI sequences with drag and drop technology. It will happen someday.

You guys get so caught up in being right about CGI argument, you forget about what movies are really about. They arent about a bunch of guys on computers making fake creatures and explosions. I doubt many people in here even respect CGI that much. You say it takes artistic ability but at the same time do you actually like it?

Havoc: QT will never put CGI sequences in his movies. I can pretty much guarantee that. I think the only movie he participated in that was CGI heavy was Sin City. But hes a cinema purist when it comes to film vs. digital etc.

[Retardo_Montalban]

Cinema purist? What the hell does that mean? CGI is a part of cinema. It has been for 20 years. Do you mean pre 1980's cinema, because that's different. I mean technology is always changing. Blue screen wasn't around until the 70's. Hell, color wasn't around until the 50's and are we going to get into talkies?

[Chairman Kaga]

Cinema purist? What the hell does that mean? CGI is a part of cinema. It has been for 20 years.

Longer if you count Westworld.

Theyll probably make CGI programs like Adobe Photoshop where everyone will be using the same program to do things in CGI. In no time, people with hardly any original artistic talent only computer talent will be creating CGI sequences with drag and drop technology. It will happen someday.

Extremely unlikely. I mean do you think live action film makers just go in a warehouse where every costume, prop and set has already been made? Asset creation is always going to exist. Even in recent films and sequels wherein companies could simply recycle assets like Spiderman they redo them from the ground up each time. Hell in LotR Gollum was almost entirely remade from Fellowship to Towers and that was essentially one long show. Kudos btw for yet another dig at Cg artists, modelers, animators etc. We get it. You believe that CG folks are not artists though you are wrong.

If I had a simple "create" button on my computer for CGI that's all I'd be doing all day...
CGI hentai...

Adobe Photoshop -> Image -> Enhance -> Auto Hentai -> Filter -> Render -> Flesh

Where are the tentacles?

[TonyWilson]

Cinema purist? What the hell does that mean? CGI is a part of cinema. It has been for 20 years. Do you mean pre 1980's cinema, because that's different. I mean technology is always changing. Blue screen wasn't around until the 70's. Hell, color wasn't around until the 50's and are we going to get into talkies?

I think Winslow was talking about the change from analog to digital. There's a fair argument to be made for the idea of wanting to work solely in the physical chemical medium of film as opposed to digitized information. Personally I enjoy either/or but QT's method is still valid.

[Fried Gold]

Havoc: QT will never put CGI sequences in his movies. I can pretty much guarantee that. I think the only movie he participated in that was CGI heavy was Sin City. But hes a cinema purist when it comes to film vs. digital etc.

I'm guessing he used vaseline on the lens to remove all that wire-work from Kill Bill....

[Retardo_Montalban]

Cinema purist? What the hell does that mean? CGI is a part of cinema. It has been for 20 years. Do you mean pre 1980's cinema, because that's different. I mean technology is always changing. Blue screen wasn't around until the 70's. Hell, color wasn't around until the 50's and are we going to get into talkies?

I think Winslow was talking about the change from analog to digital. There's a fair argument to be made for the idea of wanting to work solely in the physical chemical medium of film as opposed to digitized information. Personally I enjoy either/or but QT's method is still valid.

I'm just contending the use of the word "purist". Nostalgist maybe, but not purist. It insinuates that there is something impure about using current technology to make movies. It's like saying that movies with sound are not as pure as a silent movie. Dig?

[WinslowLeach]

Cinema purist? What the hell does that mean? CGI is a part of cinema. It has been for 20 years. Do you mean pre 1980's cinema, because that's different. I mean technology is always changing. Blue screen wasn't around until the 70's. Hell, color wasn't around until the 50's and are we going to get into talkies?

Cinema purist as in CGI that wasnt used widely in most of the 20th century. As in not using CGI to do everything that can be done with live action. WTF? Am I talking Chinese now?

Now I have to use "Nostalgist" to not offend the CGI lovers in here? Jeezus.

Fried: Obviously he had to use some minor CGI to erase the wirework, but hes not doing a Matrix style video game Mr Smith sequence either.

[TonyWilson]

Cinema purist? What the hell does that mean? CGI is a part of cinema. It has been for 20 years. Do you mean pre 1980's cinema, because that's different. I mean technology is always changing. Blue screen wasn't around until the 70's. Hell, color wasn't around until the 50's and are we going to get into talkies?

I think Winslow was talking about the change from analog to digital. There's a fair argument to be made for the idea of wanting to work solely in the physical chemical medium of film as opposed to digitized information. Personally I enjoy either/or but QT's method is still valid.

I'm just contending the use of the word "purist". Nostalgist maybe, but not purist. It insinuates that there is something impure about using current technology to make movies. It's like saying that movies with sound are not as pure as a silent movie. Dig?

Yeh, got ya there, Retardo. I agree.

[WinslowLeach]

I meant "Cinema Purist" as in: DIRECTOR, CAMERA, ACTORS, SOUND. PERIOD. Not DIRECTOR, DIGITAL CAMERA, GREENSCREEN, 500 COMPUTER ARTISTS. Theres a little bit of a difference. If you cant even make a good film without all the CGI, why should you get to make some CGI crapfest?

I just want good movies with good stories. Most CGI movies are CGI FX with shitty stories. If they could just match up the CGI with an entertaining film, Id be happy.

Hollywood cinema is shitty for the most part now. All we get is CGI heavy action movies and remakes. Thanks to George, Robert Rodriguez, McG and Michael Bay.

[instant_karma]

Kaga: Are you an artist by any chance? Do you have any actual artistic talents? Can you do anything besides hang out in this forum arguing about how CGI is so great? Prove something to me other than youre a nerdy jerk!!

And WTF is up with your stupid "quote every line I say and reply" shit? You are an idiot! What is this? 8th grade?!

Look, if you arent a CGI artist yourself. You need to shut yer piehole I think. You dont know shit about anything to do with art.

To all you CGI artists: You guys are real talents. Im glad youre out there helping make great movies!! YEAH!!

Jesus Winslow, is this really the level of debate you want things at? Do you know how close this is to one of the all time great asinine arguments? The old "Well, why don't you go and make a better movie, then you can talk shit about (Teen Wolf*)" From now on, do we need to be actually employed directly in the field that we're talking about in order to have out opinion considered valid?

On a slightly tangential note, I'm curious as to what you think of movie composers who use synthesizers or computer programmes as opposed to 'real' instruments.














*Add whatever cherished movie that deep down you know isn't very good, but still feel the need to defend here.

[Fievel]

If you cant even make a good film without all the CGI, why should you get to make some CGI crapfest?

The anti-Stephen Sommers League agrees.

But I disagree about the term "purist". I find that term, especially when in regards to things of an artistic nature, elitist at best. Terms regarding the merits of an artistic endeavor are always subjective. Art evolves faster than man ever will. The tools, the subjects, the audience, etc. To define such an absolute quality as being "pure" is ridiculous.

[Hermanator X]

The same McG who is striving to make T:S as practical as he can, or Bay who likes blowing REAL shit up real good. Thats a whole different argument, if its the dumbing down of movies you are going after.

[WinslowLeach]

Jesus Winslow, is this really the level of debate you want things at? Do you know how close this is to one of the all time great asinine arguments? The old "Well, why don't you go and make a better movie, then you can talk shit about (Teen Wolf*)" From now on, do we need to be actually employed directly in the field that we're talking about in order to have out opinion considered valid?

On a slightly tangential note, I'm curious as to what you think of movie composers who use synthesizers or computer programmes as opposed to 'real' instruments.

Main difference between synthesizers and instruments and CGI and using live action is I'm not watching synthesizers and getting pulled out of a film. Theyre playing music. If it sounds good to my ears, its all good. I have no problem with that kind of stuff.

I just feel like alot of geeks seem to know alot but they dont usually have any actual connection to the medium theyre talking about/defending. They own some LOTR figures and suddenly their experts on CGI and cinema.

McG is trying to make the new Terminator as practical....and CGI'd as possible. Michael Bay can blow real shit up GOOD. lmao!

Goodamn if I see another CGI explosion or bullet time motion kick in a movie I'm gonna blow shit up myself.

Con Air: That movie was excellent. How much CGI was used in that? Towards the end when the plane goes into Vegas. That Simon West guy made Michael Bay look like the ALF goon he is!

[instant_karma]

I meant "Cinema Purist" as in: DIRECTOR, CAMERA, ACTORS, SOUND. PERIOD. Not DIRECTOR, DIGITAL CAMERA, GREENSCREEN, 500 COMPUTER ARTISTS. Theres a little bit of a difference. If you cant even make a good film without all the CGI, why should you get to make some CGI crapfest?

I just want good movies with good stories. Most CGI movies are CGI FX with shitty stories. If they could just match up the CGI with an entertaining film, Id be happy.

Hollywood cinema is shitty for the most part now. All we get is CGI heavy action movies and remakes. Thanks to George, Robert Rodriguez, McG and Michael Bay.

See, what you're saying here is really a criticism of bad directors and a current trend in mainstream Hollywood. None of what you just said is actually a criticism of CGI, which as a couple of people have already said, is merely one more tool at a directors disposal, to be used for good or ill depending on the directors talents. To criticize the tool is kind of like saying 'I don't like Jimi Hendrix, so guitars are terrible!" If your problem is on the bad use of CGI, I'm with you on that, but again, that's down to the director using it, not the technique itself.

[WinslowLeach]

Instant Coffee: That really is what Im getting at. Its just hard to separate good CG and bad CG. Thats probably where my trouble with it lies.

Most CGI heavy directors use "the tool" like its a cooking ingredient and they put too much in the dish. Like theyre making an Italian meal and they add Kool Aid (cgi) into the sauce. Its not meant to be in everything or to be abused like a Vegas hooker.

[instant_karma]

Instant Coffee: That really is what Im getting at. Its just hard to separte good CG and bad CG. Thats probably where my trouble with it lies.

Go see Wall-E...

[WinslowLeach]

Instant Coffee: That really is what Im getting at. Its just hard to separte good CG and bad CG. Thats probably where my trouble with it lies.

Go see Wall-E...

I think thats where its much easier to accept. When the entire universe the film is in is one thing. Its tougher when youre watching a live action film and a big CGI creature shows up.

Actually, I think Men In Black used CGI pretty well. I didnt mind it much in that.

[Retardo_Montalban]

Well before all this CGI nonsense started out in the early nineties, I still remember us kids bitching about bad effects. Only back then it was seeing wires on flying saucers and the zipper on a Godzilla suit. As far as I can tell most movies being churned out will be crap, It's been like that since movies began and will continue until the fruit flies rule the world, but there's a good 20% of quality out there CGI or not.

[WinslowLeach]

What about Starship Troopers? Good CGI use, fun as hell movie!

Its all about the context and intelligence of the directors. We have too many dumb goons in charge. It would be great if there was a New Wave of CGI where all the films kicked ass and made me love it.

Non CGI films: Plan 9 from Outer Space is one of my favorites for real!

[Chairman Kaga]

I just feel like alot of geeks seem to know alot but they dont usually have any actual connection to the medium theyre talking about/defending. They own some LOTR figures and suddenly their experts on CGI and cinema.

You mean like a person who states CG artists are not artists and who doesn't know basic information about how CG is produced complaining and decrying said CG and Artists?

Well before all this CGI nonsense started out in the early nineties, I still remember us kids bitching about bad effects. Only back then it was seeing wires on flying saucers and the zipper on a Godzilla suit. As far as I can tell most movies being churned out will be crap, It's been like that since movies began and will continue until the fruit flies rule the world, but there's a good 20% of quality out there CGI or not.

Exactly. 80% of practical FX are just as bad as the 80% of bad CG yet a ridiculous standard for hyper realism is applied to the CG but not the practical work right next to it.

[WinslowLeach]

You mean like a person who states CG artists are not artists and who doesn't know basic information about how CG is produced complaining and decrying said CG and Artists?.

I know basicly how CGI is produced. Why do you keep saying I dont? What are the basics? Computers? Programs? Is there some special potion they drink before they get on a computer and start making images and animating them? What exactly am I leaving out?

CGI isnt what cinema should be about. Thats my point. I dont care who I offend with that statement. They can all go make CGI tissues and cry in them. Cinema is meant to use all the tools at hand to tell the best stories visually. Its not there to jerk off computer graphics onto a screen with no rhyme nor reason.

[instant_karma]

Some of my favourite CG moments are less about putting something front and centre on the screen and more about enhancing the cinematography. The split screen merging into one frame in Rules of Attraction was done using computers. I also really liked the reverse tracking shot of little girl (before she grew up to be Jody Foster) in Contact, which winds through her house but finishes up inside the medicine cabinet mirror. I saw Apocalpyto a couple of months back for the first time and there was a really nice shot over a waterfall that the protagonist was gonna jump. It started off from behind the character and went over his head and then over the waterfall, all of which could have been done on a crane, but then it just keeps moving away from the edge of the waterfall, so at some point it was merged with matching shot from a helicopter, but thanks to some decent CG it was one nice big crane shot.

[WinslowLeach]

Apocalypto was an awesome film. I loved it. Thats cuz Mel knows how to use CGI right. To use my food analogy, its like he was making a meal and added the ingredient of CGI in just the right amounts to make the film great.

[Retardo_Montalban]

mama mia!
Winslow, you hurt my brain. Why do you say that CGI isn't what cinema should be about, and then right afterwards say that a movie that utilized CGI was "an awesome film". You're not being very clear in why you disapprove of the use of CGI. Do you think all those shots from Apocalypto could have been done better using practical effects? Mel Gibson did shoot in Central America. He could have easily payed 20 Latino cameramen to jump off the falls while filming to reproduce that scene.

[Al Shut]

80% of practical FX are just as bad as the 80% of bad CG yet a ridiculous standard for hyper realism is applied to the CG but not the practical work right next to it.

That's because the practical work isn't supposed to look completely real. Otherwise they would have used CGI

[WinslowLeach]

Retard: I dont know exactly how much CGI Mel used. If he used alot, he used it well (thats a VERY rare instance today). Im just saying CGI shouldnt be the main tool of a film, it should be used to pepper a film when its right. Theres exceptions of course, but as we know, most directors abuse it.

I'm starting to think Chairman Gaga is a CGI creation myself. He acts like I slandered his grandmother here. Damn!

[instant_karma]

mama mia!
Winslow, you hurt my brain. Why do you say that CGI isn't what cinema should be about, and then right afterwards say that a movie that utilized CGI was "an awesome film". You're not being very clear in why you disapprove of the use of CGI. Do you think all those shots from Apocalypto could have been done better using practical effects? Mel Gibson did shoot in Central America. He could have easily payed 20 Latino cameramen to jump off the falls while filming to reproduce that scene.

Heh. Then they could've used the tagline from this movie to market it...

[Retardo_Montalban]

Retard: I dont know exactly how much CGI Mel used. If he used alot, he used it well (thats a VERY rare instance today). Im just saying CGI shouldnt be the main tool of a film, it should be used to pepper a film when its right. Theres exceptions of course, but as we know, most directors abuse it.

I'm starting to think kittens are a CGI creation myself. They acts like I slandered their grandmother here. Damn!

Most directors are shit. They'd be shit with or without the CGI. If CGI didn't exist, then they'd be butchering movies in other inventive ways. If Apocalypto used CGI in a way that you enjoyed, then you should have no problem with the implementation of CGI. You should have a problem with studios hiring shit directors that congest movie theatres with shit movies.

mama mia!
Winslow, you hurt my brain. Why do you say that CGI isn't what cinema should be about, and then right afterwards say that a movie that utilized CGI was "an awesome film". You're not being very clear in why you disapprove of the use of CGI. Do you think all those shots from Apocalypto could have been done better using practical effects? Mel Gibson did shoot in Central America. He could have easily payed 20 Latino cameramen to jump off the falls while filming to reproduce that scene.

Heh. Then they could've used the tagline from this movie to market it...

Awesome!

[WinslowLeach]

If it was used in a great way alot, I guess I would never have started this topic.

28% of forum members want MORE CGI in movies? What the hell?

[so sorry]

Havoc: QT will never put CGI sequences in his movies. I can pretty much guarantee that. I think the only movie he participated in that was CGI heavy was Sin City. But hes a cinema purist when it comes to film vs. digital etc.

Man, I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off when the immortal QT does eventually use CGI for something, and watch how you spin it into the greatest single visionary event in film history... I can't image he's going to go find a shitload of Panzers and Messerschmidts and create a sweeping Nazi war column with practical effects, so mayhaps we'll see QT-CGI sooner than later!

[Lord Voldemoo]

Believe it or not, Wins, there are other opinions that are just as relevant as yours.

And yours, Kaga.

Now play nice or I'll lock the thread. It is possible, you know, to discuss this without calling each other stupid/ignorant.

[Retardo_Montalban]

Havoc: QT will never put CGI sequences in his movies. I can pretty much guarantee that. I think the only movie he participated in that was CGI heavy was Sin City. But hes a cinema purist when it comes to film vs. digital etc.

Man, I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off when the immortal QT does eventually use CGI for something, and watch how you spin it into the greatest single visionary event in film history... I can't image he's going to go find a shitload of Panzers and Messerschmidts and create a sweeping Nazi war column with practical effects, so mayhaps we'll see QT-CGI sooner than later!

Super realistic miniatures crafted by Todd McFarlane.

[WinslowLeach]

Believe it or not, Wins, there are other opinions that are just as relevant as yours.

And yours, Kaga.

Now play nice or I'll lock the thread. It is possible, you know, to discuss this without calling each other stupid/ignorant.

Moo: Gaga is acting like Im totally unaware of what CGI is just because Im not a huge supporter of it. Which isnt true. But no need to get your udders in a knot old cow friend.

So: If he ever does (I really dont think he will), I'll be honest about it. Im a big QT fan, but Im not going to change my opinion if its just a load of CGI shit.

QT has said over and over he hates CGI, esp the kind of scenes that can be done with live action. I think he even said that about Apocalypto. He said he loved the movie and thought Mel did an awesome job but when he found out about the CGI, it kind of made him lose respect Mels talent.

[instant_karma]

If it was used in a great way alot, I guess I would never have started this topic.

28% of forum members want MORE CGI in movies? What the hell?

I voted for MORE CGI as soon as I read this post by you-

Kaga: Youre just bitter cuz deep down you know I'm right.

The poll is at 44% LESS CGI btw. So I think the people have spoken.

You got nothin!! NUTTIN!!

Excuse me now Im going to go watch Doom.

Just 'cause you were being all smug and stuff. But really, I find the poll question a bit like asking if I would like more or less dolly shots.

[papalazeru]

Can we please have a word change on the zone just for winslow?

I nominate 'purist' and in it's replacement, let's have Luddite.

Winslow is obviously a poor factory worker with the gates closed because machines have taken over the factory. Instead of learning to use the machine, he'd rather cry and sulk.

Wire work in films pull me right out of the action, people flying around with swords and shit. Also, period dramas, what's with that, noone wears clothes like that now so I can't get into the films, it takes me right away from the action.

In fact, seeing anything made with electricity scares the willies out of me so if you really want to see it, watch it in an Ampitheatre like every other 'purist'.


You suspend your disbelief, that's what it's about.




Moron.

[Lord Voldemoo]

Papa has been banned.

Anyone else?

[WinslowLeach]

Papa: Now youre just being purely insulting. You shouldnt use this topic just as a way to insult me. A poor factory worker? WTF is that supposed to mean? STFU.

Im not fond of CGI and I dont think the people that use CGI use it correctly most of the time. So what? Thats my opinion.

If you dont like it. Too freakin bad.

Pure cinema doesnt rely on CGI effects. Its more about telling a story with the basic elements of film without computers. So what? Thats acceptible. What about the 100s of indie films that are made each year that have no big CGI FX sequences? Youre going to diss all those filmmakers for being pure cinema people?

[Lord Voldemoo]

Banned WinslowLeach.

Next?

[instant_karma]

Winslow, I think your continued use of 'purist' and 'pure cinema' is partly what's antagonizing some people (whereas I don't really like your current AV). When you say that movies without CGI are pure, then that seems to imply that movies with CGI are somehow impure, which I'm sure you must know is generally regarded as a negative quality. Myself and I'm sure many others on this board love some movies that have a few or even many CGI moments in them, and to somehow suggest that they are lesser movies just because of that one component, regardless of the quality of its execution, just seems to be too sweeping a statement to really take seriously.

Isn't bad CGI as detrimental to a film as bad writing, directing or acting? The idea that a badly writen movie, with poor acting and crappy direction is still somehow superior to (or purer than) a competently made movie that uses some CGI just doesn't make much sense to me.

[instant_karma]

Banned WinslowLeach.

Next?

Quick! Somebody call Harry!! Moo's gone admin power crazy!!
















(as we all knew he would)

[The Vicar]

Banned WinslowLeach.

Next?

Quick! Somebody call Harry!! Moo's gone admin power crazy!!

(as we all knew he would)

WTF is this, some half-assed sequel to Raging bull?