|
It's true. Everything was better when there wasn't so much CGI... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree. Sometimes you see a movie with so much CGI in it that it might as well have been animated.
Especially when some scenes are done with CGI which still could have been done with real people. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CGI has become an excuse for more "shoot 'em up" movies, more gunfire and explosion-filled garbage.
No amount of fancy gadgetry will make up for a lousy script.
Ask yourself how often guns were fired in "The Usual Suspects" or "Pulp Fiction". Those movies were
violent, yet used little or no CGI effects. They're also listed among the 100 greatest movies of
all time.
In fact, the only movies with large amounts of CGI that are considered "great" are the Lord of the
Rings films, and those movies had great stories. Everything else with big computer effects
sucks, big time. |
| |
 K9  02 May 2008 15:32
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I just think generally, CGI started off being something that people making movies could use to add
in bits to their movies, here and there, just to compliment the footage that had actually been shot.
I think that has changed a lot now and continues to change, with some movies now being done
completely in CGI.
To be honest, I don't think the CGI quality is quite there yet in terms of being able to do the
whole movie and make it look "real". The movies that have been done like this are usually "cartoons"
or if they are not meant to be "cartoons", they still look like them.
I still think also that ultimately films need a good storyline and plot to work, but with that being
said, you still need the on screen images you are seeing to keep you interested and excited also. I
know personally, a lot of the movies I have seen recently that have incorporated large amounts of
CGI, have just left me going, "what? That just looked stupid?" or "why does he now look like he is
made of rubber?"
I think actors should be scared to an extent too. The next thing you know, providing voices and
voice overs for characters will be the only thing needed to produce a movie and leave the trusty old
CGI to do the rest. I like seeing the real Angelina Jolie up on the screen as much as the next
guy!
I just think that there needs to be a balance and I for one don't want to see CGI take over "real"
footage. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
No, it looks cooler that way. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No.
But I can appreciate your thought that it is not good idea.
I understand the debate thought.
I just do not happen to agree.
CGI is masterfully visual excellence portrayal. Art. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CGI will save the lives of dozens of stuntmen, extras and even actors. In the near future, all
dangerous scenes will be done on computers to avoid any risk of maiming or even killing actors,
stunt guys and extras.
I also foresee the day when all porn movies will be done on computers, rather than by degrading
women and forcing them to perform all kinds of vulgar performances on screen for the benefits of
voyeurs and sick guys. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
According my point view, the computer generated imagery which is known as CGI is not at all harming
in any sense. The days are progressing and modern science is going ahead in each day. What is the
real problem if this CGI is used largely in movies or in television serials or in case of video
games? I do not see any harm practically. This is the most important application of computer
graphics, specifically the 3D graphics which produces the special effects in movies, TV programs,
commercials and in video games as well. The usage of this CGI is increasing by leaps and bounds as
it is far more controllable than other more manually processes. This process also allows a single
artist to produce content without using any other actors or expensive pieces for making the sets.
Thus in one word, it helps people to create upgraded films easily. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
