[Toru-chan]

It's been a disappointing year for movies. More accurately, a disappointing year for Hollywood movies:

This was the best Pixar film since Toy Story and one of the greatest animations ever made - right up there with Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs. It crossed the line from being clever and funny to become moving and thoughtful and full of wonder. Pixar is the anti-Hollywood Studio, a creative hothouse based in San Francisco where people still control the computer generators.

It's the other way round in Hollywood, where CG image-making has almost killed the creativity. One of the most interesting stories I heard this year was that audiences in Thailand have become so hostile to overblown effects that they now advertise "No CGI" on the posters for some movies.

http://www.smh.com.a...0399039849.html

Used properly, CGI can work wonders. Smeagol was Smeagol in LOTR, and those battle scenes as impressive as hell without detracting from the story. For that matter filmakers like Hayao Miyazaki use CGI in his films like "Spirited Away", even though it's (apparently) traditional 2D animation. It's about using CGI to enhance film making rather than letting it take over.

But look at how Lucas's prequels denigrated into pointless CGI Orgies, or worse Cartoon Network's Clone Wars which is even worse storytelling with CGI done cheap and nasty. But, for some reason, CGI still sells and for that matter so does crap. Madagascar 2? Why bother?

Aside from CGI, that article runs through the years movies and notes the best are being produced outside of the US. I'm just hoping sooner of later independent film makers meet DV meet bittorrent and kick the tired Hollywood sleazoids out of their perch. Star power is wasted on me. Actors are actors. I'd rather see a good independent film with good unknowns than a so-called blockbuster with a name.

Been quiet on the forums lately. The Clone Wars TV Series didn't exactly kick off a new Lucasarian renaissance, did it? The Star Wars Live Action series is supposed to debut in 2009 or probably 2010. My money is on it being crap. I see nothing Lucas has done since 1993 to contradict that assertion.

Happy new year everyone.

This post has been edited by Toru-chan: 28 December 2008 - 11:30 PM

[Toru-chan]

Yes, googled around and it's true. They're sick of fight movies where you might as well be at a PlayStation:

http://www.google.co...nd+%22no+cgi%22

I did see a "making of" the ROTS where Dooku gives Obi Won a force push and Ewan falls backwards a few feet. The CGI fanboy was showing this CGI model of Ewan falling backwards drooling "look at the way the hair moves."

Why didn't they just get Ewan to do it?

[Paladin]

Well I sorta thought Wall-E, the Dark Knight, Seven Pounds, Yes man, and on a side note, Bolt, to all be very good movies.

I never watched the latest Star Wars movie (I never in my wildest dreams they'd ever make one like that, though. Plus it was largely because of my vow never to watch another Star Wars film ever again, or spend any money on the franchise). Also one thing I have to mention that, despite that we might not like it, but CGI in movies is just an advancement of special effects. Advancements in special effects in the late 70's and early 80's allowed for movies and scenes to be made that just weren't possible before. People could have abused those just like people abuse CGI now.

[Vesuvius]

Also one thing I have to mention that, despite that we might not like it, but CGI in movies is just an advancement of special effects. Advancements in special effects in the late 70's and early 80's allowed for movies and scenes to be made that just weren't possible before.

True, that's all CGI is, an advancement in special effects. Just special effects, that's it. CGI however does not cover plot holes, crappy acting, shallow diologue, or poor story writing.

People could have abused those just like people abuse CGI now.

I have to disagree with this because CGI is far cheaper than making actual sets, models, props, and such, all so that it can be blown up or destroyed later. Also, all of the intricate sets and such take a long time to build, not to mention, costly as hell. (You ever go to a hobby shop and see that stuff? It's expensive.) Only the super rich would spend the money on those kinds of effects, but would the film production be quick? No. Building all that stuff takes time, not to mention dexterity and actual artisitic skill.

With CGI, it's just drawing, pointing, clicking, coloring, ... It may take time, yes, but far less time than sculpting, carving, mixing compounds, etc. Not to mention, far cheaper.

[Paladin]

True, that's all CGI is, an advancement in special effects. Just special effects, that's it. CGI however does not cover plot holes, crappy acting, shallow diologue, or poor story writing.

Absolutely correct. Heck, even George Lucas once said 'special effects need to take the backseat compared to story and characters'. I wish he'd have stuck by those words instead of going towards a special effects extravaganza every time he makes a movie.

I have to disagree with this because CGI is far cheaper than making actual sets, models, props, and such, all so that it can be blown up or destroyed later. Also, all of the intricate sets and such take a long time to build, not to mention, costly as hell. (You ever go to a hobby shop and see that stuff? It's expensive.) Only the super rich would spend the money on those kinds of effects, but would the film production be quick? No. Building all that stuff takes time, not to mention dexterity and actual artisitic skill.

With CGI, it's just drawing, pointing, clicking, coloring, ... It may take time, yes, but far less time than sculpting, carving, mixing compounds, etc. Not to mention, far cheaper.

I know some people who would disagree to that by saying that high-end CGI is expensive as heck, costing almost as much, if not more so, than animatronics and building expensive sets.

But that's not to say that it's an excuse to overuse it. Yes there are tons of directors who abuse CGI... but a lot of those movies would not have really existed if not for the advances in CGI, and even if they had traditionally built sets and the like, the movies would have been just as bad.

[Toru-chan]

I have to disagree with this because CGI is far cheaper than making actual sets, models, props, and such, all so that it can be blown up or destroyed later.

From what I saw in the PT 'Making of' videos many of the sets in the PT were entirely bluescreen. Doing even the clonetrooper armor and stuff like Ewan's falling back as CGI seems weird to me. Presumably someone crunched the numbers and decided CGI *was* cheaper than sets+models+props+actors(!)

True, that's all CGI is, an advancement in special effects. Just special effects, that's it. CGI however does not cover plot holes, crappy acting, shallow diologue, or poor story writing.

Absolutely!

Heck, even George Lucas once said 'special effects need to take the backseat compared to story and characters'. I wish he'd have stuck by those words instead of going towards a special effects extravaganza every time he makes a movie.

He has also promised to leave Hollywood and go back to making small, personal, experimental movies. Still waiting...

I know some people who would disagree to that by saying that high-end CGI is expensive as heck, costing almost as much, if not more so, than animatronics and building expensive sets.

CGI Modeling is labor intensive, but there are lots of good modelers and artists out there. Animation is slow and tedious, but motion capture is making that much cheaper. It's very easy even to make a renderfarm (I did one for kicks with four PCs; took me an hour to set up). If you've got serious money behind you and are guaranteed to print money at the end a-la-Lucasfilm, they sky is your limit. Although the Clone Wars cartoon ended up doing it cheap and nasty: cheap motion animation with low detail models that don't need hair animation or even lip-synch (droids and helmeted clonetroopers).

Guess the answer is CGI can be as cheap or expensive as you want them to be. I'd say for a given shot they're still (even over-the-top Prequel CGI) much cheaper than traditional SFX. Lucas has $$$ so he can afford to make his CGI absurdly over the top.

Also one thing I have to mention that, despite that we might not like it, but CGI in movies is just an advancement of special effects. Advancements in special effects in the late 70's and early 80's allowed for movies and scenes to be made that just weren't possible before. People could have abused those just like people abuse CGI now.

BTW there's an old quote (Variety? Rolling Stone?) where Lucas whines that it his SFX people (Dystra's operation) only did one SFX shot a day. He thought they should be much faster, shooting as fast as a typical film crew. But with SFX costing that much, you can see why Lucas used them sparingly.

But compare that to the opening space battle in ROTS; that was all eye candy. It didn't even make sense. Compare that to the Star Wars battles which made (more) sense.

But CGI is cheap (compared to building sets and SFX) and it's an easy cop-out: To keep the audience interested in dialog between two actors demands good film work. But you can slap a thousand laserbolts and missiles flying between space ships dripping with eye candy. It's much easier...

But that's not to say that it's an excuse to overuse it. Yes there are tons of directors who abuse CGI... but a lot of those movies would not have really existed if not for the advances in CGI, and even if they had traditionally built sets and the like, the movies would have been just as bad.

What's sadder is what we haven't seen. I can name some movies where the CGI made sense - but I can name far, far more where the CGI made the movie worse.

Well I sorta thought Wall-E, the Dark Knight, Seven Pounds, Yes man, and on a side note, Bolt, to all be very good movies.

I've seen some good stuff this year but it hasn't come from Hollywood. There's so much stuff around now; more than one man can watch, so you can afford to be fussy.

I never watched the latest Star Wars movie (I never in my wildest dreams they'd ever make one like that, though. Plus it was largely because of my vow never to watch another Star Wars film ever again, or spend any money on the franchise).

And for this I salute you, Sir!

This post has been edited by Toru-chan: 02 January 2009 - 01:08 AM

[Toru-chan]

Next years movies:

http://blog.wired.co...wiredcom-m.html