Movies and TV CGI in a nutshell

irishjayhawk · 07-14-2008, 05:13 PM

Thoughts?

I would also put Pirates in that category even though it's not a superhero movie.

**Rausch** · 07-14-2008, 05:29 PM

I wouldn't put "Superhero Movies."

I'd add "Current Filmmaking."

Hammock Parties · 07-14-2008, 05:30 PM

Not true. Example - Pixar.

irishjayhawk · 07-14-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

Not true. Example - Pixar.

Pixar isn't CGI, at least in the modern sense of the word. CGI is usually referred to as a live action with computer sequences. Which is different than a full length ANIMATION film.

It could be splitting hairs, but the difference - at least to me - is huge.

**morphius** · 07-15-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Pixar isn't CGI, at least in the modern sense of the word. CGI is usually referred to as a live action with computer sequences. Which is different than a full length ANIMATION film.

It could be splitting hairs, but the difference - at least to me - is huge.

I can't agree with that statement at all, Pixar is CGI in its purest form.

irishjayhawk · 07-15-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

I can't agree with that statement at all, Pixar is CGI in its purest form.

I don't consider full animation to be full CGI. Totally different.

CGI or VFX to me is when they're put into an otherwise live action movie. Animation is just complete CGI/VFX. It's a big difference.

Deberg_1990 · 07-15-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

I don't consider full animation to be full CGI. Totally different.

CGI or VFX to me is when they're put into an otherwise live action movie. Animation is just complete CGI/VFX. It's a big difference.

For the most part, id have to agree.

All animation flicks like Pixar are not trying to achieve "photorealism" like a live action movie is.

Animated movies (even the more adult ones like Wall-E) will always want to maintain a certain level of cartoonishness.

Which brings up another subject, what are movies like Beowolf?? Is that still animation??

**Donger** · 07-14-2008, 05:33 PM

I'm beginning to actively dislike CGI. If you can't film a "stunt" with live actors, perhaps it shouldn't be filmed in the first place.

Hammock Parties · 07-14-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm beginning to actively dislike CGI. If you can't film a "stunt" with live actors, perhaps it shouldn't be filmed in the first place.

No, that's not true. There's some shit in Wanted that was absolutely awesome, and only could have been done with CGI. It was better for it.

CGI is a great tool. The problem is when directors go overboard with it and drench the film in it.

It should be used sparingly, like old special effects were. Digital matte paintings are awesome, as is bullet time. Wacky Indiana Jones trees are not.

**Donger** · 07-14-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

No, that's not true. There's some shit in Wanted that was absolutely awesome, and only could have been done with CGI. It was better for it.

CGI is a great tool. The problem is when directors go overboard with it and drench the film in it.

It should be used sparingly, like old special effects were. Digital matte paintings are awesome, as is bullet time. Wacky Indiana Jones trees are not.

Shut the hell up.

Hammock Parties · 07-14-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Shut the hell up.

How very uncouth.

irishjayhawk · 07-14-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

No, that's not true. There's some shit in Wanted that was absolutely awesome, and only could have been done with CGI. It was better for it.

CGI is a great tool. The problem is when directors go overboard with it and drench the film in it.

It should be used sparingly, like old special effects were. Digital matte paintings are awesome, as is bullet time. Wacky Indiana Jones trees are not.

What shots, specifically?

Hammock Parties · 07-14-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

What shots, specifically?

When they assassinated the dude in the car? AMAZING.

Also, the part where he uses that body as a human shield while firing through his head. That was epic.

irishjayhawk · 07-14-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

When they assassinated the dude in the car? AMAZING.

Also, the part where he uses that body as a human shield while firing through his head. That was epic.

I'd grant you those along with the bullet cgi. Matrix like CGI I can stand.

However, the stunts they had in the film, especially the car flipping and picking him up or flying overhead of a limo, are the type of CGI that is becoming more and more prevalent. And it's replacing plot and believability.

Amnorix · 07-15-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm beginning to actively dislike CGI. If you can't film a "stunt" with live actors, perhaps it shouldn't be filmed in the first place.

Yes. I can suspend disbelief under certain circumstances, but too many films go so far past absurd it's impossible.

And yes, the plot to CGI ratio isn't a good one. The key is to have a good plot and use CGI to enhance the storytelling. Too many directors/producers/etc. forget that.

07-14-2008, 05:13 PM	Topic Starter
irishjayhawk Feelin' Alright Join Date: Aug 2004 Casino cash: $10004900	CGI in a nutshell Thoughts? I would also put Pirates in that category even though it's not a superhero movie.
Posts: 16,887

07-14-2008, 05:30 PM	#3
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4390478	Not true. Example - Pixar. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 278,835

07-14-2008, 05:33 PM	#8
Donger "Think BOOM!" Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: 33.675° N 106.475° W Casino cash: $10049900 VARSITY	I'm beginning to actively dislike CGI. If you can't film a "stunt" with live actors, perhaps it shouldn't be filmed in the first place. __________________ I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?
Posts: 181,450