Amazon.co.uk Widgets
Den of Geek

Has CG had its day?

Robert McLaughlin


The entire affair seemed clinical, personality free and really just quite dull, a fireworks display of pixels without the hotdog or jacket spud of entertainment or enjoyment..

Rob discusses whether the days of ‘wow’ factor in CG have passed

Published on Jun 30, 2009

I saw Transformers this weekend and after sitting through nearly two and a half hours of a movie that felt like watching somebody else playing a computer game I came out of the cinema feeling underwhelmed and flat.

What I mean by that is that there was no ‘wow' factor to the thing. By having so much going on and having such a movie spectacle it's like throwing everything you can do with CG on screen, with explosions, robots, more explosions, and the usual Michael Bay subtlety going on. The entire affair seemed clinical, personality free and really just quite dull, a fireworks display of pixels without the hotdog or jacket spud of entertainment or enjoyment.. 

In my opinion it seems that by bunging everything through a computer that cinema has shown the ‘man behind the curtain', that anything and everything has that digital tweak added to it. The spectacle has superseded the ‘magic' that is actual storytelling as the most important element to a film

There is no ‘how did they do that' factor in films doing the rounds at the cinema, Wolverine was bland, Star Trek was cursed with wobbly camera syndrome and Transformers as mentioned was just a excuse to make money back for the R&D investment they did for the Transforming sequence they did in the last film.

Seeing a Ray Harryhausen film, a Hammer horror or Toho monster movie we all know they were models but how did they do it? Camera trickery, composition, bits of rubber all blended together in a mix of magic but now as we all know it is pixels there is no sense of wonder any more.

Seeing Optimus Prime fifteen years ago on screen would have been impressive and given you that jaw dropping moment. Think back, remember when you first say a dinosaur in Jurassic Park, that's what I'm taking about - when was the last time you went into the cinema and had that feeling? To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum ‘just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you have to'

CGI in today's movies is so commonplace and overused that frankly it's lost its appeal. Again remember when you first saw ‘liquid metal' on screen, first in Flight of the Navigator and then of course Terminator 2 - this effect called ‘reflection mapping' has been around for the best part of twenty years and when it was used, it was used to effect - to quite literally show you something you had never seen before. However now it's used on adverts for cleaning products. It's the same with ‘Morphing' and even ‘Massive': how often now have we seen CG armies against each other?

CG has become cheap, easy and even throwaway. Accessible software packages such as Motion Builder, Maya, 3D Max and even motion capture software is in the reach of most people and while it still takes skill and dedication to master these pieces of software which have become commonplace tools of the trade, the imagination needed it seems is sometimes lacking.

Pixar it seems have managed to blend the two - classic stories and the use of CG - to the best advantage. Their films, no matter how short, have a special spark of magic that shows how to use computers in movies to their very best advantage. Take two 2009 films - Up and 2012. Comparing a Pixar film to a end of the world film might seem like oranges compared to lemons - but think about it; which movie will draw you in the most, which one will have you smiling and immerse you in the experience? I am certain it won't be the one that has earthquakes and aircraft carriers falling on the White House, but the one using the tools of CG correctly to have chubby scouts and grumpy old men floating around in a house covered in balloons.

CG, as it stands needs to go through another revolution. We know you can have it all on screen Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, Peter Jackson, James Cameron and Steven Spielberg, and with legendary FX houses like ILM and WETA, we understand you have pushed to boundaries of technology to the limit.

You can make orcs fight elves in medieval battlefields, the Hulk fight the Abomination or have the army fight Decepticons in the sand dunes of Egypt; you can send us into space as an Avatar or have us far underwater where Mega Sharks fights Giant Octopus (okay, maybe not that one). We get it, now that we can do all of this to the point where we really cannot tell what is real and what is not.

Shouldn't it be time to get back to the drawing board or word processor and actually work on the scripts?

See also:
Matt Edwards on this summer's underwhelming blockbuster releases;
The 50 best movie SFX;
The 24 worst movie SFX of all time;

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By MarvMarble 1 June 30, 2009 08:41:42 AM

I don't think you could do a film based on Transformeres well without CG though. That's not to say that your last point doesn't stand though: "Shouldn't it be time to get back to the drawing board or word processor and actually work on the scripts?" The effects should compliment the story not the story the effects. To be fair I haven't seen this film yet though.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By chamelious 1 June 30, 2009 09:44:00 AM

I don't really get it, you guys all love statham films, you don't sit down to watch one without knowing exactly what to expect, its mindless fun violence. You should have sat down to watch transformers expecting to see giant robots destroying things, thats all it ever was, its all people want. I don't even actually agree that the wow factor has passed, i was still impressed with things like devestator destroying a pyramid. I agree CG has become as much a film making tool as anything else now though. Again and again people hammer home their point that a movie has to tell a story. I don't agree, at all.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By cordas 1 June 30, 2009 12:11:17 PM

Nope not at all... Its just that lazy directors, writers and studios need a bit of baseball bat education to make them realise that special effects don't make a movie, they are just a tool that can be used to tell a story. Terminator 2 and the Matrix are both movies known for their ground breaking special effects, but in reality they where both well written, cast and directed movies. The effects where there to enable the story to be told. However if you look at T3, Matrix 2/3 or the Brosnan Bond films then it seemed the effects where the "stars" of the show and the script, acting and direction where all just there to fill out the rest of the time slot. Give me a good plot and decent acting / direction any day, but when the script calls for it then and only then bring out the FX goodies.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By Dierk 1 June 30, 2009 01:16:42 PM

Strange complaint. Only with movies this seems to be possible, never heard people, especially critics, complain about the way certain SFX on stage are achieved. I did hear some complaints about how text processors are bad for literature, but those are more in the vain of general bickering about everything new. I know one had the same when pencils went out of fashion for typewriters when it came to professional writers. Most probably folks whinged about this new invention called 'wheel' ... Granted, often enough CGI is now used to cover up a mediocre script. Now, this one I did hear before, actually since the 1970s, when the summer blockbuster was invented. From my studies in film history I find the same complaint hurled at every single new - and for a time over-used - effect or technology in movies. Gosh, even sound was criticised till at least the 1950s [Billy Wilder made fun of that in Sunset Boulevard ]. It's not the fault of the technology, it's the people using the technology for bad things. Like, giving Michael Bay any job in the industry at all. Motion pictures are a lot about make-believe, now, why not use the best way to achieve the suspension of disbelief? Trouble ensues when the effects do not help suspend but heighten disbelief. Which is always due to mediocre scripts and unimaginative directors.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By quarterburn 1 June 30, 2009 01:42:40 PM

Even though Jurassic Park had revolutionized special effects, the strongest parts of the movie remain the actors. Only the smart film makers realize that special effects should be added in to help the story and be smooth and seamless. Directors like Bay DEPEND on it to save their movie and that's why it sucked so bad.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By sailorgaia 1 June 30, 2009 02:32:03 PM

I think it's similar to breaks in technology--like remember when the ipod came out? It took several years but eventually the generic knock-offs were made and now mp3 players are rather standard. It's lazy filmmaking that we’re seeing.. They're now at a point where CG is like an old hat; cheap and easy for film makers to reproduce. Said film companies—so often interested in making money first and something enjoyable for their audiences second—habitually take the quick and easy way to funding their operations. The product may not be so enjoyable down the road but it lured you at least once; their job is done. I don't think that movies are in as much trouble as we critics think they are. Everything goes through this; the ipod (or mp3 devices in general) killed CD players, television took over radio, video killed the radio star; someone will come out with a new technique soon that will be ever-so cool and will be just as eye-rolling a few years after everyone else has learnt how to reproduce it. If anything, getting bored with CG is a good way for someone to start brainstorming to make something even more amazing! We, as the audience, can only benefit!

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By jim_caerleon 1 June 30, 2009 02:40:41 PM

To a certain extent, it was always thus. There have always been films that emphasize spectacle over story. The original "Star Wars," when it came out in '77, was roundly criticized for having forgettable characters lost in the special effects. Looking back now it's easy to see that in fact the characters were engaging; if they weren't then that film wouldn't have become so beloved. Whenever a new technology is introduced to cinema it tends to be overused or used poorly. The advent of sound knocked back the artistry of cinema by many years. The inventive use of camerawork, editing, montage, etc. was replaced by a bunch of actors huddled close to a microphone to capture their dialogue. It took a while to integrate sound into the filmic toolbox. Thankfully, to balance the awful Michael Bays, we have truly excellent filmmakers like Guillermo Del Toro, who skillfully uses CGI to tell a good, engrossing story. The poster above who opines that films don't have to tell a story is, in my opinion, dead wrong. Good storytelling has endured for thousands of years, and will continue to flourish, because it seems to be a basic human need. When all the flash-bang has faded, good stories will endure. It's why the great films from every decade continue to be viewed.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By Kapp 1 June 30, 2009 04:22:27 PM

Jurassic Park and T2 were amazing for their day...What we were seeing on screen really seemed real...a man was able to walk through prison bars, change into liquid and back to solid...a practically photo-real brontosaurus walks up a hillside peacefully eating leaves, a massive tyranosaurus rex walks past a car... Everyone gave the hands down credit to the new innovations of CGI....BUT! The reason those CGI effects looked so real is that in almost EVERY scene of those films the scenes were edited together where ALMOST EVERY OTHER CUT in the scene was done IN CAMERA- In T2, the t-1000 chases them towards the elevator, the door closes, his hands turn to metal hooks (CGI) he opens the door, arnold blasts his head, his head is blown open (this was a LIVE STAN WINSTON ANIMATRONIC EFFECT) then the head reforms (CGI)...and on it went...The T-Rex looks near the car where Sam Neill's character is, then sees the kids flashlight (AN ANIMATRONIC DINOSAUR) then lifts up the head, and walks toward the other car (CGI) same with the raptors, same with most everything in the film (except that poison spitting lizard, that was 100% animatronic done IN CAMERA) The point being, Spielberg and Cameron knew that to SELL the CGI completely, you had to intermix the CGI with something REAL that was actually ON THE SET...then, with editing, as long as the CGI modeling and the real item are LIT IN THE SAME MANNER, you can edit the scene and half the shots (the ones not possible without CGI) are yes, CGI, but the OTHER HALF are really there...HENCE, there are many sections of T2 where the cuts are so fast that we dont realize which effect is CGI and which isnt.... The issue now is that these other directors (Bay, Sommers) are making ENTIRE FILMS where the goal is to make the FILM EASIER for the CGI artists...IN CAMERA EFFECTS are "too time consuming to get right", or are "too expensive", or "too 1980's"...and so they are abandoned... Am I wrong, or is the character Snake Eyes from the GI Joe movie a 100% CGI character for the entire film? (looks this way from the previews)....If this is the case, can I ask....WHY!!!??? Why have an entirely CGI character that is supposed to be a HUMAN?? I see the way GI Joe looks, the way Transformers looks...the CGI doesnt have to adjust to the cinematography, the cinematography LOOKS like it is somehow digitized to make the CGI work easier...Hence, we are removed from the feeling that this is real on screen- the characters and effects are 100% CGI, the backgrounds are 100% CGI (even things like frickin SUNSETS...does a sunset REALLY NEED TO BE CGI...Do SUNSETS NO LONGER EXIST IN OUR WORLD??? Is there NO QUALIFIED CINEMATOGRAPHER in Hollywood that can have actors stand there while a REAL sunset is being filmed? ...... This is where the overuse of CGI has gotten us...things that COULD BE FILMED IN THE REAL WORLD- ARENT- because it is more "convenient" for the director to have things he SHOULD have filmed just "fixed in post using CGI" since "people love CGI".....

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By Kapp 1 June 30, 2009 04:59:45 PM

My Bad...Snake Eyes in the GI Joe movie will be portrayed by ray Park (aka darth Maul)...I will watch the GI Joe Trailer again and then mention where in the trailer the CGI Snake Eyes appears.... My point is, why should a character in a live action film who is supposed to be a human character instead be CGI in certain scenes?

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By SciFiAssassin 1 June 30, 2009 09:09:26 PM

The new Star Trek film is a great example of a film in the same vein as Transformers 2. It was an action movie, with a straight-forward, simple story. But the story and characters were allowed to 'breathe' amongst all the spectacle. JJ Abrams clearly talks with his cast about their characters: their drives and their backstory. I bet he does the same with the writers too. Michael Bay no doubt talks with his cast too. But the conversation most likely is as in-depth as, "You'll be standing over here when the explosions go off. It'll look really cool! Those hotpants are too big, by the way." I bet he talks at the writers too. I hated Transformers 2 within about three minutes. I didn't want to, but the director pretty much dropped his trousers within the opening moments, and that was the style for the next. Two. And a half. Hours. People say, "What did you expect!!!" But I can't imagine anyone really wanting to see this again over and over. And isn't that the point of making a movie? Make something that connects with people, even in small ways, and make them fall in love with it. It should be a journey which leads you places you don't expect. There's clearly a lot of skill and talent on display in Transformers 2, but what should have been a spectacle quickly became a chore.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By AlexMay 1 June 30, 2009 09:53:13 PM

It's pretty simple. Write a story, see if it needs CGI to tell the story. Unfortunately many films these days employ the strategy of designing complex 3d models and merchandise, then see if a story of some sort can be woven in later.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By kivel 1 June 30, 2009 11:49:14 PM

When Star Wars Attack of the Clones came out i turned to my son and said, "you know you really have to have a story to make the CGI (what it was called back in the day) work" i do wonder why Transformerss can make CG work so well but the HULK looks like a six year olds crayon drawing

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By TheRahman 1 July 1, 2009 03:01:51 PM

Not again. Who edits this website ? I'll settle this in a few words. CGI is only as good as the people who use it. Just because someone can write, does not mean they will write like Shakespeare. Are you all morons who write here. Is there a Razzies award I can nominate a site like this ?? Do you have to have a double digit IQ or below to write for this sad excuse for a website ?

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By sazwizpolg 1 July 2, 2009 02:28:00 PM

I would tend to agree with you (especially regarding your dislike of the wobbly camera in Star Trek: something no one but me has seemed to complain about, till now), but I actually enjoyed Transformers: ROTF because it harkened way back to the old 80s cartoon (which I loved so much, I actually got my mother to lie to the school bus driver that I had severe motion sickness so that she would drive me home in time to catch it every day at 4:00). Granted, the story was beyond silly, and there was too much going on at once, but that was how the cartoon was. Whereas the first movie was sorely lacking in robots altogether, concentrating instead on Sam Witwicky and his impossibly hot jock concubine girlfriend, this movie gave us giant robots en masse, duking it out and demolishing stuff. It gave us one-dimensional robot personalities with funny accents just like the cartoon, and I just loved it. Of course, had it been any other movie, I would have hated it for these very reasons. But all I wanted was something like the cartoon: the Decepticons have a master plan to steal energon and destroy the Earth and the Autobots have to stop them. That's what I got and I'm happy for it. If GI Joe can be half as faithful to its roots, I will be pleased as punch.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By BubbaCoop 1 July 2, 2009 03:43:15 PM

Flight of the Navigator (1986) did't actually use any CGI, though. The stars were stop motion, and the morphing of the ship was simply a smooth silver model that was turned 90 degrees, in camera, to make it look like it was elongating.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By BubbaCoop 1 July 2, 2009 03:46:09 PM

Attack of the Clones was the first movie I ever sat in the theater and thought, "This is TOO digital." He had his actors running around in front of Green Screens while Peter Jackson was builing giant minatures and some of the largest film sets in the southern hemisphere. I happen to think T3 is underrated/over-criticized.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By n00b_sensei_prime 1 July 2, 2009 06:49:58 PM

Addressing the article, 99% of it is about CG losing it's luster. Only the last line really takes a shot at movie scripts. These are really separate issues. CG has lost it's luster. It's the law of deminishing return in full effect. It does not mean it lost it use. Moreover, the modern audience is too often exposed to behind the scene materials, from internet sites and DVD bonus features. It's like Dorothy pulling back the curtain and discovery the Wizard of Oz is a fraud. It's up to the individual viewer to click their Ruby shoes together to feel "Wowed" by CG. As far as movie scripts go, there are as many well written films as there are bad ones. It's just that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Revenge of the Fallen is the squeakiest movie of the year. It's fair to say, the modern movie goer is hard to impress with special effects, but no so much with CG being a tool which time has passed. Blaming CG for a quality of a movie is like blaming a hammer for the construction of a house.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By n00b_sensei_prime 1 July 2, 2009 07:05:12 PM

Just to follow up my last post, the "Wow" factor of the dinosaurs of Jurrasic Park and the liquid metal CG in Flight of the Navigator and T2, were not dependant on the movie's script, but rather viewer. Beauty and Amazement is truly in the Eye of the Beholder.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By retroyoshi 1 July 2, 2009 07:56:15 PM

I don't intend to offend the writer of this blog, but I feel that I really must take issue with the next-to-last sentence: "We get it, now that we can do all of this to the point where we really cannot tell what is real and what is not." Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. McLaughlin, but isn't that the point of special effects? Hasn't it always been the goal of special effects artist to make us wonder what's real and what isn't? I get what you're trying to say about the story being more important than the effects, and I completely agree with that. But as a prospective film-maker, I come down firmly on the side of blurring the lines. That's all I really have to say about that.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By retroyoshi 1 July 2, 2009 07:58:04 PM

I forgot to add that I am a writer first and foremost, and effects will always play second fiddle to the story in my book.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By jayanxiety 1 July 3, 2009 12:04:52 AM

The user named Kapp said exactly what I was thinking. CGI is not the amazing thing it was years ago because back then films like Jurassic Park combined CGI with more traditional effects. Now films look like either video games or cartoons. When CGI is used as a subtle tool, it's amazing (eg. Master and Commander). However, when actors start riding on the backs of creatures that look like something off the latest 'Doom' video game or replace a puppet with a CGI double just so he can bounce along using a light saber...that's too much. If CGI addicts like George Lucas had their way, actors would be replaced entirely by animated Jar Jar-like characters!

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By jayanxiety 1 July 3, 2009 12:13:16 AM

...just to add to my comment, even though I prefer traditional effects, I still think that there's probably no way they could've made a live-action Transformers film without CGI. It would have been impossible to be faithful to the original series without CGI. Anybody remember those cheezy 'Robot Jox' and 'Robot Wars' films?

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By ldbarr 1 July 3, 2009 01:32:04 AM

I'm a movie fan, an amateur filmmaker, sorta writer and a classic country music fan. I'm reminded of something the late Buck Owens said once about harmony singers. "Harmony should be used like seasoning in cooking. Just a sprinkle here and there, but not overpowering". I believe the same applies to CG FX. Good CG will help the story, but all the CG in the world won't help a weak script.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By sevenof9fl 1 July 3, 2009 02:19:45 AM

Die Hard 4 was, frankly speaking, not very good, but at least there were REAL stunts. Yes, I'm sick of CGI. I think it's starting to make for lazy movie-making. CGI should be saved for movie scenes that absolutely cannot ever be done by humans. Even "Matrix," which had amazing CGI, did a lot of real stuntwork with either stuntmen or the actors. CGI was used sparingly, which I think is how it should be used.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By Wakener 1 July 3, 2009 03:25:27 AM

I was just watching a commentary on a DVD. One of the comments was about a CG shot. the director commented on how good an effect it was. The effect? It was raining as a character climbed a ladder. It was a good shot because the viewer probably didn't notice it. Every time someone complains about the use of CGI in movies, it seems that they are complainng about the eye-popping effects, and they completely ignore the subtle uses of the computer. Has CGI had its day? No. Not while there are little things to be done on film--a shadow moved here, placing digital ankles on Carrie Anne Moss for a half-second, putting a child actress' face on a stuntwoman's body, replacing Harrison Ford's lips with his son's so that the mouth matches the words. CGI is here until the next big leap comes . . . remember animators in 1984 saying that animation would always be done with cel drawing and painting--there's no way to change that? Well, until the tech innovation that can do to CG what CG did to cel shading comes along, CG will be here--the only question is whether it will be the noticable kind or not.

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By twosheds 1 July 3, 2009 02:39:17 PM

Flight of the Navigator (1986) did't actually use any CGI, though. The stars were stop motion, and the morphing of the ship was simply a smooth silver model that was turned 90 degrees, in camera, to make it look like it was elongating. The other day I corresponded with Jeff Kleiser, brother of FotN director Randall Kleiser, who oversaw the early CGI work in the movie. I can assure you (from him), it was CGI, and the exact details of how it was done, including the tech and software, are forthcoming at this site. - Martin Anderson

Re: Has CG had its day?
Posted By Kapp 1 July 3, 2009 10:50:56 PM

I also wanted to say that I think one under-researched part of CGI, that hasnt been used as much as I wish it would be, is the whole art of digital removal. I do want to learn more about this, but the one film that comes to mind is Spielberg's A.I." while people can debate whether it was a great film or not, I did want to mention that the Teddy bear character "Teddy" was actually a REAL, ON SET character that was controlled by technicians...then the technicians and wires were digitally removed... Rather than digital characters, I would like to see if animatronic creatures, like the well remembered characters of Stan Winston, would be built, made to walk on set, and then erase the technicians, wires, etc If they can erase actors from scenes that have been filmed, move actors digitally from where they were actually standing on camera to other parts of the screen, etc etc, why cant digital removal be used more? In my opinion, that is the next great jump forward in CGI in film...that would combine the best of the 80's, 90's, and the 2000's...
Post a Comment
 
All right, you can stop now.

All right, you can stop now.

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Broadband

Mobile Broadband

Compare over 100 mobile broadband & broadband deals online!

Mobile Phones

LG ArenaHTC Magic

Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!