Stitch on 23/7/2010 at 16:20
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Oh, just checking if I needed to take that CGI barb seriously.
Or, for that matter, the suggestion that the original film is such a prized cinematic gem that any proposed sequel is tantamount to rape.
Jason Moyer on 23/7/2010 at 16:21
Well, I'd be lying if I said I've seen a film where CGI was anything more than a novelty that, in most cases, added nothing to the film of value (and, in most cases, probably took away resources from actually making the film good, rather than a technology showcase). If I go into more detail I wouldn't be generalizing anymore, though.
Sulphur on 23/7/2010 at 16:26
Quote Posted by Stitch
Or, for that matter, the suggestion that the original film is such a prized cinematic gem that any proposed sequel is tantamount to rape.
Whole other can of worms, that. That Gaussian blur of childhood nostalgia, it's a difficult thing to combat.
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Well, I'd be lying if I said I've seen a film where CGI was anything more than a novelty that, in most cases, added nothing to the film of value (and, in most cases, probably took away resources from actually making the film good, rather than a technology showcase). If I go into more detail I wouldn't be generalizing anymore, though.
In that case, I don't think you've actually seen enough movies to generalise the issue.
Enchantermon on 23/7/2010 at 16:38
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Well, I'd be lying if I said I've seen a film where CGI was anything more than a novelty that, in most cases, added nothing to the film of value (and, in most cases, probably took away resources from actually making the film good, rather than a technology showcase). If I go into more detail I wouldn't be generalizing anymore, though.
Never seen any Pixar movies, then? Never seen Lord of the Rings?
Nameless Voice on 23/7/2010 at 16:53
The films where you really notice the CGI are usually the ones that do it wrong.
Jason Moyer on 23/7/2010 at 17:09
You know, I didn't really get too bothered by Jackson's use of CGI in The Frighteners, but in Lord of the Rings I thought much of it stuck out like a sore thumb. I became a fan of his because of Dead Alive and Heavenly Creatures/Meet The Feebles so it's probably hard for me to look at the last 15 years of films he's done without the fanboy filters on.
What I tend to dislike is computer-generated animation, as opposed to computer-enhanced animation, I guess, although the way CGI is typically used in feature films it's down to the degree of enhancement. Using CGI to replace something that would have normally been done in post-production with analog effects seems to work well, but replacing an actor/animatronic/model/appliance with CGI usually ends up being pretty shit.
Pixar is a huge win because while the technology is obviously what a lot of people associate with them, their work still adheres to the principles of traditional animation.
Enchantermon on 23/7/2010 at 17:16
Weird. The only times I "noticed" the CGI were the times that I knew it would have been nearly impossible to do the shot any other way, and even then that didn't happen in the movie theater; it was only at home after I had seen it a few times.
ZylonBane on 23/7/2010 at 17:18
Quote Posted by Enchantermon
Never seen any Pixar movies, then? Never seen Lord of the Rings?
Apparently he's never seen any movie with spaceships in the last 10 years either.
Jason Moyer on 23/7/2010 at 19:53
Are there any CGI space battles that are more convincing than what ILM was already doing with models by 1980?
