To CGI or Not To CGI?

To CGI or Not To CGI?

That is the question. Are we headed down a slippery slope?

Editorial Opinion
By DogsOfWar - Apr 14, 2010 01:04 PM EST
Filed Under: Other

Comic Book Movies, like all other special effects heavy genres, have come a long way. Some of the elder statesman of CBM’s such as Superman and Batman had to get by with camera tricks and simple wire work. Some even sprinkled in some hand drawn animation for shots that were unavailable at the time (see: Jack Nicholson’s Joker falling at the end of Batman). Christopher Reeve’s flying scenes look fairly crude and rudimentary by today’s standards. Yet, these films are remembered as classics. At the time, they had some groundbreaking effects and set pieces but it is the story, direction and acting that hold them as revered classics today.

From there we moved into the Marvel era with X-Men and Blade. These movies upped the ante in effects with some rather large wire work scenes now that computers had the capability to edit them out. The cameras did not need to hide devices anymore to show superhuman feats. These movies trumpeted the explosion of the superhero genre in film. Like all other genre’s some have been iconic and some have been downright duds. One constant has remained though and exploded. The special effects have gotten bigger and better. CGI has been the spark (and gasoline) to that flame.

Now we hear word that Green Lantern will be a completely CGI suit. This has not been confirmed as of yet but even if it doesn’t happen, another CBM will surely go that route soon. It has been widely speculated that CGI will factor prominently after our own Ed Gross’ interview with Joe Johnston stating ”Casting Captain America is really casting two roles...Steve Rogers before and after the transformation from 98 pound weakling to perfect physical specimen. I can't divulge how we're going to do it, but the performance will be Chris Evans from beginning to end.”. Many feel the movie will use the same technology we saw in Benjamin Buttons to portay two very different versions of the same character.

Where does this mean we are headed? The completely computer animated worlds of Avatar and Pixar films are rapidly coming close to live action movies. What is real and what is an illusion. That is part of the charm of any film. Another part is seeing an actor completely take on a role or seeing set pieces of enormous proportions. As the cost of high performance computers becomes lower than the cost of people’s sweat and hard work, we might lose some qualities that first endeared us to movies. On the flip side of that, we are seeing things come to movie life that were never thought possible.

People like George Lucas wish they had today’s special effects back when they were first starting to fully see their vision come to life. Would Star Wars still be an awe inspiring iconic film? Many might believe that it might be more like the visually stunning but emotionally hollow Phantom Menace. Myself and millions of others are completely looking forward to Green Lantern but if it is only a visual step up from the animated (and widely panned) First Flight then we have not gained anything. I only use GL as an example of the direction all CBM’s are heading.

Balancing effects versus emotion is what separates the classics from the B movie retreads. I, for one, love the amazing effects that today’s computer artists bring. However, CGI can bring a visual crutch to a movie enabling a director, actor or any other aspect of a film crew to not mine what a story’s fully capable of telling. Can technology outpace our own brain’s creative ability for fantasy and imagination?

LORD OF THE RINGS Filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson On Teaming With Colossal To Resurrect The Giant Moa (Exclusive)
Related:

LORD OF THE RINGS Filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson On Teaming With Colossal To Resurrect The Giant Moa (Exclusive)

James Gunn Says Two Superheroes In SUPERMAN Metahuman Mural Have A Key Role In The DCU
Recommended For You:

James Gunn Says Two Superheroes In SUPERMAN Metahuman Mural Have A Key Role In The DCU

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 4/14/2010, 1:43 PM
good article buddy!!! i have to say that i never understood the complaining about CGI. yes, a lot of the time it looks bad, because they didn't have the budget to make it FANTASTIC. but lets look at the alternatives.

i was watching the original Terminator this weekend. at the end, when the skin melted off the Terminator and its just the exoskeleton walking around...it looked ridiculous. now i know its a classic and it has to be forgiven, because it was the best for the time. but how can people complain about CGI when you can clearly see what the alternative is?

there's stop motion animation, claymation, and actual animation (like you mentioned). none of which can hold a candle to even the worst CGI we see today.

i just don't get what the complaining is about. the worst these days, is still better looking than the best from what came before.

on the other hand, it does get a little out of hand when you're talking about CGI clothes, and whatever else. it makes sense for GL because his costume is created from his ring. for Cap, i don't have a problem with it either. look what they did with Arnold in T4. it was nearly flawless. i had people say they didn't know Arnold would be in it...they had no idea he was CGI rendered.

so, i have to say that the complaining about CGI is a little unfounded, IMO of course. yes, it can get taken too far, but only in very few instances. :)
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 4/14/2010, 1:44 PM
@ Tea

i agree, Hellboy is a perfect example of the perfect blend! i hadn't thought of that. although even the big guy with fake hand in the second one was fake looking. he wasn't CGI and he still looked fake. you could tell the face and mouth were animatronics. so either way, it can't look perfect.

it won't be much longer before CGI gets to a flawless point, and we won't be able to see any problems at all...animatronics, claymation, and stop motion animation will always reach a point where it CAN'T look any better.
airbeyonder18
airbeyonder18 - 4/14/2010, 2:16 PM
I love the article. One of the problems I have with movies nowadays are that movie makers are starting to focus more on CGI than story. The old movies that didn't use the special effects worked well because they focused on story more than making "cool" CGI.
DogsOfWar
DogsOfWar - 4/14/2010, 2:19 PM
@CDB-I'm not complaining about CGI, just the fact that it is so good now, directors and actors tend to lean on it too much. Look at all the crap movies on SyFy. The CGI on many of those blows away stuff less than 10 years old but the stories and acting are so awful, you can't take them seriously. I like a cheesy movie as much as the next guy but I've forgotten it by the next day. I don't want to do that with CBM's and their classic characters.

Hellboy is a great example, I totally forgot to put that in the article!
Paulley
Paulley - 4/14/2010, 2:24 PM
CGI should be used to enhance and to do things you just cant do any other way.

For example though much of the Iron Man suit was made practically in many scenes with various enhancements and touch ups using CGI there are obviously some scenes that had to be done with CGI.

I remember seeing a featureless where they showed how they completely changed a scene using CGI while only keeping the position of RDJ head.

But like i said i think if you can do it, and it makes sense to do it without CGI.. then dont use it.

Another one i like is when they use scaled down stuff like the Bat car smashing into the lorry in TDK.
jman1977
jman1977 - 4/14/2010, 2:33 PM
Dogs nice article dude. Well said. Keep that s%^t coming!!
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 4/14/2010, 2:35 PM
@ dogs

oh no, buddy. didn't mean to say you were complaining, you made good points. :)

but a LOT of people do complain about it any time they hear CGI, like its instant movie death or something...
SHAZAM171
SHAZAM171 - 4/14/2010, 2:37 PM
AGREED TEABAG. You took the words right out of my mouth. Cheers.
1chris2
1chris2 - 4/14/2010, 2:40 PM
i love when they use practical effects as much as possible ,and use cgi when needed.i also think story is the thing they should focus on the most of all then effects,and a light action.great article man.
ScorpioEagle1
ScorpioEagle1 - 4/14/2010, 2:44 PM
I think CGI is a double edged sword there are places where when done right it completely changes the game for movie makers. It makes the unbelieveable believable. However, in places like Superman Returns it became a joke.. too many needless CGI scenes that brought nothing of any value to the story. It just looked hokey.. I remember watch Christopher Reeve in Superman I-II and thinking as a child this guy can really fly... by todays standard it's nothing but they could have had more scenes with Routh actually doign the wire work.

Bottom line if you are going to use CGI make sure it makes sense and enhances the story and you have no other options. Ohhh and use the state of the art stuff. I hope Green Lantern doesn't tank because they are so focused on the effects that they forget the basics of making a compelling movie..
thatiscrazy
thatiscrazy - 4/14/2010, 2:46 PM
It’s all about finesse and balance. Some movies over do it like GI Joe. Some don’t need it like blade 2. Others mix it well like LOTR and Transformers. There are some many factors that go into what looks bad and what looks good. I’m all for it, if and only if there is a need. And if there is a need, then it needs to be determined EARLY in the pre-pro phase so that the visuals for the entire movie can be designed in such away so that when the cg comes it’s as seamless as possible. To say I don’t want CG in a movie is to broad of a statement IMO, when CG is needed I’d ask…

What’s the need?

Who’s the director and what’s his experience with CG?

Which studio is doing the EFX?

If all 3 are inline we can get some cool stuff, But If just one is off then we get some questionable crap.
Joe6Pack74
Joe6Pack74 - 4/14/2010, 3:10 PM
I am glad George Lucas did not have cgi when he made the original(only true)Star Wars movies. CGI has a place but it needs to balance with practical effects. If you look at the ships in the original movies verses the newer ones they look better. Revenge of the Sith to me looked like a big video game. He started out ok, with Phantom Menace he used a blend of models and cgi. It looked better. But what do I know I am just the movie going customer and we are never right...
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 4/14/2010, 3:14 PM
CGI DOOMSDAY!!!!!!!!!!!! : P



LEEE777
LEEE777 - 4/14/2010, 3:15 PM
A MIX OF BOTH (Like PIRATES) IS A MUST in any film!!!
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 4/14/2010, 3:16 PM
If it don't look real, don't do it!

[frick]ing HOLLYWOOD lol! : P
KeithM
KeithM - 4/14/2010, 3:16 PM
Yes it can be a crutch to cover up a film's inadequacies in other areas, but I'm not bothered by the techniques used to suspend my disbelief, so much as the care and artistry shown the film as a whole. That is, I can put up with shonky, or less than perfect effects, if the movie as a whole is good. Conversely, no matter how good the effects, if a movie stinks, it stinks.

I grew up on the Harryhausen stop-motion stuff and man-in-a-rubber-suit monsters. Never bothered me, until and unless the film itself was rubbish. The effects themselves were never an issue. Look at the original King Kong - you can see the fingerprints on the stop-motion model. Still a [frick]ing brilliant movie though. Look at the 1976 version. Much better effects, rubbish film.

Sure, today the good/bad effects threshold is a lot narrower - with the cheapness and power of today's computers - and bad effects these days are often as much about the amount of care put in than budget - but the principle remains.

Moral: Make a good film, do the best you can and we'll forgive effects imperfections. Don't and no amount of technical wizardry will save it *cough*Transformers.

JoshWilding
JoshWilding - 4/14/2010, 3:21 PM
Great article DOGS! This is a subject definitely worth thinking about...I love the fact that CGI can make characters like Iron Man and Hulk come to life on the big screen but I dont want to see every movie being like Avatar in future! I'm worried that Green Lantern will be nothing more than a CGI filled 3D movie that's more videogame than movie! ;(
Macksimus
Macksimus - 4/14/2010, 3:35 PM
It should always only be used sparingly to fill in the gaps.
Minotauro
Minotauro - 4/14/2010, 3:56 PM


Here's how to use CGI effectively.^^^^^^ (start at 2:25)
Gose
Gose - 4/14/2010, 4:20 PM
Surrogates, now thats a movie making any actor/actress looks at any age they want .....
fanboiii
fanboiii - 4/14/2010, 4:40 PM
As long as it's believable, no problem.
Layperson
Layperson - 4/14/2010, 5:41 PM
CGI is one of those things that we'll just sort of have to deal with. I love it when it's used well as in the Incredible Hulk, Avatar, and so on but I really do think people are justified in their criticism. As you guys have already said, CGI for CGI's sake is a bad thing, but in modern movies it's gotten to be so mainstream I don't see how we could do without it.
supermarioworldE
supermarioworldE - 4/14/2010, 6:05 PM
Makes me miss the days of Indiana Jones and Star Wars.
twagoo
twagoo - 4/14/2010, 6:48 PM
I guess it should only be used when required. In the case of the upcoming Captain America movie, I guess Joe Johnston and Chris Evan should look at what Robert Zemeckis and Tom Hanks did in Castaway. Starting of with Tom looking pudgy and then sliming down for the castaway part. They should do the same for Steve Rogers, get Evan to slim down and looking weak, film him and then bulk him up big time after dat. I guess in the end its about the director's dedication to the movie he is directing and the actor's commitment to the role that he is acting in. IMO CGI just doesnt feel right for this.
Newbe
Newbe - 4/14/2010, 10:41 PM
cgi should only be used as a last resort to accomplish something that couldn't otherwise be done. when movies start to depend on cgi, that will be the death of cinema.
EditNinja
EditNinja - 4/14/2010, 10:48 PM
Hollywood's best model makers will argue that CGI creatures have no 'weight'.
When you look into the eyes of The Hulk what do you see?
Real anger or just excellent computer wizardry?
As long as they get the balance right like 300: real characters(easy on the hunchback), but CGI backgrounds.
AxlKomix
AxlKomix - 4/15/2010, 6:11 AM
As far as live action goes, CGI can help or hurt. One genre that is definately being hurt by CGI is animation. It took Disney like five years after Brother Bear to release thier next classic animated film, The Princess and the Frog. I've got no problem with Pixar flicks, but when the animation that I grew up with is tossed aside completely, then I have a problem with CGI.
thecanadian
thecanadian - 4/15/2010, 7:46 AM
How about the Matrix? Fight scenes are a mix of CGI live action (use of wires and all) Those fight scenes were amazing and it feels more real maybe because it's not purely effects
Angelus
Angelus - 4/22/2010, 1:27 PM
It DEPENDS which hero they are talking about! Green Lantern could be both CGI and not, but I am in favor of CGI since the rings energy creates the suit.
Batman and Supes should never be CGI. However Flash could use CGI.
View Recorder