Boiling Point: CGI

Posted by Robert Fure (robert@filmschoolrejects.com) on March 31, 2008

Boiling Point: CGI

CGI is awesome. When it’s done right. And doing it right costs money. I hate how much CGI is present in films today when there are very simple, practical solutions that would cost less. I’m not sure who’s decision it is to make this call, but I want to slap them. Now I understand that sometimes CGI, even bad CGI, is the best option. A movie about a huge group of monster bats might need some CGI monster bats to save a lot of headaches. And even if the results are mildly laughable, ok, that’s that. Had to happen. But maybe you should explore the Jaws route and not show the monster bats all the time!

The worst, and most common, offense now taking place is fake blood. Oh my God how terrible digital blood looks to me. Liquids are hard to realistically animate and blood is a liquid, so you see the problem. Lots of films do it. Even Rambo let the binary blood splatter. I can’t imagine its cheaper. I can make gallons of great looking fake blood for under $20. Enough blood to splatter a half dozen heads. You want someone to make a CGI blood spray? You’re going to end up spending thousands.

CGI is the answer to big budget movies or massive fantasy films. Transformers wouldn’t have worked without CGI. Michael Awesome! Bay, however, was smart in realizing that the technology wasn’t ready until just recently to make Transformers. He didn’t want half-assed CGI fucking up his movie. The Golden Compass and movies like that need CGI to fill in these massive landscapes. Although matte paintings don’t look half-bad! Check out the original Star Wars if you can still find a print and look at how amazing the film looks without CGI! Great stuff.

I’d rather see a bad practical effect than a bad CGI effect. I’ve worked post production with computers and graphics, and I know how long and hard it is, and how much it costs. It’s not pretty. I’ve worked on practical effects and while its hard, its also satisfying and much, much cheaper. The results almost always look better too. Even the best CGI can often be spotted and outed as CGI. And that takes a little something away from it. You see that and you think “Oh, they did that with computers.” If you see a good practical effect, your eye knows that there is something physically there and all of a sudden you’re asking “How did they do that?” It’s impressive to do and to look at.

So please, Hollywood, keep practical effects as your first line of offense! Digital blood looks like computer diarrhea! Digital head explosions are far less satisfying than a splattering good time of a fake head. I understand what you’re trying to do but understand me! The consumer! I want physical effects! I want the most bang for my buck! And nothing bangs louder than a compressed air bomb in a fake skull!

I know a lot of people have to be with me on this one. Bad CGI is horrible. Good CGI is ok. Bad practicals are bad. Good practicals are good. That’s at least a level of positivity difference! So fuck computers. Let’s get our hands dirty! I want to see it! The actors want to feel it. All I know is if I see any more CGI blood diarrhea on screen, someones going to have to make a lifecast of my head, fill it with fake blood and gore, and explode it, because I’ll be too far gone past my boiling point!


Read more articles by Robert Fure

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Boiling Point, Opinions, Site Features, , , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Allynd Dudnikov
    First.

    and agreed.
  • randall flagg
    My thoughts exactly. Hollywood is like a kid with a new toy. they want to use it and use it and forget about all the other great toys that they have sitting on the shelf that until two days ago were just fine.

    IMHO James Cameron always had a good balance in his use of early cgi but a lot of new directors are using cgi as a crutch instead of a tool. They come to a road block and play the cgi card to get themselves out of a corner they painted themselves into.
  • James
    One prime example of good practical effects I can remember recently is from "The Fountain". Aronofsky used a lot of simple chemistry and high powered cameras to get the effects for the nebula and space scenes seen in the movie. Amazing stuff considering it's all done with just some liquid and chemicals.
  • Although I disagree with you as a human being, I have to agree with this boiling point. The best example is Jurassic Park. The whole movie would have looked silly with CGI dinosaurs in the close-up scenes, like the one with the Tri-horn. Watching Laura Dern rise and fall with the animatronic breathing would have looked terrible, less intimate, with computer images.

    Also, I happened to see a matte painting - highly detailed work - on the Iron Man set acting as a background. Pretty cool, I'd say. Old school meets new.
  • Well anyone who calls a Triceratops a Tri-Horn deserves a slap to the mouth. But agreed, matte paintings are old school and awesome. Check out "John Carpenter's The Thing" for some matte paintings so good you'll have trouble spotting most of them. But Jurassic Park is indeed a great movie with great practicals, so I shall spare you the rod, for now. Consider yourself spoiled.
  • Hollywood is desperate for more cash so they feel the need to up the spectacle. CGI isn't the devil but its overdone in 90 percent of movies. If it makes a profit, they attribute it to how much CGI they used. What they won't realize is that they could make more money using less. Case in point is Constantine. Hell would have looked awesome in that movie if they didn't overuse that wind effect. And the effects director congratulates himself on the DVD special features for making the wind look oh so damn cool. No its not cool.

    The best practical effect of last year was Live Free or Die Hard. They crashed a real car into a real helicopter. And the actor really leapt out at the last second.
  • zooeyhall
    CGI is HUGELY overdone in today's movies. Sorry--all you "modern" young filmakers out there--you still need a good provocative story to make a good movie. The most elaborate CGI, the loudest double-Dolby soundtrack--can't make-up for a lame shallow plot. Today's filmakers are too wrapped-up in "technique". That is why so many of today's films lack what I can only call "soul".

    CGI can never truly replace "real" objects. You know why? Because a real object--be it a special effects spaceship model or whatever--shows a million different changes in texture, color, hue, etc. that no computer can ever truly duplicate. That is why CGI is always a dead giveaway.
  • ApocalypseWhen
    Perfect example supporting this argument, John Carpenter's "The Thing". With movies like Transformers, I think "Oh that's pretty cool, but they just did that with computers." With The Thing, you're not only thinking "Holy shit, this is messed up", but also "Holy shit, how did they even do that defibrillator scene". It's just for more satisfying for the filmmakers, actors, and audience to see a good practical effect than a good cgi one.
blog comments powered by Disqus