Talking Points: CGI, Friend or Foe to Filmmakers?

Posted by Brian C. Gibson (brian@filmschoolrejects.com) on December 19, 2007

With big action/fantasy releases like I Am Legend and The Golden Compass hitting the box office, we can hear audiences voicing two very loud opinions on the use of Computer Generated Imagery. On one hand you have some audiences saying that the computer generated “dark stalkers” in I Am Legend were not real enough, it ruined the fear and believability of the characters. On the other hand though, some people say that the very best part of The Golden Compass was to watch polar bears duke it out old school.

By now I’m sure that everyone has seen the trailer for The Dark Knight. Here is a film that we can assume will not have any gratuitous use of CGI. In other words, I don’t think that we can expect any characters or shots between main characters to be complete works of CGI. Looking ahead at blockbusters like Cloverfield, Jumper, Speed Racer and Iron Man, these films obviously would not be possible without the use of CGI. So can we expect another disappointment in the making, or another eyegasmic experience like Transformers?

Talking Point #1: Has a film ever been ruined your experience due to the use of CGI?

Talking Point #2: Some filmmakers consider CGI an art form. What is your opinion of CGI environments used in films like 300 or Speed Racer?

Talking Point #3: What is your favorite CGI filled film?


Read more articles by Brian C. Gibson

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Talking Points, , , ,

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!

  • Matthew
    #1: No CGI has ever ruined a movie, but it sure does hurt it. CGI should be used to fill in the cracks. Maybe in the future it will look better, but right now it is pretty sorry.

    #2: Not a huge fan of CGI environments. Make some real sets! Does anyone think the planet from Alien would have been half as cool with CGI?

    #3: Favorite CGI film? Probably Schindler's List due to how little was used.
  • 1. I think CGI has ruined movies. It looks so horrible that it pulls you right out of the experience. I am Legend was a good movie, but when you see the CGI you're like "Ok, this is bad." Practical effects are cheaper most of the time, and look better nearly all of the time.

    2. 300 looked amazing. Speed Racer looks like crap. 300 did such a good job that everyone is going to try to copy that technique and fail. Sin City looked great. But the imitators will flood the market soon and suck it up.

    3. Depends on what you mean by CGI filled. CGI bugs me a lot when its done poorly. So I'd say 300 and Sin City are near the top. I really can't think of anything great that had good CGI in it. I'll get back to you.
  • Patrick
    1.0 - Yes, CGI has ruined films for me in the past. When it first started becoming popular in the early to mid-nineties there were a lot of movies ruined by the fact that directors or studios would use it just to use it AND you could tell.
    This is almost the case with I Am Legend. The Dark stalkers could have been real people in make-up, which would have looked better, but would slowed down production at the same time because they ended up doing a lot of stunt work. The female dark stalker on the table when they had to use a real girl looked the best, because, well, it looked real.

    2.0 - CGI environments need to be used correctly. I will consistently defend 300 for its use of a CGI environment. This is now the next step in CGI. It's now becoming much cheaper and easier to use and it looks a lot better (well, depending on the amount of money you have).
    Like the matte paintings in the Hollywood movies of old, CGI environments do the same thing but with more depth and have the ability to make things possible that we could not do in real life.

    3.0 - Well, 300. Then there's the Incredibles and yes, I am one of those Advent Children fanboys, so deal with it.
    I also think it's interesting to see the blend of traditional animation and CGI. Anime producers have been experimenting with it for longer than we have and are reaping the benefits of going into it early. Our blended animation is doing a good job of keeping up. Treasure Planet is a really underrated Disney film and did an admirable job being blended animation.
blog comments powered by Disqus