Saturday 21 November

BLOGS

blogCategory
Previous
Back to blog
Next

Tired of CGI

King Kong
  • Posted at 5:02pm
  • 05 September 2008
  • by AndrewCollins-RT
  • 7 comments

The original King Kong, made in 1933, pioneered the use of stop-motion animation in its creation of the giant ape. Kong was indeed "the Eighth Wonder of the World" – and it was all done with metal, rubber, air bladders and rabbit fur. The New York Times called the film "a remarkable example of the most up-to-date camera tricks".

When Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson remade King Kong in 2005, he too used the "most up-to-date camera tricks" – but they now included the very latest computer technology. The result is that a large part of what you see on screen in this $200-million blockbuster was, to use deliberately simplistic jargon, "drawn on afterwards".

CGI (computer-generated imagery) is now commonplace in movie-making. Once the preserve of sci-fi (first used in the likes of Star Wars and Tron), the strategic use of megapixels is now employed in even the most earthbound of dramas.

When, in 2006, they remade my favourite movie The Poseidon Adventure as Poseidon, it was inevitable that CGI would be used. Indeed, the SS Poseidon itself was mostly created on a computer, as was the giant wave that overturns it. I, for one, was not moved. The disaster movies of the 1970s were revived in the 90s to show off new special effects, such as the desktop lava in Volcano). But were they as exciting?

I'm no Luddite (I love my iPod), but I'm getting tired of cinema's reliance on CGI. When they remade Ben-Hur in 1959, MGM built 300 sets on over 18 acres of backlot, complete with 15,000 extras.

These days, that could all be drawn on afterwards. But would it be better? It would certainly be easier and cheaper. But would you still feel the sand under chariot wheels and sense the noise of the crowd?

I doubt we would hold director David Lean in such high regard had he created Lawrence of Arabia or The Bridge on the River Kwai in post-production, rather than right there in the desert or the jungle.

Kids today might not care that the two pinpricks in the distance really were Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif on camels and not two laptop-created stick men, but I do. And even with all the money spent on the new King Kong, you can still see the joins.

Link to this post
Post a comment | 7 comments

Comments

  • Posted on 02 January 2009
  • at 10:20pm
  • by Stephanie

I absolutely can't stand the overuse of unnecessary CGI. I was pretty disappointed in the new Spiderman when most os the scenes were made of entire building scenes created completely out of CGI. Not only did it kill the excitement to the scene, but it was really noticable. Same with the new King Kong movie. It gets tiring seeing a big blurry figure running around and taking up the entire screen.

  • Posted on 16 December 2008
  • at 10:51pm
  • by Mia888

I grew up in the 90's so all my film experieces has been full of CGI, and I generally don't have a problem whit it, but lately films are relying to much in it. And the problem is that it cheapens the story, so much enfaces is put on them that the story takes a back sit. Specially on action films, I remember when stunt doubless were still used, now over the top CG effects make 90% of the film and in concequense the so called "action star" ends up been a computer character and not a real actor.

  • Posted on 13 September 2008
  • at 7:39pm
  • by SunKing

To Dan: My point is that CGI lacks a certain 'realness' that actually constructed models have. One has a palpable feeling of 'existance' while the other doesn't. Also, I would never suggest that stop-motion be used instead of CGI in that film but at the same time, I wouldn't make the film in the first place because I don't think computer effects have advanced to the point where they can do 'Kong justice. Also for the record, I thought Spielberg hit a good combination of CGI and animatronics in Jurrasic Park that worked. I can't fault him there.

I just have a preference towards actual sets, actual models and actual costumes because in general I think it looks better then sticking in CGI. Of course there is a time and place for it but given the choice, if I were a director, I'd attempt to avoid it.

  • Posted on 12 September 2008
  • at 9:00am
  • by Dan

Sunking: are you seriously telling me King Kong '05 would have been better with a stop-motion gorilla puppet? Don't be silly. KK'05 had stupendous effects work. I can understand people critizing some of the other effects in that film (the dino stampede, for example) but Kong himself was pretty much photo-real. I think people are just TOO aware of how CGI works and it sounds a bit rebellious to say you prefer stop-motion models. The models of yesterday certainly have charm and appeal, but they're NOT as realistic. Have you ever seen the "Go-Motion" dino's Spielberg was close to using in Jurasic Park? They're great, very charming and entertaining -- but they DON'T look like real dinosaurs. And compared to the CGI ones we got (mixed in with animatronic ones, admittedly), it's safe to say the "wow factor" would have been missing if Spielberg hadn't gone with CGI.

  • Posted on 11 September 2008
  • at 1:33am
  • by SunKing

I saw 'King Kong' in the cinema and honestly felt no emotional empathy with the titular character. CGI just doesn't look real compared to model work, real sets and real extras etc...Of course, model work and old studio effects also look 'unreal' but they have something CGI doesn't, and the only way I can describe it is as 'texture'. The old special effects had a textural quality in which, while you knew they were in some way fake, you also had the feeling you might be able to reach out into the screen and touch what is going on. It looked 'existant'. CGI effects on the other hand tend to look a little 'ethereal', like they don't operate under the physical laws as in our world. Everything looks a bit too 'shiny', a little too 'clean'.

Part of this undoubtedly must be down to the fact that we haven't actually had much experience with CGI, maybe between twenty or thirty years worth? It's not exactly surprising that we can't render complicated character like giant apes or human beings perfectly.

Nevertheless, I think CGI can be used effectively and frequently it's so good you often won't notice it, meaning it's doing its job. You see a lot of CGI in background shots and since backgrounds don't require as much complicated animation, they look a lot more real and they don't betray themselves as fake.

The problem is that CGI effects is generally cheaper than using conventional techniques for larger scenes so it just makes financial sense to use CGI. But something IS lost in translation though and this is a problem for cinema because if I'm not buying into what is going on screen then I can't form an emotional connection with the film, at which point while my mind may admire what is going on, my heart isn't going with it. Such films will never be regarded as great because of this I feel.

  • Posted on 10 September 2008
  • at 3:22pm
  • by Dan

I suppose it all comes down to cost. Would you bankroll a $300m swords-and-sandals epic with thousands of extras and dozens of real sets, if you could get the same effect using CGI for $150m? Only when it's distracting and poorly achieved is CGI a bad thing. I personally like to stick up for CGI. It gets a bad rep from people who seem to want things to remain stagnant effects-wise. But just think of all the movie wonders we've had that couldn't be achieved using other means (to the same quality, anyway) -- Jurassic Park's dinosaurs, Terminator 2's villain, Lord Of The Rings, etc. And if the CGI looks fake, so what? As long as the story and charaters are there, it's doesn't *really* matter.

  • Posted on 06 September 2008
  • at 12:51am
  • by MazY

I agree. I'm sure that some feel it's great that computers allow movie-makers to make the impossible seem possible, but it just never really sits right with my brain. Things just look fake and as you state at the end, the joins are so very visible.

I caught an old black and white movie this afternoon, in which there were two ships sailing side by side in an ocean. I had no idea if they were real or not. But today, we just know that they're invariably generated by computer, and worse still that the actors are acting in front of a green-screen. In the respect, much of the magic is gone.

I'd much rather see a movie that is based around the people, than an over-indulgent reliance on CGI.

Post a comment

Do you have something to say about this post? Share your thoughts…

Post a comment

(first or nickname only)

Please do not include any personal or personally identifiable information about yourself or others (including email addresses). All information you submit about yourself or others can be viewed by others.

Thank you for your comment

Thank you for your comments. All comments will be looked at by a moderator, however, due to the numbers of comments we receive, we can't promise that all will be posted on the site.

Post another comment

More


Advertisement