PDA

View Full Version : Has CGI ruined cinema?



Bagpuss
14th November 2009, 17:32
I caught the last Die Hard on TV the other week, Was expecting some mindless nonesense that would be mildly entertaining. In the previous films, they were a bit daft but within the realms of possibility. Many of the films relying on stunt men with a few special effects. However, the latest film used so much CGI it was almost like watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon. It seems Mr Willis doesn't die hard these days more that he is an indestructable super human. He can jump onto a fighter Jet and jump off as it's crashing, he can get alsorts of heavy machinery thrown at him and remain unscathed.

http://www.videosift.com/video/John-McClane-vs-F-35-Fighter-Jet-Die-Hard-40-Full-Scene

Not to mention Indiana Jones can escape nuclear explosions by flying through the air in an old Fridge.

IMHO CGI has ruined many modern action/adventure films. OK, Lord of the Rings, Sci-Fi etc it makes sense, but films supposedly based in the real world need some sort of credibility and film makers need to credit the audience with some sort of inteligence.

TimberWolf
14th November 2009, 17:43
Aye, I saw that clip and was likewise impressed by his ability to bring down a fighter plane.

Damn, reminds me. I meant to pick up some 3D specs from Sainsbury for 3D week next week.

Clippy
14th November 2009, 17:43
No.

CGI, if used in moderation and/or context, can be great.

It is Directors who don't know how or when (and when not) to use it that are the problem.

NoddY
14th November 2009, 17:51
Very poor year for films this year.

Bagpuss
14th November 2009, 17:52
Clippy, that is kind of what I am saying, they don't seem to know when to use it, so it gets used in films that don't need it (much) and ruins the whole film.

MrMark
14th November 2009, 18:16
I rather enjoyed that Die Hard film. It gave me ideas as to what I can do with my bench time! :devil:devil:devil

TykeMerc
14th November 2009, 18:24
I wouldn't say CGI has ruined cinema, but undoubtedly it's overused in many cases and has spoiled some films.

minestrone
14th November 2009, 18:32
The last star wars was a bit of a joke, sure you got to see full landscapes of futuristic alien cities but so many scenes would have been 2 actors running around on a blue set, I kind of think the actors lost the sense of context and it showed.

TheFaQQer
14th November 2009, 18:34
The last star wars was a bit of a joke, sure you got to see full landscapes of futuristic alien cities but so many scenes would have been 2 actors running around on a blue set, I kind of think the actors lost the sense of context and it showed.

FWIW, the last Star Wars was a cartoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Clone_Wars_%28film%29). They generally have a lot of CGI in them these days.

TheFaQQer
14th November 2009, 18:35
As ever, poor application of technology is no answer to the problem.

Zippy
14th November 2009, 18:36
No, I wouldn't say it has.
The problem with the last Star Wars film was a dodgy plot and piss-poor acting.

TheFaQQer
14th November 2009, 18:38
No, I wouldn't say it has.
The problem with the last Star Wars film was a dodgy plot and piss-poor acting.

I refer the honourable lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.


FWIW, the last Star Wars was a cartoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Clone_Wars_%28film%29). They generally have a lot of CGI in them these days.

Zippy
14th November 2009, 18:46
I refer the honourable lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Ooh! Get 'er ;)

Doggy Styles
14th November 2009, 18:58
Didn't the last Bond film go back to non-CGI basics? With stunt men, special effects and all that?

If so it had some great parkour, and I'd enjoy that more than actors running about on empty blue sets.

norrahe
14th November 2009, 19:05
If the CGI is applied in the right way and hidden enough so it's not glaringly obvious, then it's not so bad.

Come back Ray Harryhausen all is forgiven

And to add to bad plot and p!ss poor acting wall of fame the latest tripe from the indiana jones stable.

And yes, it has been a poor year for film.

TykeMerc
14th November 2009, 19:13
True it's been a fairly pants year for film, but I did enjoy Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince which has heaps of CGI, but it fits well.

TheFaQQer
14th November 2009, 19:19
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Cr@p adaptation of a good book. Cuts loads out from the book, to include a load of irrelevant stuff that adds nothing to the story (or else it would have been in the book).

Better than Order of the Phoenix, though, which is a cr@p adaptation of a cr@p book.

RichardCranium
15th November 2009, 21:27
The Missus & I sat through John le Carré's "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" in July and were utterly engrossed.

Sat there in silence, staring immobile into the middle distance; the imagery was fantastic. The encounters, the court room scenes, the events at the Berlin Wall: fantastic stuff.

But that was radio where the pictures are always better.

EternalOptimist
15th November 2009, 21:40
I caught the last Die Hard on TV the other week, Was expecting some mindless nonesense that would be mildly entertaining. In the previous films, they were a bit daft but within the realms of possibility. Many of the films relying on stunt men with a few special effects. However, the latest film used so much CGI it was almost like watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon. It seems Mr Willis doesn't die hard these days more that he is an indestructable super human. He can jump onto a fighter Jet and jump off as it's crashing, he can get alsorts of heavy machinery thrown at him and remain unscathed.



:eyes:eyes:eyes

There was this one time, I was flying my fighter with some food on my lap, and this idiot right, well, he just came out of nowhere



:rolleyes:

Doggy Styles
15th November 2009, 22:27
Come back Ray Harryhausen all is forgivenNow you're talking. That Talos was terrifying to a young lad.

xoggoth
15th November 2009, 22:30
Terrible, why they have to ham them up and make them almost comedies.

Unrealism in films is hardly new though. How often do we see murder or manslaughter cases where somebody died from one punch? Yet big blokes like John Wayne etc would knock each other about for 5 minutes, roll down cliffs, fall of off balconies, get hit over the head with chairs and emerge with a thin trickle of blood on one corner of their handsome mouths.

I'm amazed nobody has used it in a defence. I had no idea blowing someone through a plate glass window with a hand grenade was dangerous, mlud, it never hurt Bruce Willis.

TimberWolf
15th November 2009, 23:43
Where's it heading? How much more unrealism can you pack in before it gets silly? What are action films 20 years hence going to be like? 3D and total visual immersion maybe. Speaking of which, I've got my 3D specs ready for channel 4 3D week next week.

cojak
16th November 2009, 08:17
Where's it heading? How much more unrealism can you pack in before it gets silly? What are action films 20 years hence going to be like? 3D and total visual immersion maybe. Speaking of which, I've got my 3D specs ready for channel 4 3D week next week.

They've run out in Sainsbury's :frown

Anyone know where I can track down a couple of pairs?