Rant of The Week: CGI (Part 1 of 2)

Back in the summer of 93, a dinosaur movie called Jurassic Park came out.  The dinosaurs were believable: they had weight, moved very organic, looked seamless with the real world.  Rightfully so, the filmmakers bragged that they used CGI along with models to create the dinosaurs.  They said that 10 years into the future, the sky’s the limit: Creating creatures that are so realistic that you can’t tell the difference between real actors and CG characters.

Fast forward 15 years later, to 2008 and what do we get?  Crappy ass CGI (Transformers and Iron Man are excellent but most are crap).  Take for example, the latest Indiana Jones flick(directed by Spielberg).  The first shot we get is a fake looking gopher.  I don’t know about you but when I see an obvious CG, it takes me out of the movie.  We also have fake looking creatures in Prince Caspian that didn’t improve from its predecessor.  If there’s a three year gap from the original to the sequel, the special effects should improve.  Hell, look at Lord of The Rings trilogy, they were released one year apart and the special effects improved.

I’m sick and tired of filmmakers relying too much on crappy looking CGI.  Even Spielberg is falling into the category and he directed Jurassic Park.  Don’t want to build a set?  Let’s make everything CG (Star Wars Prequels).  Don’t want to put make up on the actors? Let’s create CG creatures(I am Legend).   Supposedly it costs them more money and time using CGI compared to actually shooting practical shots(real sets, real actors).  I find this logic hard to believe.  If it costs more and looks less realistic, why would filmmakers choose CGI?   To me, the filmmakers are just getting lazy.  Instead of being creative with their shots, everything comes down to having everything CG so they can control all the factors: lighting, props, movement, etc.

Love him or hate him, Michael Bay is one of the best at using CGI.  His robots in Transformers were believable and the F-16′s in The Rock looked pretty realistic for an old movie.  He said he likes to shoot everything on location.  What he can’t do in his real shots, he uses CGI.  He also pays attention to the shadows and lighting.  Now this is how all filmmakers should think:  Use CGI as a last resort instead of using it to replace all the practical shots.

But then again, why would filmmakers stop making crappy looking CGI when movies like I Am Legend and the latest Indiana Jones are box office hits?

I’ll continue my rant next week with CGI vs. real actors in epic battles and the stupid centaurs that big budget movies can’t get right.

Want the latest articles? Follow us on:

                   

One Response to “Rant of The Week: CGI (Part 1 of 2)”

1. John says:

   April 14, 2009 at 7:20 am

   I need someone to make a 3 minute ariel dogfight Spitfire

   CGI Can you help?