Computer-Generated Images in Movies

[dragon wench]

This morning a friend and I started talking about the movie Blade Runner because I have just bought the sound track. This led to a discussion on how, unlike is often the case with that genre of film, we really cared about the characters... even the machines.

Somewhere along the line the conversation turned to the notion of employing computer-generated images in movies. IMO, this question is the genetic engineering issue of movie making. In many ways it has enormous potential. The dinosaurs of Jurassic Park are a great example. Equally, LOTR's most profoundly moving and tragic figure (Gollum) was a blend of an actor's movements and computer generation.
However... what about when/if computer-rendered characters replace human actors? Personally, I find this quite disconcerting....

Thoughts?

[Rob-hin]

Don't worry.
Ever seen Finaly Fantasy? *barf*

[Aegis]

When CGI is used in movies, I generally don't mind too much, but when it's used far to much, I think it cheapens the actors who potray the character at any other given time. I know it can do some great things, using CGI, but when I go to see a movie, I want to watch actors, not Computers. One reason why I'm not a huge fan of the Matrix, Star Wars, and numerous other CG intense movies.

[Gwalchmai]

A couple of recent movies have used computer graphics to replace or enhance movies, dinosaurs and mutated hobbits notwithstanding. Most of the action sequences in Spiderman were computer generated, and the Hulk was entirely a fabrication. While these graphics were obviously not real, the lines between reality and computer graphics are becoming blurred. In watching the Hulk, I was impressed by the expression and detail that was achieved, and I started to wonder when we will just dispense with actors altogether.

Science Fiction lends itself well to this technology; with most space ships being computer rendered now-a-days, dispensing with the models and fishing lines. Babylon 5, for example. When will we see a resurrected DeForest Kelly playing Dr. McCoy in a Star Trek movie?

But computer graphics are leading to a jaded audience. Gone are the days of the audience gasping at an effect or stunt and wondering “How did they do that?” The athletic prowess of Bruce Lee or even Jackie Chan has been replaced by Keanu Reeves’ wooden slow-motion movements to run on walls or dodge bullets. Why hide a rocket in the back of a car and get a stunt person to jump it over a broken bridge when you can just get a computer to animate it?

[fable]

Originally posted by dragon wench
However... what about when/if computer-rendered characters replace human actors? Personally, I find this quite disconcerting....
Thoughts?

Do you feel that way about animated characters taking major roles in full length films? Because that's been going on since the 1930s; possibly even earlier, though I haven't heard or seen examples before that. I can't say that any of it bothers me much, because some aspect of these characters, at least, however they're presented, remains human in order to be understood by the audience. In fact, some of the machines and animated characters have decidedly more personality and better acting skills than some actors I could name, not that I would ever mention William Shatner or anyone else. Of course.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by fable
Do you feel that way about animated characters taking major roles in full length films? Because that's been going on since the 1930s; possibly even earlier, though I haven't heard or seen examples before that.

I think this is a key point. I know for me, there is a huge difference between watching a movie where I know it is choriography in fronmt of a blue screen and one where there was an accomplished athelete risking his neck to make a scene grab the audience.

I can see it becoming the same kind of draw that stock car fans feel when they go to a race and sit on the edge of their seats holding their breath everytime the drivers touch bumbpers.
Perhaps future movie trailers might include something like>>>


"Including real footage of real stuntmen performing real stunts"

It may come to pass yet that those unsung heros behind the scenes finally get top billing

[dragon wench]

Originally posted by fable
Do you feel that way about animated characters taking major roles in full length films? Because that's been going on since the 1930s; possibly even earlier, though I haven't heard or seen examples before that.

No I don't, because in those cases the animated characters are very clearly that. What bothers me are the computer-generated figures that *look* like real actors.

I know there is a lot of bad acting out there, but IMO a computer-rendered image cannot convey the scope and depth of a human actor. Somehow, something feels lost... It is hard to explain.

I also agree with Scayde and Gwally. Something is especially missing when stunts are no longer stunts....

[Scayde]

Originally posted by dragon wench
...I know there is a lot of bad acting out there, but IMO a computer-rendered image cannot convey the scope and depth of a human actor. Somehow, something feels lost... It is hard to explain. ...

Well, I will be the one to admit it..I still cry when I watch Bambi...

There is a lot to be said for the human face and expresion...I mean, it is one thing to look at T-Rex and say WOW !!! That thing looks real! And when Yoda does his thing, believe he might be a little guy out thre in the universe somewhere playing sage to a bunch of swashbucklers. Gollum was easy to believe because who knows what a gollum is actually like IRL ?.....But when you see 'From Here to Eternity" then compare that with 'Final Fantasy', ther is NO comparison.

You swoon at your silver screen hearthrobs rather they can act or not, but I just cant see being stirred on that level by a puppet, no matter how well it is crafted. I know some people disagree. I know some who are so involved with anime or PC characters that they have devoloped fetishes for them but when it boils down to it, CAG characters are 'CLAYMATION' . I dont think there is a real danger of them replacing real actors.

[Robnark]

CGI, when overused, can really detract from what could be a very impressive scene IMO. however, more importantly, all those relentless 'making of...' docu-plugs that clog up the cheap late-night schedules are getting really boring:

"well bob, however did you get this amazing scene looking like it did?"
"why, we just slapped it into a horrendously expensive computer and locked a team of generic graphic-monkeys in there until they produced something that looked kinda real, but more vomit inducing, and it's gonna look pretty rubbish in a year or two!"
"uh, anything else?"
"hell no. it's easier to just kidnap us a geek posse and keep shoving donuts under the door until our budget runs out".

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by dragon wench
Thoughts?

Blade Runner mostly used scaled down models which I think is part of its charm.

As far as I'm cocerned I have no problem with CG in movies however it should be tastefully done and not relied upon heavily, take for instance Kill Bill, they manage to interlace a Anime chapter into the movie and it's pretty much seamless and it is one of the most effecting parts of the movie, just because it isn't a few "real" actors acting off one another doesn't make it any less interesting or genuine. I think it is really down to how good the movie maker is and how much the movie revolves around the CG.

I have yet to see the new Hulk movie but the size of the Hulk would not have been possible without CG, Lou Ferringo was not 15ft tall after all. However the plot of the movie is crap and the CG is not what led to the apparent lameness of that movie. Take the CG in the first Matrix movie, just subtle and interesting enough so it wasn't overly showey and annoying. That's more or less how it should be done.

[Xandax]

Well - I don't really know.

I think that both actors and the movie itself - easily - will be better if there is more for them to interact with, sets, then if they are acting infront of a blue screen. But still I recongnize the value of computers for effects. Effects have always been in movies, back to the days of minature in monster movies etc, and computers are mearly a step futher.
Especially where danger is an element, or when the story takes places somewhere unbuildable.

It is afterall cheaper to hire say a few hundred extras and then dublicate them to create the illusion of massive amount of people, and safer to make stuff explode on computers etc.

I doubt we will see the replacement of (all) actors anytime soon - but I think the computer generated effects will overtake many of the mechanical ones, as the technology evolves.

[Scayde]

I feel CGG are an art form just like anything else we are talking about. I have a great amount of respect for tha artists and animatlro that bring their vision to us and sometimes I find it more entertaining than reality. Having said that I do not think that CAG characters will ever replace real ones, I do think there is room in the entertainment industry for both. Both serve their purpose and neither detract from the other when applied to the appropriate format.

[Kayless]

Speaking of CGI in movies, anybody see the Polar Express trailer?

[Tamerlane]

Can't wait to see the Polar Express. I have a love/hate relationship with CGI. Give it to talented bunch of individuals like Weta and you'll get something thats simply mindblowing. But the majority of the time, CGI in movies just plain sucks...

One reason would have to be that CGI is still in its developmental phase but I still cringe when I see what directors use it for, I can't stand blue/green shots and you can always distinguish an actual live shot from a CGI one. I'd rather watch an old Indiana Jones staged stunt trick then see Keanu cartwheel through the air dodging bullets etc. After a deluge of movies replacing real stunt work with computer graphics. The wow factor of CGI has diminished and instead of being amazed of what I'm seeing on the big screen, I just sit through whatever scene devoid of any emotion.

One perfect example of this was when Reloaded premiered, I saw the first screening of it in our region and was really excited about it. Half way through it though, I just got bored with the whole affair, I used Reloaded as an example since I can't be bothered to see Revolutions. In a way it reminds me of Episode 1 - Phantom Menace. Too many pretty colours but just not enough substance.

In its present form, CGI is terribly under developed and over used.

[Georgi]

Originally posted by dragon wench
I know there is a lot of bad acting out there, but IMO a computer-rendered image cannot convey the scope and depth of a human actor. Somehow, something feels lost... It is hard to explain.

I agree. As realistic as the graphics can be, in Final Fantasy, for example, it just doesn't quite feel right.

I think CGI is all very well, as long as it serves the movie and not the other way around. Why was Final Fantasy made with CGI? Not because they couldn't have made it with real actors (although probably using various CG effects as well), but just for the sake of making a whole movie using CGI. Whereas the effects in LotR, for example, and a lot of other movies, are a way of creating something that does not exist or cannot happen.

It's going to take a hell of a lot more development before CG characters can do a job as good as or better than real actors. They are certainly not at that stage yet. And they're still pretty damn expensive - so they're not really worth it for the studios. I don't think CGI is going to take over any time soon.

Oh, and animation IMO is not the same thing. The animation studios are pretty good at choosing subjects that suit, particularly Pixar - you can animate things that you couldn't do IRL, like toys, or animals, or whatever. That's fair enough, and it's not the same as trying to make a CGI movie that is trying to be like the real world.