The crybaby dinosaurs who complain about CGI in movies need a few teeth knocked out. Filmmaking is like anything else. You use the proper tool for the job. Sometimes, that's CGI.

I've found that a lot of times people aren't even aware of how much CGI is used in things. They'll talk about a movie or TV show "not using much CGI" and then they find out later that nearly every scene had CGI enhancing the background in lieu of a prohibitively expensive set.

Filmmakers have been using fancy techniques to get around what can be done practically since before CGI or computers were even a thing. Traveling mattes, etc. were just shoddy proto-CGI but made a lot of stuff possible or feasible that simply wasn't otherwise.

I think the problem is more that CGI was invented to help offset the cost of movies and instead has inflated budgets. Of course with hollywood accounting its really difficult to accurately peg where the fault lies. Many CGI/animation companies go under right after a big project when a studio screws them on something so its hard to fault one side or the other in a scenario where they're all fucking each other.

In terms of seeing the effects in films, there are times its done really well and there are times I wish they had used more practical effects or just been less ambitious. Some films seem to use it as a crutch when the director was simply overreaching with his budget or the script calls for things that just aren't practical. Sometimes this works out well but I would say more often than not it doesn't and ends up looking really poorly implemented.

I don't think you really consider that some people just find it jarring by the way. In an entertainment medium where escapism is paramount (heh!) that's not an insignificant factor. The use of CGI certainly isn't going anywhere so people have to suck it up but in their defense I can see how its overuse would annoy people who end up blaming the tool instead of the person wielding it.

Blizzard has had some of the highest quality intro-movies for the past 20yrs. It'll be interesting to see if they can carry that into an actual movie environment. If so, I expect this to be one of the best looking movies ever.

I have zero expectations for the story, but visually, I expect to be blown away.

NKD wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 10:17:
The crybaby dinosaurs who complain about CGI in movies need a few teeth knocked out. Filmmaking is like anything else. You use the proper tool for the job. Sometimes, that's CGI.

I've found that a lot of times people aren't even aware of how much CGI is used in things. They'll talk about a movie or TV show "not using much CGI" and then they find out later that nearly every scene had CGI enhancing the background in lieu of a prohibitively expensive set.

Filmmakers have been using fancy techniques to get around what can be done practically since before CGI or computers were even a thing. Traveling mattes, etc. were just shoddy proto-CGI but made a lot of stuff possible or feasible that simply wasn't otherwise.

If I can tell that it's CGI, it has probably been used inappropriately. All of those times that I don't see it? Great! I love it! That's exactly when it should be used.

When it's used to animate characters that look unequivocally worse than human actors in the same role (compare orcs in LotR to The Hobbit), it's terrible. Stop it.

I recently had a discussion about CGI with a buddy, basically my side of it went like this:

Michael Bay, in my opinion, made terrible Transformer movies. He made some great robot battle scenes but he made terrible Transformer movies. Michael Bay thinks Transformer movies should only be about big robots having big battles, making big explosions. The actual story and plot don't matter. Plug any actor or actress in, get any writer, the results will be the same because the guy controlling the end result is the same. Michael Bay doesn't think this way because of the existence of CGI. He thinks this way because he sees big robots from another planet and that is what his mind conjures up. Michael Bay would have made shitty Transformer movies using the Star Trek: TOS or the Japanese Gozilla movie technology of the 60s. Change the tools, change the decade...I don't believe it would really matter.

CGI isn't the problem, it is simply a tool. Like any tool, it's only as good as the wielder. Blaming a tool for a shitty result only works when it's the only tool available to use.

Also chiming in to say that CGI isn't a problem. Abusing CGI is a problem. Low quality, obvious CGI is a problem. Michael Bay at his best and Peter Jackson at his worst are the problem.

Many uses of CGI today are so subtle that most people don't even notice it is there. It is phone lines removed in the background of a historical scene. It is establishing shots of Victorian London from a distance. Good luck finding a film in a theater that doesn't use at least some CGI.

My only problem with CGI is with the film creators who don't respect it's limitations. I realize in technological terms this is ancient stuff but the burly brawl in Matrix Reloaded stands to mind as going too far. With modern CGI it's easier to hide the flaws but it isn't 100% there yet. So long as it doesn't trigger the "it looks fake" response I'm happy to watch.

CGI is great for things that aren't organic.

CGI is often, usually, terrible for things that are. And, right now, it's still terrible when it's the bulk of a set, but great when it's less than the bulk of a set.

Going back and watching something like The Thing makes me lament how much of that is lost. Or, really, anything with weight, like car chases and crashes. But then you have something like the world of Game of Thrones, which is often ridiculously well done CGI backdrops that are far better than old matte paintings (though I love the skill required to make those.)

Theoretically I don't approve of CGI but many films use it in a fashion where one doesn't even realize it could be CGI. When it's used in that fashion, who gives a fuck?

It's funny this comment is coming from Duncan Jones. His Moon was a sci fi movie that used a lot of practical effects enhanced with CGI (as opposed to being all CGI for the effects shots). Here's an article.

Also, if you haven't seen Moon, get on it. One of the better sci fi movies of the last decade. Don't watch any trailers or read any reviews (or even that article above), just watch it blind. You won't regret it.

Beamer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 12:07:
CGI is great for things that aren't organic.

CGI is often, usually, terrible for things that are. And, right now, it's still terrible when it's the bulk of a set, but great when it's less than the bulk of a set.

Going back and watching something like The Thing makes me lament how much of that is lost. Or, really, anything with weight, like car chases and crashes. But then you have something like the world of Game of Thrones, which is often ridiculously well done CGI backdrops that are far better than old matte paintings (though I love the skill required to make those.)

BSG had a lot of great CG that you didn't notice, like the hangar.

No amount of CGI can recreate a good practical explosion. Blowing shit up is truly an art form.

PHJF wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 13:52:
No amount of CGI can recreate a good practical explosion. Blowing shit up is truly an art form.

Yeah this is my pet peeve, most CGI explosions are awful. Some films do it well, on a budget so crazy I have to wonder if any money was actually saved vs the alternative. I get why TV shows have to do this stuff but its usually so glaring that I just wish they had written the scene in a different direction, it just takes you right out of it.

How exactly would you make a WoW movie without CGI? Last I checked, there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG.

Creston wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 15:07:
How exactly would you make a WoW movie without CGI? Last I checked, there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG.

Then how do you explain Alec Baldwin?

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 13:17:
It's funny this comment is coming from Duncan Jones. His Moon was a sci fi movie that used a lot of practical effects enhanced with CGI (as opposed to being all CGI for the effects shots). Here's an article.

Also, if you haven't seen Moon, get on it. One of the better sci fi movies of the last decade. Don't watch any trailers or read any reviews (or even that article above), just watch it blind. You won't regret it.

I'll second that. It's one of the best proper science fiction films in recent years, as in more 2001 than Star Wars. Sam Rockwell is excellent and it has a great soundtrack too.

I agree with Duncan Jones' comments on CGI: "The best CGI has you forgetting its CGI". There is CGI used all over the place in scenes that I wouldn't expect it to be but if I'm thinking about the CGI while I'm watching your film, it has failed.

Creston wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 15:07:
How exactly would you make a WoW movie without CGI? Last I checked, there weren't many Pandaren or Orc actors registered with the SAG.

There are lots of make up and practical effects artists though. LOTR's practical orcs and uruk hai were much better than The Hobbit's CG abominations. I realize that they'd look a bit different from the WoW's in-game orcs, but I think that's something you could sacrifice for the sake of telling the story.

Handcrafted designs and natural or elaborate sets age much better than CGI elements and that's the appeal they have to me. I can go back and watch The Thing from 1982 and still be amazed by how authentic everything looks (aside from the amalgamation at the end due to stop-motion limitations) whereas the 2011 feature of the same name totally degraded that experience due to the use of CGI.

I'm terrified about how the new Alien movie is going to look when they reveal the Xeno , set, and Geiger rooms are entirely done in CGI.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 13:17:
It's funny this comment is coming from Duncan Jones. His Moon was a sci fi movie that used a lot of practical effects enhanced with CGI (as opposed to being all CGI for the effects shots). Here's an article.

Why is it funny it came from him? His past work isn't at odds with what he said, and he even specifically mentions enhancing practical effects with CGI in the article.

Unless I missed something, he says the exact same things in the link as what everyone here is.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 20, 2015, 17:26:
There are lots of make up and practical effects artists though. LOTR's practical orcs and uruk hai were much better than The Hobbit's CG abominations. I realize that they'd look a bit different from the WoW's in-game orcs, but I think that's something you could sacrifice for the sake of telling the story.

Isn't WoW full of not-practical effect friendly races? Like, I gather undead are a big part of the story, and those bull-humanoids have been around a while, right?