CGI Overusage?

[frogboy4]

It's the story...

CG is still in its infancy. The technique used to be a gimmic, a draw for audiences that have now grown complacent with the technology when at its best and critical when not. It will become clear soon to studios that it is the story that drives a film of any genre and we'll see some more 2D animated pics.

In fact, 2D will probably have a resurgence when movie goers get bored with the overflow of CG movies and will give a classicly animated film a chance. I predict one of these 2D films will sort of hit the box office lottery and create a trend of traditionally animated film releases...for a while.

It’s not CG, live actors, traditional animation or IMAX 3D – it’s the story. It eventually comes back to the story.

 

[wwfpooh]

Whilst the story is a key part, getting the right people to do a feature is just as important.

 

[peyjenk]

CGI can be and is often great and impressive. But it's still in its infancy, and in my opinion, it's used way too much. Beowulf, unfortunately, is a perfect example (this film was also disapointing for its dialogue, content and disrespectul nature, in my opinion). SPOILERS

All the human characters are CGI and it just doesn't work. There's little to no life in the eyes of the characters. Standard animation would have been so much better because it's been developed and perfected for years.

I haven't (and won't) see Beowulf for several reasons... not least of them being the fact that using motion-capture CGI is purely a gimmick to fool 21st-century morons into thinking that a classic piece of literature is sexually-charged video game fodder. I mean, CGI doesn't do a THING to this story, it just downgrades it to squeeze it into the "newest-thing" culture we live in.

I don't have a problem with all-CGI cartoons (Toy Story and Shrek and such) but the problem I have is when it's over-used in live action movies.

The way I see it, when you use CGI in a live action movie it just makes it a lot like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" but with 3D characters instead of 2D.

Some movies manage to pull it off though, Lord of the Rings (for the most part), Transformers '07, and Jurassic Park.

I agree with all of your points here. Finding Nemo, Shrek, etc. are great movies, but they are great because they have good writing and real heart. But when CGI is used in live-action movies, it does come off as garish and goonish too much of the time. I actually think that Roger Rabbit looks better and more realistic than most live-action-with-CGI films (ie- Harry Potter, Star Wars)

But yes, when a movie does it right, it does it right. The first Lord of the Rings was the first time I ever saw CGI that totally convinced me. And yes, the first Jurassic Park is also phenomonal. I can't even tell the CGI from the animatronic most of the time.

Just as long as it doesn't diminish character, like Disney did to its own spokesmouse.

Did Mickey ever have much character to begin with? I mean, he always seemed really flat compared to Bugs Bunny or a certain green frog I could mention.

 

[D'Snowth]

And I would just like to state for the record that although the sitcom I'm working on right now will be mostly puppetry, I regret that there will be SOME things that'll have to be done via CGI, and I DON'T mean filming puppets in front of a blue or green screen (which I'll have to do a bit of as well).

 

[wwfpooh]

Did Mickey ever have much character to begin with? I mean, he always seemed really flat compared to Bugs Bunny or a certain green frog I could mention.

Mick--before Donald came along--originally was a philandering drunk who carried guns and was often crude, but once people saw him as a possible children's icon, he was repacked (in the mid-1930's) into the nice guy gimmick we've pretty much seen him in ever since (sans Runaway Brain--which gives us 1930's Mickey with his early 1930's brash flare--and Kingdom Hearts, which makes him a ****** king who kicks butt royally against those that ruin his kingdom). But even with the nice guy gimmick, he never was as over-the-top nice as he is in the "Clubhouse" series. That series takes the nice guy gimmick and makes it the only thing Mick has when he is much more than just a nice guy spokesmouse.

 

[Drtooth]

CG is still in its infancy. The technique used to be a gimmic, a draw for audiences that have now grown complacent with the technology when at its best and critical when not.

I agree that it's still a newer form of animation. It was pioneered longer than any of us think. But we sure have come a long way, especially in recent years. Toy Story 1 doesn't look half as polished as Toy Story 2, and that was pretty much a 4 year period. I think CGI has gone from the "look what we can do" 80's to the "Look how we can apply it '00's" (similar in fashion with traditional animation, I think the late 30's early 40's they really made cartoons that had meaning to them and not just experimenting with sound sync)

It will become clear soon to studios that it is the story that drives a film of any genre and we'll see some more 2D animated pics.

In fact, 2D will probably have a resurgence when movie goers get bored with the overflow of CG movies and will give a classicly animated film a chance. I predict one of these 2D films will sort of hit the box office lottery and create a trend of traditionally animated film releases...for a while.

I found the Oscars of 3 years or so ago refreshing. When the animated feature was between a Japanese 2-D feature and 2 stop motion films. Totally ignoring the CGI films made that year.

I feel that the oversaturisation will (and is starting) to weed out the unwanteds. A lot of 3rd or 4th party company CGI films have flopped like Hoodwinked and Happily never after. Sony has shaky ground as it is. So the real contest is between Dreamworks, Pixar and Blue Sky.

 

[wwfpooh]

I feel that the oversaturisation will (and is starting) to weed out the unwanteds.

And having Disney revert back--somewhat--to 2D animation is helping as well.

 

[D'Snowth]

And having Disney revert back--somewhat--to 2D animation is helping as well.

Wait a minute, didn't Disney just lay-off a bunch of animators who refused to switch from traditional 2-D animation over to 3-D animation a while back?

 

[SSLFan]

I agree that it's still a newer form of animation. It was pioneered longer than any of us think. But we sure have come a long way, especially in recent years. Toy Story 1 doesn't look half as polished as Toy Story 2, and that was pretty much a 4 year period. I think CGI has gone from the "look what we can do" 80's to the "Look how we can apply it '00's" (similar in fashion with traditional animation, I think the late 30's early 40's they really made cartoons that had meaning to them and not just experimenting with sound sync)



I found the Oscars of 3 years or so ago refreshing. When the animated feature was between a Japanese 2-D feature and 2 stop motion films. Totally ignoring the CGI films made that year.

I feel that the oversaturisation will (and is starting) to weed out the unwanteds. A lot of 3rd or 4th party company CGI films have flopped like Hoodwinked and Happily never after. Sony has shaky ground as it is. So the real contest is between Dreamworks, Pixar and Blue Sky.

What is Blue Sky? What movies have they created?

 

[SSLFan]

Wait a minute, didn't Disney just lay-off a bunch of animators who refused to switch from traditional 2-D animation over to 3-D animation a while back?

They DID?