My Thoughts On CGI

You may have noticed that I've complained about this before

That is you would if you existed, viewer. I warn you, this is going to be a rant and it'll probably get pretty long so, prepare your body. CGI stands for Computer-Generated-Imagery. What I (and most people) refer to when they talk about it these days, is it's use in cinema. Modern-day technology has allowed filmakers to enhance movies by editing images on-screen or editing in completely inorganic objects that never existed in the first place. I have strong opinions toward this technology and I've wanted to get it down on 'paper' for awhile now. This is a large topic, so I suppose I'll dissect it and approach the topic one point at a time. Let's get started.

It ages faster than Julian Glover in The Last Crusade

Star Wars is one of my all-time favorite movies. Many people would agree with me, I'm sure. Star Wars is a good example of a movie that ages well. It still feels relevant in today's society, the story is still compelling and the special effects, though a little dated, do not detract from the movie itself. I don't mind black and white or silence in a movie, but I admit that certain moments in old movies can be hard to watch when they were being a little too ambitious for the time (Watch any Alfred Hitchock movie that involves a falling moment). One of the big reasons I don't like CG, is the rate at which it causes movies to age. Movies made now have a much shorter lifespan than movies made several decades ago. Don't believe me? When was the last time you watched the movie I, Robot?

I remember liking this movie a lot when I first saw it. It came out in 2004 which is, now, just under a decade ago. It's an interesting take on the robot apocalypse whereas, rather than go for a Terminator style, all out war, it's about a one that almost happened. I rediscovered this movie last year, remembered how much I liked it before, and popped it in the DVD player with some friends. We ended up turning it off partway through because the CG was laughably poor. This movie way overdid it with the CG, and now, only nine years later, it's practically unwatchable because you're sitting there, trying to ignore it the whole time. It may be hard to see that, even just by looking at pictures from the movie, until you see it in motion.

 This blew my mind because I remember thinking this exact thing when I was first watching it.

"People say that someday special effects in movies like this will look bad, but there's no way that could be because the effects in this movie are so incredible!

Yeah, I was that naive. I knew that all movie eventually look dated but I never would've dreamed that that would happen within ten years. And movies like Watchmen, which came out in 2009, only four years ago, are already starting to show their years. That's depressing, because I really like these movies but I know that they'll all suffer the same fate.

Sure, other movies look dated, as I said before, but often those were only moments within the movie rather than a constant annoyance. I just don't understand, why would anyone make a movie that they know is going to look bad in just a few years?

Bad Vibes

There's something that needs to be said about the atmosphere of a movie that 'overkills it' with the CG. There's a very different feeling that you get from a movie like that versus a movie that is more prudent with it. A movie that only uses CG when it needs to, feels more organic, more geared towards an adult audience and it feels like there was more time and effort put into it. A movie that overuses CG often feels more childlike, unrealistic and shoddy. There's a big difference in a movie that had a lot of thought, time and detail compared to one that was just, made. It's just a whole different feeling when the crew actually went on site, did all kinds of stunts and used innovative special effects.

Quality over...?

If there's one thing about CG it's that, to be pulled off, it has to be done well. What I mean is, movies that just don't have the budget shouldn't try. But yet, many still do. Take any sci-fi B-Movie and you'll see what I'm talking about. CG is very expensive and it can be painful to see a movie with no money attempt it.

Ever seen this movie?

Not that necessary to begin with

The thing I hate most about CG is it's lack of pure necessity. Take a series like The Lord of the Rings. Most people I know like those movies and even if you don't, you cannot deny that they were very well done. The true secret to the success of those films is the detail. Sure, you need CG for the trolls, the fiery volcanoes, dragons, enormous cities and armies, thousands of soldiers strong. That all makes sense to me. CG is a good substitute for animatronics, puppetry, minis, and thousands of extras. Other than that, the films built sets, shot on site, costumed... all sorts of things. The orcs for instance wore masks and makeup and every piece of armor in the films was hand made (fun fact: all of the chain-mail in the movies were linked by hand by the crew). All of that work was what made those movies legendary. People may argue, "What if you don't want to do all of that work?" My answer is that you should. People always bitch about movies today and how they suck. Wanna know why? Well, there are dozens of reasons, but one big one is the lack of such effort. Movies should be made with detail and care because that's what it takes to make a great movie.

A matter of morality

This kind of goes along with my previous point. This is probably the most frivolous of points I will make but it still holds true to an extent. When you watch a movie, old ones in particular, it's almost like a cinematic magic. You see incredible wonders executed flawlessly on screen and you just sit there and think, "How in God's name did they do that?" Movies like the 30's King Kong are a great testament to that sort of work. They invented new techniques for that movie and now it's all CG. I'll see a trailer for a movie that includes scenes that, I guess, are supposed to make me go "woaaaah" but I never do anymore because I know it's all CG. I know every trick. It's like the magicians always say, "It's no fun if you know how it works." Contrary to that, there are still plenty of movies that use conventional means of  special effects that go unnoticed because anyone who saw them assumes it's just CG. Take Inception for instance. The scene with the water shooting into the building, the crazy gravity in the hallway, the exploding street and several other memorable moments were not CG, but you wouldn't know that.

I've mentioned before about how in LOTR, the Hobbits were made to look smaller by way of crazy forced perspective shots whereas in the new movie, The Hobbit, they're just superimposed via CG. Yay.

To set the record straight

I don't despise any use of CGI, not at all. What I'm against is the overkill of CG in the interest of not having to put out as much effort. That's being lazy and yes, I know CG is difficult to animate and yadda yadda so is anything, but that's not the point. Conventional special effects are dying out, and that's a sad thing to me and to cinema in general. CG should be used as a tool, not a crutch. It's great for touching-up, adding in sequences that would've otherwise been impossible and other such things, but it should never be used to the extremes that it is. I can't even get excited about new science fiction movies these days like Oblivion, because I know it'll look more like a videogame than anything else.

And you don't want that.

My only hope is that because CG is indeed new(ish), that this is only a passing trend in modern movies, that will eventually die out. I'll just keep crossing my fingers.