View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bud Brewster Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)

Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 17637 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:04 pm Post subject: CGI special effects versus the classic style |
|
|
________________________________
Here's just a quick thought to give the newly restored All Sci-Fi a few posts to stimulate discussions.
I've decided that I disagree with the folks who still criticize CGI special effects and hold the old style "practical FX" in high regard (for mostly nostalgic reasons).
The dazzling FX being done today are a lot more exciting than the stuff we adored as kids — even the ones from the Oscar-winning movies! Those movie-makers did their best with the methods at their disposal, but I prefer FX that look so real they're indistinguishable from reality — especially when they present a very aesthetically pleasing but artistically stylized version of reality!
Movies today look the way my imagination presented the scenes in the great novels and short stories I read. And that's what I want to see on the movie screen . . . not just noble attempts to make models and miniatures sets appear to be the awesome scenes which the great sci-fi authors described. _________________ ____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
orzel-w Galactic Ambassador

Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 1865
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm inclined to believe that the attraction that tangible miniatures hold for their devotees boils down to one or more of the following:
1. A wish to someday own a screen-used miniature from a favorite film;
2. A desire to build one's own replica of a filming miniature, with studio reference photos and possibly blueprints to accomplish this;
3. A dream of someday being hired to build miniatures for filming;
4. Being able to pick up a fan magazine and read the Behind-The-Scenes story of the second unit production, complete with copious photos and secrets of the SFX masters;
5. An aspiration to film one's own home production using home-built props and miniatures.
Oh, and one more...
6. The profit motive: Building and selling replica miniatures and props.
Speaking for myself, more than one of these has inspired me at some time in the distant past. Nowadays, however, I'm given over to marveling at what imaginative concepts and effects can be accomplished with CGI.
~~~~~~
Edit 17 Feb: Added #6 _________________ ...or not...
WayneO
-----------
Last edited by orzel-w on Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mach7 Quantum Engineer
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 395
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
While I generally dislike CGI in films, my reasons are more to do with modern film makers using CGI as a "cure" for bad scripts and lazy filmmaking.
When used properly, to enhance a good story it works.
Case in point the John Carter of Mars movie, a very film that could not have been made without CGI. The basic story was very good and the CGI took a back seat to the story.
Ex Machina is another example of balanced CGI.
The JJ Abrams movies are an example of the opposite, The Story is sacrificed for the sake of big, flashy CGI.
If a movie is a CGI vehicle, just one great CGI effect after another for the sake of flashy, empty filmmaking I'm out.
Give me "A new Hope" "The Empire Strikes Back"
"Close Encounters" or "Bladerunner" Over almost any new blockbuster.
I actively seek out Non CGI movies. "The Need for Speed" "Baby Driver" are good examples of Non Sci Fi movies that went back to old school effects instead of CGI and did it successfully. Story and Acting center stage. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scotpens Space Sector Commander

Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 919 Location: The Left Coast
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just like old-school effects — physical miniatures, stop-motion animation, matte paintings, optical composites — there's good and bad CGI. When overused, the effect can be unsettling — everything looks real, but not quite real. Something you can't quite put your finger on looks off-kilter.
mach7 wrote: | While I generally dislike CGI in films, my reasons are more to do with modern film makers using CGI as a "cure" for bad scripts and lazy filmmaking.
|

Last edited by scotpens on Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
orzel-w Galactic Ambassador

Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 1865
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The movie Moon (2009) is an example of using miniatures with minimal or no CGI where CGI was unnecessary. _________________ ...or not...
WayneO
----------- |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gord Green Galactic Ambassador

Joined: 06 Oct 2014 Posts: 3001 Location: Buffalo, NY
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MOON worked well without CGI because the story drove the film and didn't rely on effects. Look at the plethora of movies immediately post STAR WARS that basically had NO plot, but loads of bad effects.
CGI works great if it's in support of a well conceived story or is simply the best way to portray the concepts like in JURASSIC PARK. _________________ There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mach7 Quantum Engineer
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 395
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yah, Moon is a very good example.
If someone ever gets around to making a film of Ringworld it would have to be heavily CGI based. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|