Is C.G.I Ruining Films?

Discussion in 'The Gash Barge' started by trehorn, Jan 28, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes, bring back the explosing model sets of old!!!

  2. No, welcome to the 21st Century!!!

    0 vote(s)
  1. I'm not much of a film buff, I prefer the old classics to most of the modern stuff, but having watched a couple of films recently I can't help but think that CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) is ruining many good films.

    In the good old days they used stunt men to produce fantastic scenes whereas nowadays they just leave it up to the computer geeks.

    In the past they have produced what turn out to be more realistic films because while the stuntmen may have been attached to wires and had crash matts etc they did actually do what the films were showing them to be doing.

    These days because they use CGI for everything they don't need to worry about doing what might actually be possible. They don't need to because using CGI means that they can produce something that is completely impossible.

    I've watched Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, James Bond Quantum of Solace and there are parts created by CGI are all so unrealistic that it spoils the whole film.

    I know that some of the older CGI was extremely poor (Hunt for Red October, Indiana Jones being chased down the tunnel by the rock being a couple).

    Don't get me wrong, CGI has its place but I seriously think that it's used far too often and spoiling many a good film.

    Even modern Thomas the Tank Engine programs are mostly CGI scenery instead of actual model sets.

    See attached stunt of old!
  2. I think it has it's place, just as long as it's not overused. The film Waterloo had 50'000 extras so CGI is a lot cheaper for big scenes like the battle scene at the end of said film. Battle of Britain is another one that CGI would ruin.
  3. I've seen clips of the new Sherlock Holmes Film and while I've heard that it is a really good film the CGI looks OTT
  4. They're all shite, long gone are the sci-fi/horror movies of the 80's/90's
  5. It's not so much the fact that CGI is taking over from real stunt men that bugs me it's the fact that it has taken over from a good story. There doesn't seem to me the feel of the acotr/actress and the story that existedprior to big bangs etc. It's almost as if as long as there is a good chase/explosion we don't need to worrry about dialogue. What would Errol Flynn do it todays movies?
  6. Not really into sci-fi myself. I've never watched any of the star wars films! The problem being that most of it doesn't look half as realistic as its made out to be.

    Look at the photo from the new Sherlock Holmes movie (above). It doesn't look realistic at all. Yes its much cheaper than building a set but don't the directors see how gash some of it looks?
  7. (granny)

    (granny) Book Reviewer

    I was put off from cgi when in the film Pearl Harbour, the viewpoint I had was being sat on a bomb going down a ships funnel. Why would I be sitting on a bomb...for a better view? Stupid.
  8. A few years ago, I went to see a film that a colleague wanted to watch, his first question was, "What were the effects like?"


    What happened to plot etc?

    Also, in one of the 'Mummy' films, the designers of the CGI skeletons appeared to be trying to capture the stop/motion look of the skeletons in the old 'JAson and the Argonauts' that I had loved as a child. Total pish (mind you, so was the film).

    Some CGI works but it really is being overdone to the extreme and bad CGI ruins films.
  9. Worked for Slim Pickens in "Dr Strangelove"
  10. Am I perhaps missing something here?

    If you've never watched the films how can you pass critical comment on their CGI content?

Share This Page