German Expressionism

CGI isn't killing the imagination, it's allowing people to make movies that were physically impossible before. Is there any way Transformers (the quintessential example) could have been made without computers? I'll be honest: a decent stopmotion transforming sequence would be jaw-dropping, but I doubt it's possible.

CGI requires exactly the same imagination as physical sets. You still have to design, build, and light them. You can, for example, use CGI to make an expressionist film. Comparing expressionism and CGI is ridiculous: expressionism is an art style, CGI is a tool.

Haven't you ever seen films that used CGI to make original scenery? Upside Down, for example, created some amazing fantasy scenery, as did The Lovely Bones. Hugo brought dreams to life with its CGI. Even monsters are original. The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and countless similar movies created places too large to make practically. There are also shots (like the camera moving through a keyhole) that are unique to virtual cameras.

What made Life of Pi a "decent use of FX" for you?

--
My films: https://sites.google.com/site/westernroadmovies/

OK, I almost stopped reading when you listed Transformers as supportive of your CGI/imagination argument.

But, Upside Down (which I aint seen yet) does look like an interesting, imaginative film.

The Lord of the Rings leaned too heavily on FX, as, most certainly, did Star Wars 1-3, with actors working in front of green screens for most of the time, or in front of invisible characters.

Life of Pi showed me a very believable tiger, in a boat, on a beautifully temperamental ocean. And, yes, it was mostly green screen and one actor on his own, but I felt the director worked hard to use the CGI, not simply make everything as big, and spectacular as possible.



'Honk honk!' - Harpo Marx
--------------
My fav movies ... http://www.rinema.com/LLP23

Transformers was a lousy film, but the CGI was good (and the Academy agrees with me on that). Designing a realistic transformation from a car to a humanoid robot takes a ton of imagination. If I was told to design a film, I would find it much easier to make expressionist backgrounds than a Transformer.

Unless you are only interested in interesting effects, I can't recommend Upside Down, unfortunately.

So what? They did things utterly impossible without CGI, and designed places, people, vehicles, worlds and cities utterly new and imaginative. Kamino (Attack of the Clones) or Lothlorien (Lord of the Rings) rely on CGI to make their unworldly aura. Someone had to put in the hours imagining the aliens in Star Wars.

So you basically liked Life of Pi because the CGI was pretty? I think Life of Pi had its share of big spectacle. The boat sinking, the whale, the tiger--they have the same qualities as the CGI in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, except done more photo-realistically. How was the CGI in Life of Pi any more imaginative than that in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe?

Just curious, what do you think about compositing or color correction/grading or other digital effects?

--
My films: https://sites.google.com/site/westernroadmovies/

I think our Transformers disagreement is merely a question of taste.

I have no problem with compositing per se, but when it involves actors I think it has a detrimental effect. An actor exchanging lines with a CGI charatcer will not be as good as an actor exchanging lines with another actor. And I know they use fill-ins, for reactions, etc, but still - it won't be the same.

As for digital grading, etc, I know this is pretty much common practice, but as it never strikes me whilst watching a film, I am not bothered.

When I see FX in a film and think, wow, those FX are really impressive - someone must have spent months on that, then, for me, it has failed. If I look back on a film (as I did with Pi, 2nd viewing, and start to marvel at the CGI skill, that has worked.

It's an interesting subject. I remember a sci-fi short story about a future world where all acting, on stage & in films, was done by life-like robots. Can't remember the name of it. Will look it up.


'Honk honk!' - Harpo Marx
--------------
My fav movies ... http://www.rinema.com/LLP23

Neither of us like Transformers. You're saying it didn't involve imagination (or am I misunderstanding?), which I think is false.

So you admire the work put into Caligari, but dislike the work put into CGI because it's obvious someone spent time on it? Caligari's backgrounds are nothing but fabrication, which required design and work, albeit on a smaller scale than modern $100 million+ movies.

The process in Pi is the exact same process used in Transformers. CGI is the tool, not the art style. Directors who make mindless-practical-effect-action-movie-#2857 aren't using any more imagination than those who make mindless-cgi-action-movie-#5635.

Sounds interesting. Reminds me a bit of the movie AI.

--
My films: https://sites.google.com/site/westernroadmovies/

Of course there was some imagination involved in creating the Transformers sequences, but really, not that much, eh? It was a toy that turned from a car into a robot - now, what was the creative process involved there? Right, here's a toy car, but look, ta-dah! it's a robot. Can you do that onscreen, but make it look really, really big?

I didn't say I disliked CGI because it takes time - I didn't say I disliked CGI at all. What I dislike is the trend of movie-makers, Hollywoodian, mostly, that give over huge swathes of their films to CGI, scenes that generally involve new buildings falling down (there was a band called that, German as well). For me, bigger, brighter, more destructive, became a bore some time ago.



'Honk honk!' - Harpo Marx
--------------
My fav movies ... http://www.rinema.com/LLP23

Watch the transformations a little more closely and you'll notice that there was a ton of thought involved. The creative process involved designing objects that have the parts to be two separate objects with a logical way to get from one to the other with thousands of moving parts. Also, the method that each transformer uses reflects their personality and emotion. The design is actually pretty cool once you start looking at the nuances.

I agree that CGI unfortunately tends to be used mostly in poor films. The directors and screenwriters are at fault, not the (underpaid) VFX artists or the software. Besides, it's not like having bigger destruction is a new trend. From King Kong, to Jason and the Argonauts, to Jurassic Park, to Transforms, all those films broke ground on various effects in order to make apes/monsters/dinosaurs/robots bigger and better.

--
My films: https://sites.google.com/site/westernroadmovies/

Yes, I guess the scale of destruction has always been set to the highest.

It is indeed the directors, and of course, the studios, that demand the FX are OTT. Reminds me of the quote, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."




'Honk honk!' - Harpo Marx
--------------
My fav movies ... http://www.rinema.com/LLP23