The Thread for CGi haters list movies you think were ruined by too much use of cgi. Not enough old school stuff

Star Wars Episode 1,2 and 3  the old matte paintings, models and puppets would have worked better with of course better scripts and directing.

Terminator Salvation The old technician from the old films was involved but not enough animatronics and too much cgi.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull  Way too many cgi enhancements of the live action photography to miss.  Drew me out of the movie.

Star Trek 2009 effects in the film were done well enough but the Enterprise should have been a model not a cgi picture.

Something tells me if Jaws were made today the shark would be cgi and a character in the film, like the awful deep blue sea.

The movies should always be shot on film.  Much thanks and appreciation to steven spielberg and jj abrams.

George Lucas not so much.  Episode 1 while not the greatest movie looked great on film in the cinemas.  The Next movies were done in video HD.  And the clone troppers were all cg rendered, and the spaceships later on.  In phantom menace they actually built models and miniatures.

To me the best compromise is a unity of the 2 techniques rather than cgi taking over and subverting its rightful place as just another tool filmakers can use.

Lord of the Rings was Cgi heavy but had real location shooting, large scale miniatures, and tried and true methods of filmaking as well as newest of the new.

Star Trek (2009) was awful as far as aliens went with the CG. I felt the ships looked good enough, but many of the aliens just felt like photoshoped distortions of actors without costume or makeup.

I Am Legend is a film that I often cite as a prime example of having been ruined by CG. I love the book and was really excited about the film, but the infected are a big part of the story, and the fact that they look so goofy in their 100% CG form, completely destroys everything that was halfway good about that film. I think Matheson's book deserved far better than that. Wish some one like Del Toro had gotten a hold of it and made something really memorable, rather than it having been made to be just another disposable holiday money grabber.

And that is just it, CG is ideal for the throwaway blockbuster. Who really cares about movies like Armageddon now? These kinds of films are typically hyped beyond belief, then forgotten, ultimately to end up playing repeatedly on cheapy non-premium movie channels like TBS. Years later we stumble across these kind of films while flipping through channels, chuckle and say, "I remember when this first came out" watch it for fives minutes or less, then change the channel. It is hard to say these films are ruined by CG *cough* Transformers *cough*, because they are only made to oooh and aaaww in the first place, and not matter later on.

If you want a movie built to last, you better really think long and hard about how you use your CGI. Few guys like Peter Jackson understand this, a lesser film maker would have gone for CG orcs. The LOTR trilogy will look great for years to come. Remember the movie The Spawn? I remember that movie being visually very cool the first time I saw it during its theatrical run. Years later I happened stumple across it while channel surfing, and was pretty surprised to see how cartoony the CGI looked. The movie was made just a little over ten years ago, and its CG has looked laughable for far longer than that. It looked good in its day, but looked ancient in comparison to films that came out just a few years later. This is the same reason George redid his 1997 CG in 2004, and very likely will be giving it a third update prior to the blu-ray release (does this madness ever end? Probably not...)

I love t2 and i think Cameron at least back then new how to use a good balance of cgi and the real.

Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park are movie i love a lot.

I just think the other sequels are a pointless waste of time.

Jurassic needs no sequels, and if the terminator films required sequels they should have only been by james cameron.  If not then don't make bad movies based off of good movies and hire hack directors.

Terminator 2 is a perfect film.  It has a preachy subtext maybe, but is hopeful as well.  And it has good character moments, though some chease ball humor too.

It also works as a summer blockbuster.

I don't think i will ever see t3 or t4 more than once, see that is the measure of things.  i could watch the first 2 hundreds of times just like the old star wars movies or indiana jones, or the first back to the future movie and never get sick of them.

I also never get sick of seeing the first 2 spider man flicks or x-men flicks, or watching the lord of the rings trilogy.

The rest of the stuff is like a watch once and rent once thing fo me.

Just like i never get sick of watching the old connery bond films but can't stand the last  one they made.

I also love the first superman film and first 2 rocky films but cannot stand the rest.

I have lost count the number of times i have seen the 1980's transformers movie cheasy as it is.  I watched the first bay movie once on dvd and don't even own a copy.

I will admit i own multiple versions of the prequels on vhs tape, laserdisc, vcd,  and dvd but i never have watched them even once. 

I bought them in the days when money was not as hard to come by as it is now, i cannot in good conscience spend the money on the crystal skull dvd.  The only indiana jones film i don't own.

I have the vhs, the dvd and laserdisc of the originals.  The same with the star wars trlogy which i also have on ced, and beta.

Star Trek VI is the last movie i will ever consider rebuying or purchasing on dvd or blu ray, the jj movie can rot for all i care.

I have the next  gen films but i never watch them and won't be buying them again if i ever get a blu ray player and HD tv set.

ChainsawAsh said:

Janskeet said:

Skyjedi2005, you're kind of becoming a broken record

Becoming?  I don't remember him ever talking about anything else for the past four years.  You get used to it, though - I'm at the point now where I can very quickly skim his posts to see if there's anything new in them, so it doesn't really bother me.

Ouch! Looks like Skyjedi just lost his biggest fan! I think it was just yesterday I read Janskeet's post where he defended him, and now I read this. How quickly they turn on you, eh Sky? Fans can be so fickle. Just ask George Lucas.

Janskeet said:

skyjedi2005 said:

I will admit i own multiple versions of the prequels on vhs tape, laserdisc, vcd,  and dvd but i never have watched them even once. 

Even TPM? I recall in one of your posts saying "it was not the greatest movie, but looked great on film."

There is no contradiction here. I also think TPM looked far superior visually from the later two films, but this doesn't mean I have had to watch it on home video (which I have done) in order to be able to say this. A single theatrical viewing is all it would really take. Hell, even just watching a few scene from a fanedit could lead you to the conclusion that TPM looks far better than the other two.

okay i sort of lied a bit.  I have watched the very beginning on the laserdisc but usually can't get into the movie and turn it off, tpm.

I will say i watched the dvd recut at least once, and did an audio comparsion of the 2 on my low end setup,lol.

Never watched clones on dvd.  Not once.  Seen sith half the way through with my nephew til he got bored and we turned the tv off, he has sat through the original trilogy and loved them a lot.

The prequels bore him to no end.

Too bad his favorite is the 2004 set, ouch.   The gout is too low quality, oh well.

He loves the clone wars cartoon though,lol.

I don't have any children of my own so being the cool uncle is the most fun.  I had a lot of fun playing the lego star wars games with him.  Though the podrace glitch  that puts anakin on a dying loop while funny, makes you lose all your points.  In the end out of frustration i wanted to smash something, but i did not,lol.

My sister was confused and baffled on seeing the 2004 cut of return of the jedi. she noticed something was different and could only say i don't remember that young actor from the prequels in the ghost scene.  I pointed out it was hayden and was new addition of gl.

Putting Hayden and Jar Jar into return of the jedi was a mistake.

C3PX said:

Few guys like Peter Jackson understand this, a lesser film maker would have gone for CG orcs. The LOTR trilogy will look great for years to come.

umm, I dunno about that.  The LOTR series is fantastic, but that bit in ROTK where the ghosts are sweeping and circling up through Minas Tirith near the end kinda looks like a 'scooby doo' cartoon effect to me.  That completely jolts me out of the movie every time.

Also, the original Golum in Fellowship' looks pretty dated these days, but doesn't detract too much from the movie itself.

I think the best visual 'effect' Peter jackson used in those movies is the New Zealand scenery itself.  No CG can possibly compete with that!

CO said:

If you play the DVD backwards on an old turntable the Gungan really says, "Fuck You OT fans, love George!"

:)

hahahahaha, that's so funny I think some wee escaped  :o)

Orinoco_Womble said:

umm, I dunno about that.  The LOTR series is fantastic, but that bit in ROTK where the ghosts are sweeping and circling up through Minas Tirith near the end kinda looks like a 'scooby doo' cartoon effect to me.  That completely jolts me out of the movie every time.

Also, the original Golum in Fellowship' looks pretty dated these days, but doesn't detract too much from the movie itself.

I think the best visual 'effect' Peter jackson used in those movies is the New Zealand scenery itself.  No CG can possibly compete with that!

I guess I have never really had a problem with the Dead Men of Dunharrow sequence. I suppose I see that as an example of something that would be hard to do without CG and still look good. CGI is really a wonderful innovation in film making, it is when it is used unecessarily and excessively that it bugs me. I felt this bit of the film put it to good use. Not sure what Jackson's alternative would have been to effectively show this scene without CG.

Yeah, the orinal Golum did look pretty rough, but we only see him very breifly. I have always felt that they probably did this on purpose, due to the CG Golum not really being good enough yet. There was really no other reason to keep Golum's appearance a mystery as they did throughout the first film. \

Most definitely agree on Jackson's use of New Zealand. This is what I am talking about. A lesser director would have been tempted to pull a George, get several really high quality shots of places he wanted to be Middle-Earth, and filmed his actors on a green screen and digitally created his world behind them. This seems to be what was done on the recent Indiana Jones move, it is just absurd.