By definition of the thread title, yes. If it's "reliant" on CGI then everything else can take a hike. How many films are genuinely reliant on CGI is another discussion.
I like good stories, me.
Do CGI Reliant Blockbusters = Sloppy Scripts? Page 2
Quote: Griff @ March 21 2011, 11:52 PM GMTDon't come here with your logic, at this time of night.
Aren't you supposed to be in arts centre?
Quote: Griff @ March 21 2011, 11:57 PM GMTGood point.
*goes back to script*
I hope you proofread it better than my post.
Quote: Badge @ March 21 2011, 11:48 PM GMTHow many films are genuinely reliant on CGI is another discussion.
Avatar.
And it looked ok but was boring as f**k.
Quote: Gavin @ March 22 2011, 12:01 AM GMTAvatar. And it looked ok but was boring as f**k.
James Cameron proved with True Lies that he could make a dull as f**k blockbuster without any CGI.
The trouble with CGI monsters, robots, spacecraft as opposed to models, is that CGI animators rarely know when to stop, the monsters tend to have thousands of tentacles with teeth on the tentacles and then tentacles on the teeth, just because they can do that fairly easily with CGI, nothing is clean and simple (i.e. realistic).
Take George Lucas, as the ultimate example, he's become so in thrall of CGI that none of his films now have anything resembling a decent storyline or interesting characters, it's all just a means to show off how "clever" he and the CGI animators are, it's DULL, DULL, DULL.
It's the same with fight scenes, nowadays they are generally a blur of action, so fast that you have no idea what's going on. Watch the Vader vs Obi Wan fight at the end of Star Wars and contrast it with any of the lightsabre duels in the shitty prequels, Yoda spinning around like a pygmy dervish is rubbish and probably took several man years to do.
For me the worst use of CGI though was the Bond film "Die Another Day". One of the beauties of Bond films was that you knew that all the stunts, no matter how ridiculous were actually done by a human being, this imbued them with a real sense of danger, now contrast that to the obvious blue screen cobblers of Pierce Brosnan "surfing" whilst a CGI tidal wave of ice surges after him, your suspension of disbelief gives up and you just think "Why not just give him a magic wand or make him able to fly".
Sorry, rant over.
Quote: Tony Cowards @ March 22 2011, 11:47 AM GMTTake George Lucas, as the ultimate example, he's become so in thrall of CGI that none of his films now have anything resembling a decent storyline or interesting characters, it's all just a means to show off how "clever" he and the CGI animators are, it's DULL, DULL, DULL.
Yes and no. I don't really rate George lucas as a director. He's not bad as a producer, but with a few exceptions, his directing has always been pretty pedestrian. So even if he used the old SFX techniques in the new Star Wars films they'd have still been shit because he's not up to much as a film maker.
Yet take a quality director like Peter Jackson, Guillermo Del Torro or even Steven Speilberg CGI then they can do wonders. For example the opening hour of Speilberg's War of the Worlds is an amazing tour-de-force as Martians lay waste to middle-America. And Pan's Labrynth is a masterpiece that uses CGI to brilliant effect. District 9 is another film that uses CGI with impressive results.
I honestly think it depends on the calibre of the film-maker. If you have a hack he's going to make dreck no matter what. If you have a true artist, he'll use the tools to make the best film possible.
Quote: chipolata @ March 22 2011, 11:55 AM GMTYet take a quality director like Peter Jackson, Guillermo Del Torro or even Steven Speilberg CGI then they can do wonders. For example the opening hour of Speilberg's War of the Worlds is an amazing tour-de-force as Martians lay waste to middle-America. And Pan's Labrynth is a masterpiece that uses CGI to brilliant effect. District 9 is another film that uses CGI with impressive results.
I honestly think it depends on the calibre of the film-maker. If you have a hack he's going to make dreck no matter what. If you have a true artist, he'll use the tools to make the best film possible.
I agree, but that's because these directors used CGI as a tool, not the be all and end all of the effing film.
Compare "Aliens" with "Avatar", in my mind it's no contest, "Avatar" is mindblowing... for 5 minutes, then you get used to the effects and concentrate on the script and it all falls to pieces, where as "Aliens" is tightly scripted, has great actions scenes and is genuinely exciting (even when, occasionally, the Aliens are obviously men-in-suits or dodgy animatronics).
CGI should be used to enhance films, to fill in the gaps which can't really be done any other way. As much as I'm not a massive fan of "Titanic" at least the CGI is used really well and the overall effect is realistic, compare that with the monkey scene in the last Indiana Jones abomination, which looked like Shia Le Beouf had been superimposed onto a scene from the animated Disney "Tarzan" movie.
Again, it's about the quality of the film maker. For all the hype around James Cameron he's made two great films. The rest are Meh (even T2 is merely a fun but bombastic retread of T1). To me he's a technician like George Lucas, more excited by technology than with characters.
Quote: Badge @ March 21 2011, 11:48 PM GMTBy definition of the thread title, yes. If it's "reliant" on CGI then everything else can take a hike.
Yes but don't blame me Badge blame Aaron. I wanted the header to read something along these lines.
Do CGI - heavy Blockbusters rely too much on technical wizardry at the expense of competent screen writing and writers?
But the header isn't allowed to be that length so I had to edit it down. (btw you're not Leonard Nimmoy are you? 
)
Quote: Tony Cowards @ March 22 2011, 1:29 PM GMTI agree, but that's because these directors used CGI as a tool, not the be all and end all of the effing film.
CGI should be used to enhance films, to fill in the gaps which can't really be done any other way. As much as I'm not a massive fan of "Titanic" at least the CGI is used really well and the overall effect is realistic
Exactly what I think too. Seems that once they are let loose with the CGI gubbins machine (hope I'm not being too technical here) film makers go mental these days. What was wrong with driving through a load of empty cardboard boxes? Yer modern car chase and the like now takes on farcical impossibilities that just make me laugh.
Suspension of disbelief? I should coco.
Quote: Blenkinsop @ March 22 2011, 2:09 PM GMTExactly what I think too. Seems that once they are let loose with the CGI gubbins machine (hope I'm not being too technical here) film makers go mental these days. What was wrong with driving through a load of empty cardboard boxes? Yer modern car chase and the like now takes on farcical impossibilities that just make me laugh.
CGI enhanced car chases often appear in films with a kind of hyper-reality, though. Like Wanted or The Matrix Reloaded. I agree I can't think of many modern classic car chases to rank alongside the ones in The French Connection or Bullit, although the second Bourne movie ended with an awesome car chase, and I think The Town has a good one in although I've not seen it yet.