I have to ask. Do you believe CG is good or bad?

I believe it's a double edged sword. Given enough money, and enough time CG can be so believable it's sick (ie... Dream Catcher). Yet in so many cases CG looks cheaper than minatures and stop motion.

I do believe that CG has a place in horror movies. But only with the right animator and budget.

I've seen bad CG far too often that I almost wish CG was never indoctrinated into movies. Yet for every movie I hate to see CG integrated into. There are those few that benefit.

So do you feel CG should be scraped altogether? Or do you feel that CG should remain the domain of big budget 100+ million dollar films?

it has its good points when done correctly, see LOTR or even the Hulk which i thought looked great. but it?s overused, filmmakers, at least big budget ones are relying far too heavy on it, it?s just not that good yet and it?s too easy to spot, see Matrix 2 for example, it just lacks a certain gravity in movement. can?t really comment on how it is used in horror movies but i prefer good ol? fx work ala Tom Savini. however, Donnie Darko used cgi work to great effect and the movie was more or less a cheapo, that was a great way to use it.

EDIT: come to think of it, cgi work for horror movies isn?t such a good idea, not only for the general reasons above, but also the genre has a kind of physicality with it?s gore-excesses and concentratiopn on the human (or whatever) body that don?t fit well to cgi-work, living beings are always too harder to create and look phony done like this.

growing up with only the godzilla rubber suits and squinting to see the wires holding the saucer up, cg doesnt bother me that much at all, even when used poorly. i dont like putting in a cg effect just because it was in everyother movie at that time, its just another tool and its use reflects the skills(or lack of) of the moviemakers.

i may just have low standards, though.

CG can look good as blood.. Ichi the Killer and Battle Royale SE. but for monsters? please let it be. there are way to many of those that just looks stupid. American Werewolf in Paris, Darkness Falls, That other film about the monster imitating human form.. ehh...
CGI monsters are just not scary. much rather prefer the old way.. Demons, the scene where the teeth are pushed out is etched in my brain forever.

Oh, and I absolutley LOVE stop motion!!! I'll see anything that has it (even kiddie films). It's the coolest way to make animation ever. Favorites would be Indianna Jones and the temple of doom. That rail cart scene looks amazingly real. and Flesh Gordon had some fun monsters. A real shame that giant monster scene from The Thing wasn't used in the movie.
hehe, I love puppet movies too. Favorite there be Nightmare before Christmas. Hope more like it will be made.

@john_doe I too love Nightmare Before Christmas. have U seen The Secret Adventures Of Tom Thumb?
IMDB: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0108069
ed2k: ed2k: The.Secret.Adventures.of.Tom.Thumb.(DVDRip)[zr][www.osiolek.com].avi  [607.66 Mb] [Stats] (unverified as am grabbing at the moment but already own on vhs but have no way of capturing it - not sure if released on dvd)

I thought this was a genuinely creepy movie and show animation at it's best alongside the works of Jan Svankmajer

yeah, saw that some time ago. don't remember much more than not liking it much for some obscure reason.

have you seen Vincent (Tim Burton).avi however? man that rocks!!!

don't know why U didn't like it. yeah first saw Vincent at the cinema (think it was shown with NBC) and grabbed it a while back, is pretty cool

though on the other side I thought the CG in Starship Troopers was pretty cool and there's no way the film could have been pulled off without it

American Werewolf is a good example, just compare the first part with the amazing work by Rick Baker and then the shabby second part with CGI. The Thing is another example what is really possible with some inventiveness.

LOTR is not a very good example outside of Gollum, the blue (or rather green screening) is pathetic and lots of the background shots (see mines of mordor) are pretty rubbish and ILM could have done an infinitely better job at that. Matrix 2 and the new star wars films now have great green-screening and backdrops and are just let down by the likes of more grand effects (think agent smith fight in matrix reloaded)

I think in it's current form CGI is a pain in the ass, not nescessarily on the big films where it is done very well, but in the minds of every wannabe director, they seem to think spending a pathetic ammount will produce good results.... it doesn't and this is particularly the problem with Horror, there simply isn't the funding a lot of the time for a professional job, and it's only the effects/makeup artists that really make a film shine in the effects front when the budget isn't really high.

Luckily, more and more directors are abandoning this and going back to their roots (see films like Dog Soldiers or Bubba Ho-tep which don't have any cgi shots, and you will see how superior they are on the budget). The fact that make-up is a real element means that responses are often infinitely better by actors which is another major gain.

I still am a firm believer that CGI should be a tool for the editing process rather than a tool to be used in the central creative process. You'll be surprised that lots of programmes and films use it in this way, from Bridget Jones Diary (which you expect no cgi in - it was used inm post production to change the background landscaping) to tv series like The League of Gentlemen (it was used to add the "Local Shop" onto the hill behind Royston V, it's not even that visible but it adds to the atmosphere). If it's used in this way than I think CGI is very important, if it's used to replace what should be model shots (and i have to praise Peter Jackson for using model shots in LOTR, which is why the landscape/building shots look so good imo) or elements that replace a make-up artist, or any other element that can produce a technically lifelike shot, I think it is noway near polished and far too expensive to make it excusable or worthwhile using it in a production.

With ventures such as Star Wars and LOTR, they have enough money to throw at it to make it achievable and to a decent standard (even though to some extent the over dependance on CGI makes lots of their product flakey). For the horror genre, the hollywood instance on CGI is very bad, and lots of filmmakers use it when they really don't need to. Their productions don't have the budgeting to make it worthwhile (if i see another poser animation in a horror film I'm going to stop laughing and start crying... it isn't funny anymore ). However, as a general and post-production tool, CGI is very useful.

@purple, ST is a good example of how it's done properally. It would not be feasable to construct lots of alien insects on that size therefore the use in the colourful, patriotic criticism of ST I think that the CGI fitted perfectly. However, the director used models and real elements where nescessary, which is something that the Lucas-style film makers no longer do and opt for doing what is achievable in cgi rather than by a sfx wizard.

Hehe - I feel the same way about Star Wars, only I was afraid to mention it. I used to use that same Star Wars theory, till every rabid Star Wars fan chewed my ass to the bone (remember that scene for Starship Troopers where millions of bugs rush the outpost - well just imagine the bugs are rabid Star Wars fans, and I'm the lone guy critiscising the CGI!).

I to this day love the first three Star Wars movies (actually episodes 4, 5 and 6). The FX are more than believable, the acting stomps on episodes 1 and 2, and they are in general more fun to watch. I do believe that part of the joy in the FX department comes from the fact that all of the FX are real or models. This makes the sets either in miniature, or real sized genuine FX, infinitely more beliveable.

I feel that CGI is used too often, and with the obvious cheapness that comes with CG. Yes CG can be used effectively, but only under certain circumstances. And far too often directors choose to utilize CG over traditiondal FX and it's painfully obvious to the average moviegoer. IMO CG should remain in the background, and not replace the guy in the monster suit unless absolutely needed. I feel the perfect example are the last few Alien movies. While certain aspects of the movie Alien Resurection called for Alien animation via CG because Alien suits could not be used in those scenes, and was done belivably. The bulk of the movie relied upon traditioinal man in suit monsters. All of the up close and personla shots were done just as they were in the original Alien picture. The reson being the FX looks good, and the emotional response illicited from the actors is more viceral and realistic, than having them pretend to be scared of something that's not there (Remember the first time you see the chest burster in Alien - Ridely Scott never told the cast what was going to happen, so the responses you see in the first movie to that scene are truely genuine - something you just can't get with CG!).

In the end, I'd have to say that CG has it's place in the background, in space, or in shots where actors in suits just look bad. Howver CG should never take the main stage, as in many cases it's poorly concieved, poorly executed, and in most cases looks cheaper than a 1960's Godzilla flick.

As an animator, I just graduated with a bachelors degree in computer animation. I can say that creating anything CG is hard work, and there are time constraints. I would bet that most of the CG put in movies was not as good as the animators would have wanted. I have also learned that studios hire fast animators not great animators.

With that said, Ive been a horror fan since I was about 11. I grew up sneaking off to my friends to watch the newest Friday the 13th and anything else horror we could get our hands on. I think it's bullshit when they use computers to simulate blood and bullets when it would obviously look better with some squibs and karo. Tom Savini is my hero and I think he's the best makeup effects artist. Granted CG can be good if it's used properly. But I don't think most horror movies need it. Save it for sci-fi flicks I say.

Take for example Freddy VS Jason. There were decent kills in there. then there were shitty cg ridden kills that looked stupid and almost made me shake my head in shame. Think of the money they had to pay those animators to twist that guys head around and how much they could have saved by making a fake head.

anyway, just my thoughts

CG KILLED TREMORS !!!!!


Ill never forgive it for that !

they haven't done that bad a job on the series to be honest, it's actually quite good. I guess it was just cheaper than making models, but your right, Tremors one is far superior sfx wise. If you look at Sci-fi channel programs they have a fetish for CGI, but then programs like Farscape (which by series 4 cost millions for every episode) were built on the basis of real effects with CGI for just space shots. Tremors is more forgiveable but I too would have preferred graboids that looked like they did in Tremors 1. By Tremors 3 it was really annoying, if you notice the graboids 'tongues' they are real effects and look very, very bad... it is a man with a glove.

I think the biggest crime ever commited was in Red Dwarf, for the american release of Red Dwarf every single model shot was replaced by CGI, this was a huge mistake, and the effects look beyond infinitely better in their model form (they look very, very good). Not only that, but they even cut out jokes to fit in SFX (maybe to make it more international, but it a comedy!!! taking out jokes is retarded). So totally unpopular was this crime that the dvds are the original versions and not CGI.


suttercane, nice to hear the opinion of an animator I agree it can be rediculous the amount of time imposed on the animation houses to produce the work. I read an industry magazine, 3d World, so i've read a bit about what it's like working for animation houses. The failing isn't with the animators as far as I'm concerned, not in the least. They are merely hired to do a job and they create a work of art based upon the directors intentions. The problem rests in the hands of lazy directors and studios who's overwhelming insistance on CGI is very bad imo. I'm just glad that Pixar are allowed to have a long time to create and animate the work they do, their works are always visually of high quality, but equally well written and created