CGI in Movies/TV Discussion

[Tech198]

Who loves CGI? If it’s good, supporting a worthy story, I do. How about you?

Movies Mentioned:

• Ant Man (post 26)
• Avatar (post 11)
• Beauty and the Beast (animated 1992, post 11)
• Bohemian Rhapsody (post 28j
• District 9 (post 4)
• Guardians of the Galaxy (post 69)
• Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (post 27)
• Inception (post 2)
• Interstellar (post 36)
• Iron Man (post 14)
• Jurassic Park (post 18)
• Lord of the Rings (post 5)
• Oliver and Company (1988, post 24)
• Starship Troopers (1997, page 3, post 72)
• The Last Jedi
• The Matrix (post 2)
• Titanic
• Transformers (post 17)

If i never saw this, i would think most wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I can't tell the difference. But these days its so close to reality, it may as well "look like reality" In fact, more money is probably "wasted" this way i'd say.

(despite it looks cool).

Fantastic four bridge scene for instance or Passengers space scene.

 

[Huntn]

Pulled from the Movie thread, a discussion about CGI, Captain Marvel and de-aging actors:

Captain Marvel (2019)- Blah, the story and visuals just did not grab me. I will say it has the most extensive digital reconstruction of an actor’s face (de-aging Samuel Jackson) to date, as far as I have seen. And although the movie is full of CGI it makes it feel more like you are watching an animated feature, because his face is not perfect.

Budget constraints, I imagine. Really high end CGI shorts for commercials will blow most people away after they learn it isn't real. Movies are harder. I think the best CGI I've seen in movies is the trailer for the new Lion King. You know Disney spent a fortune reconstructing it from scratch because they know they'll make a killing on it.

I have some very vague experience with different render engines and it takes a lot of time to get something hyper realistic. I remember going to see Ants with a coworker when I was sent to Charleston for a half year and we were blown away by the animation then. Ants is nothing nowadays. We both had an interest in computer animation. Always wonder what happened to him. He had such a common first and last that it would be impossible to find out if he's still alive.

Although none of them are perfect, as far as ranking de-age jobs, I’d say Kurt Russel in Guardians of the Galaxy 2and Michael Douglas in Ant Man at the top, and Carrie Fisher in Rogue One was at the bottom.

In the political arena, there are some real issues with Deep Fakes, when someone’s prominent face is pasted on to someone else, so a deceptive video can be made, but I don’t know how related these technologies are, but they are different. I created a separate thread in PRSI to discuss it. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/deep-fakes-a-new-threat-in-politics.2185993/

Interesting articles:
Why Hollywood's de-aging technologies are terrifying in more ways than one
https://nationalpost.com/entertainm...nologies-are-terrifying-in-more-ways-than-one
Entertainment law has already started to shift to take this into account. States like California have introduced legislation granting individuals the right to say what their image can and cannot be used for up to 70 years after their death. In the future, it seems increasingly likely more of us will be faced with the question of who owns and has access to our digital likeness.

 

[a2jack]

IMO>CGI can be great. Remember how we were all blown away by the now classic 2001.
Yet today, many of the new moves have become so CGI intensive that the story barely makes it through.

Some of us folks still watch movies to experience fine acting ,and moving story lines, not jut a string of explosions and bright color flashes. LOL.

New subject: De-ageing. Actors should have full commercial rights to their image, but not the power to prevent free public viewing. This is the legal issue now being debated over the use of Kodi.

Added. The solution for movies is a reasonable expire date of say 5-10 years then free public viewing, but for actors, still collect royalties forever when their work is sold or used commercially.

 

[Huntn]

IMO>CGI can be great. Remember how we were all blown away by the now classic 2001.
Yet today, many of the new moves have become so CGI intensive that the story barely makes it through.

Some of us folks still watch movies to experience fine acting ,and moving story lines, not jut a string of explosions and bright color flashes. LOL.

New subject: De-ageing. Actors should have full commercial rights to their image, but not the power to prevent free public viewing. This is the legal issue now being debated over the use of Kodi.

Added. The solution for movies is a reasonable expire date of say 5-10 years then free public viewing, but for actors, still collect royalties forever when their work is sold or used commercially.

2001 was awesome. However when I saw it at the theater in 1968 at age 15, I was disappointed because it was not what I expected. It was later that I grew to appreciate it for what it was.

The best CGI is when you can only tell it’s CGI when you know what you are seeing is not possible.
Some CGI is just too much. Some of the Transformers movies suffered from this. Alita, Battle Angel in contrast is quite crisp and clean.

As far as de-aging, I wonder if Shawn Young got any compensation for using her image in Bladerunner 2049? I thinking no.

 

[a2jack]

As far as de-aging, I wonder if Shawn Young got any compensation for using her image in Bladerunner 2049? I thinking no.

First thing that popped into our minds when we saw the bit.
Wife carried a SAG card for years. a2

 

[Huntn]

First thing that popped into our minds when we saw the bit.
Wife carried a SAG card for years. a2

It would not be unlike royalties for songs, maybe.

 

[a2jack]

Yes, and the battles over Mickey Mouse, and Felix The Cat that long ago set image precedence.

Now we are in all new territory with CG aging.

Hope it doesn't effect my favorite actor, Kirk Douglas. LOL. a2

 

[hawkeye_a]

Behind the scenes at Laika's wildly imaginative new stop motion movie, Missing Link(Tech Crunch)

I always thought that CGI was the "answer", and I still remember being astonished when I first watched Toy Story, Jurassic Park, etc. However, I think I prefer CGI being complimentary to the process rather than the main course.

Over the years I've come to adore Laika's movies because there's a certain "weight" to imagery; it just looks tangible and the way the light/shading behaves on a physical object just seems "better". Then there's the craftmanship of the entire process.

I remember when Steve Jobs talked about Pixar and Toy Story, he said it reduced the cost of production over traditional animation, and that it allowed for rapid prototyping of ideas making the movie-making process a lot more flexible for directors. It seems like Laika went in the opposite direction.

Of course, irrespective of medium, nothing can replace/substitute the fundamentals; writing, story and performances.

 

[ejb190]

I remember when Steve Jobs talked about Pixar and Toy Story, he said it reduced the cost of production over traditional animation, and that it allowed for rapid prototyping of ideas making the movie-making process a lot more flexible for directors. It seems like Laika went in the opposite direction.

Of course, irrespective of medium, nothing can replace/substitute the fundamentals; writing, story and performances.

When I was in grad school, one of my neighbors was an English Lit major who was writing his thesis on a manual typewriter. (It sounded like the machine gun from DOOM echoing down the hall at 2 am...) He said the typewriter forced him to think and develop his ideas in his head before they hit the paper.

CGI is awesome when it pushes the story forward. But sometimes I think film makers become so invested in a scene, an image, or an idea that they can't scrap it, even if the story has changed enough that the scene no longer serves any purpose.

 

[hawkeye_a]

When I was in grad school, one of my neighbors was an English Lit major who was writing his thesis on a manual typewriter. (It sounded like the machine gun from DOOM echoing down the hall at 2 am...) He said the typewriter forced him to think and develop his ideas in his head before they hit the paper.

Similar to the whole film vs digital debate. The former requiring a lot more prep and planning on account of being more expensive.

 

[Huntn]

When I was in grad school, one of my neighbors was an English Lit major who was writing his thesis on a manual typewriter. (It sounded like the machine gun from DOOM echoing down the hall at 2 am...) He said the typewriter forced him to think and develop his ideas in his head before they hit the paper.

CGI is awesome when it pushes the story forward. But sometimes I think film makers become so invested in a scene, an image, or an idea that they can't scrap it, even if the story has changed enough that the scene no longer serves any purpose.

This sounds like just being used to typewriters. The same mental process takes placed except a word processor adds convenience to editing.

Similar to the whole film vs digital debate. The former requiring a lot more prep and planning on account of being more expensive.

CGI has a whole spectrum of expenses that pure physical does not. It is estimated that Alita Battle Angel, a film made in a warehouse/backlot cost $350-500M which seems astonishing as compared to Titanic, where huge mechanical sets were built, the original budget was $200M, but I think cost overruns pushed it up to $300M. Avatar cost about $450 including promotion. A big gamble, but it made $2.7B! I consider Avatar to be one of the cutting edge achievements in CGI. It is spectacular!
[doublepost=1561040213][/doublepost]

Behind the scenes at Laika's wildly imaginative new stop motion movie, Missing Link(Tech Crunch)

I always thought that CGI was the "answer", and I still remember being astonished when I first watched Toy Story, Jurassic Park, etc. However, I think I prefer CGI being complimentary to the process rather than the main course.

Over the years I've come to adore Laika's movies because there's a certain "weight" to imagery; it just looks tangible and the way the light/shading behaves on a physical object just seems "better". Then there's the craftmanship of the entire process.

I remember when Steve Jobs talked about Pixar and Toy Story, he said it reduced the cost of production over traditional animation, and that it allowed for rapid prototyping of ideas making the movie-making process a lot more flexible for directors. It seems like Laika went in the opposite direction.

Of course, irrespective of medium, nothing can replace/substitute the fundamentals; writing, story and performances.

I hated early CGI in the cases where the film maker decided to make it stylized, a primary example would be Sin City. I also did not care for 300 because it was easy to see the artificiality of the setting. I really disliked the idea of making movies in a warehouse. The mental leap for me was when it was hard to tell I was seeing artificial, although I knew it was. Avatar is an example. The scene where they are flying in a gunship and push the nose down over the edge of a waterfall is amazing. The physical world of Avatar while not quite for the animals, is for most intents and purposes, photo realistic.

 

[ejb190]

I hated early CGI in the cases where the film maker decided to make it stylized, a primary example would be Sin City. I also did not care for 300... [snip]

You probably didn't care for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow either.

It's amazing how far we have come. I found several sites detailing the history of CGI including this one. There's a few films in there that I either didn't realize relied on CGI or I had forgotten about.

 

[Huntn]

You probably didn't care for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow either.

It's amazing how far we have come. I found several sites detailing the history of CGI including this one. There's a few films in there that I either didn't realize relied on CGI or I had forgotten about.

I was impressed in your link that Vertigo (1958) was the first movie to use computer animation and I had no clue. I thought it was old fashioned animation. What I remember from this movie was the dream sequence.

This video includes both the title animation and the dream sequence:

 

[Lone Deranger]

As far as de-aging, I wonder if Shawn Young got any compensation for using her image in Bladerunner 2049? I thinking no.

Young was involved with BR 2049 to the degree that they shot some footage of her face to aid in the creation of her digi-double. So I assume she was paid accordingly.

 

[Huntn]

Young was involved with BR 2049 to the degree that they shot some footage of her face to aid in the creation of her digi-double. So I assume she was paid accordingly.

All I can say, regarding aging, life is cruel...a personal opinion.

​

 

[Huntn]

Brought over from the Movie thread:

I just finished watching Midway 2019 thanks to a free movie ticket I got from an online offer. I thought it was too good to be true, but it turned out to be legit. Anyhow, it looked like a Chinese+Emmerich co-production with a ton of CGI that I felt like watching someone playing Xbox 4. Cool, but definitely not the same as Midway 1976. There were several additions to Midway 1976 that were in 2019. In Midway 1976, there were only a squadron of fighters led by Major Parks with antiquated planes launched from the Midway airfield. In the 2019, there were a lot of more planes launched from Midway including land based bombers where surprisingly they were all shot down while trying to sink the carriers. So I don't know if that's within the history books or they just added in because they look cool? To be fair, there was a land based bomber with one of its wheels stuck and landed back at Midway in the 1976 version. I never knew why they added that scene, but I think I knew why now seeing the 2019 version. Probably came back from the raid damaged caused by flack over the bombing raid. Also in Midway 2019, US submarines were also used to try and sink the Japanese carriers. The USS Nautilus was featured that had attempted to sink one of the Japanese carriers.

Anyhow, I felt like watching a snippet of Tora Tora Tora flanked by Midway and then Pearl Harbour 2001. It was ok, but the theatre was only 25% full. I also saw some people leave for awhile and then come back. The modern version isn't as story telling as the 1976 version. It is mostly about CGI and trying to pack as much plane action, sea action and how nasty the Japanese can be towards POW. Like when you got rescued off the life raft by the Japanese and you don't tell them which ship you came from; be ready to sink with an anchor tied to your feet. That scene wasn't in the 1976 version.

Here is the thing about real vs CGI, real always wins. Look at the original In Harm’s Way, Top Gun, and Tora Tora Tora. Tom Cruise said Top Gun 2 will feature real aircraft if DOD cooperates. I’ve not seen an update on that, but I have to believe there will be CGI. I don’t remember that much from the original Midway (1976) movie. But an example where they blew CGI is in Pearl Harbor (2001).

Now when real can’t do it, at this stage CGI has gotten photorealistic, and if they take enough care, CGI can fool you. It’s when they go overboard that they lose me, while acknowledging that’s a personal standard. I can give a great example, the CGI bar to be exceeded- Avatar. All of the aircraft in that movie look and feel real, although you know they are not. A lot of care went into fidelity of these aircraft, how they lift off, how their landing gear compresses when they land. I looked for a good example of Jake’s first ride in a Scorpion, where they dive over a water fall, but could not find one. ?

 

[iluvmacs99]

Brought over from the Movie thread:


Here is the thing about real vs CGI, real always wins. Look at the original In Harm’s Way, Top Gun, and Tora Tora Tora. Tom Cruise said Top Gun 2 will feature real aircraft if DOD cooperates. I’ve not seen an update on that, but I have to believe there will be CGI. I don’t remember that much from the original Midway (1976) movie. But an example where they blew CGI is in Pearl Harbor (2001).

Now when real can’t do it, at this stage CGI has gotten photorealistic, and if they take enough care, CGI can fool you. It’s when they go overboard that they lose me, while acknowledging that’s a personal standard. I can give a great example, the CGI bar to be exceeded- Avatar. All of the aircraft in that movie look and feel real, although you know they are not. A lot of care went into fidelity of these aircraft, how they lift off, how their landing gear compresses when they land. I looked for a good example of Jake’s first ride in a Scorpion, where they dive over a water fall, but could not find one. ?

I felt they really went overboard on the CGI and I felt that it started to look so fake that at times, I just wanted to leave. But I stayed begrudgingly in mild protest. Top Gun 2 will feature real planes and real pilots, because that's what Mr. Cruise wanted. I think one of the interviews in the past when filming Top Gun 1 was that he was dead set against CGI and insisted he would be filmed inside a real jet pulling real Gs when at that time, CGI and green screen were available. In Midway 2019, you can see the pilots where like playing a video game. It's not even real. And the story line; well what story. LOL

 

[Huntn]

I felt they really went overboard on the CGI and I felt that it started to look so fake that at times, I just wanted to leave. But I stayed begrudgingly in mild protest. Top Gun 2 will feature real planes and real pilots, because that's what Mr. Cruise wanted. I think one of the interviews in the past when filming Top Gun 1 was that he was dead set against CGI and insisted he would be filmed inside a real jet pulling real Gs when at that time, CGI and green screen were available. In Midway 2019, you can see the pilots where like playing a video game. It's not even real. And the story line; well what story. LOL

It’s kind of like an arcade vs a realistic flight simulator.

 

[iluvmacs99]

It’s kind of like an arcade vs a realistic flight simulator.

Good point Hunt. It is like watching a Steam game of Warship and Airplanes all at once.

 

[scubachap]

It’s kind of like an arcade vs a realistic flight simulator.

Have you guys ever seen the late 60's classic epic - the Battle of Britain? Some of the film's effects look pretty ropey now - the model Dornier crashing into a train set and endless repeats of a balsa model plane blowing up but if you can get past that most of the air combat scenes still look fantastic. They used actual aircraft and I think some third scale radio control models. They filmed from a converted brightly painted B25 full of film cameras which all the other pilots (in their spits and 109s etc attacked).

Even with all the modern rendering technology films like Pearl Harbour and probably this new Midway can't hold a candle to how great some of those flying scenes still look. (Mind you I think these days the Spanish airforce has stopped flying all the HE111's they used on loan back then.)

I wonder if we're going back to this a bit though? Christopher Nolan recognised the difference and used actual aircraft in his film Dunkirk and rowed right back on the CGI fireworks and it really shows - the aerial combat in it looks utterly convincing.

 

[hawkeye_a]

I felt they really went overboard on the CGI and I felt that it started to look so fake that at times

I agree. It looked cartoon-ish to me, at times. I was "aware" I was watching CGI throughout. I suppose the defense is that it's a "different world" so whose to say what it "should" look like. From the audience's perspective no one has ever seen that planet, so the creators could take liberties.

It's a lot more difficult to produce CGI grounded in the real world, as audiences have real-life expectations and can easily distinguish between what's real and whats not (That's why I thought the CGI in District9 was better IMHO...but that more of an "artistic" critique as opposed to a technical one). That is even more so with CGI people.

 

[Huntn]

Brought over from the Movie thread:

Ex Machina is a really fascinating movie.

#1.]It only has three cast members pretty much through the entire film, which Oscar Isaac is absolutely stellar, his character is so diverse, he acts as someone that plays coy and is kind of inept but yet, he has these ulterior motive’s and is extremely intelligent how he sets the plot. If it wasn’t for his performance, I probably wouldn’t of watched this film going on like six times. If you watch Ex machina closely, Oscar Isaac acts a lot with his facial expressions versus just dialogue.

#2.] Domhnall Gleeson is great. Kind of a nerdy character, but that’s what the director wanted in this film to be kind of a super-smart noob per se.

More than anything, I don’t think we’re that far off in the future where A.I. will be able to communicate/understand us in different ways through programming (Kind of like ‘Her’ with Joaquin Phoenix), it’s one of those movies that definitely provokes thought.

That was one of the first films I saw Alicia Vikander in, and even though the majority of her scenes are filmed with CGI, she still a major crucial piece all the way to the end.

Oscar Isaac definitely drives that movie. I need to watch Her.

I’d like to make a distinction about CGI in this movie. My impression is that Alicia Vikander acted out her scenes with an android suit studded with motion capture anchors, and afterwards they edited the robot parts of her body, leaving her face, maybe a head piece and other parts of her. Arguably an actor‘s face is one of the most important aspects for the actor, so in this example CGI really enhances the performance and immersion, that this is an android, and allows the actress to shine, versus covering up the actor completely, as in a movie like Avatar, where motion capture and voice are the only parts of the actor we see.

 

[Gutwrench]

There seems to be a bit of an over reliance on CGI....where it is used as the film rather than an effect.

 

[Gutwrench]

There seems to be a bit of an over reliance on CGI....where it is used as the film rather than an effect.

Example:

 

[Huntn]

Example:

This looks interesting to me, but when I first started it, I thought it was a new Deadpool movie.

I understand the feeling you are expressing, but this movie is a story about an open world video game, whatever that is. My impression is that it will be received differently by different people. CGI definitely plays a huge role in certain genres. The artistic choice to best creative an environment that would otherwise be impossible or to just give the eyes a visual treat. The perfect example of a completely effective use of CGI is Avatar, immersive, 99% photo realistic. Besides the strange fauna and critters running around Pandora, it would be hard to distinguish this from an actual idealized jungle.

I was reading about the new season of Lost in Space and came across this image. CGI is definitely not as fun for actors. I imagine they now love location shooting more than ever, althiugh they are still put in the position of talking to props or CGI stand ins.