Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LoganSnake
Precisely. When done right (Sin City, 300, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix..first one...), CGI is amazing.
When done bad (Boogeyman, the wolves in The Day After Tomorrow), it's pretty laughable. I mostly hate it when they substitute it for things that could easily be achieved live.
|
Summed up my thoughts 100% verbatim - why must everything be replaced by CGI? I am reminded of the recent Indiana Jones movie, where half the movie was CGI, but could have easily been done live. It ruined the movie (along with the alien shit)
Some of the best examples of the EFFECTIVE use of CGI are scenes where you can't tell it's even being used - such as, Jurassic Park.
Yeah yeah, the dinosaurs are CGI, but did you know the jeep in the below scene is CGI as well? They couldn't get a jeep to turn upside down and get pushed along and nudge and crushed by the T-Rex to look right in real life, so they substituted it. And to this day, I still can't tell the entire thing is CGI. The particular moment where it's CGI is when the girl was trapped in it while it was being squashed into the mud. 1993 folks - 15 years ago.
Another good use of CGI was Starship Troopers. Sure, the movie was just flat out weird and shitty (albeit amusing and watchable), but the gigantic monsters in that movie and explosions are just great - all with CGI. I think Johnny Rico even jumps on top of the big bitch bug, shoots a hole into its hull, throws a grenade in, and the entire bug explodes as he jumps off of it - pure CGI, even Rico himself, and it looks FANTASTIC - made in 1997.
Lastly, and probably the most impressive for its age, is Terminator 2. 1991!!!! Fucking 1991. It's all about the integration of CGI into real sets.
Integration is the key - the CGI should
support the scene of the movie, not replace it.