ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why Today's Movies Suck, Part 2: C.G.I. Can't Take No More

Updated on January 20, 2012
Source

I don't know what the C and G stand for, but I do know that the I in CGI stands for "I Can't Take No More!". Anyway, computer generated effects (CGI) is doing to today's movies what auto-tune is doing to today's music... which is ruining it. Both can certainly aide in some areas without a doubt, but only when it is necessary to use them.

For instance, auto-tune can help many vocal/pitch issues, but it shouldn't be an excuse for a singer like Mariah Carey to be lazy and not have to hit any of those high notes. CGI can make many special effects come to life on screen when it is used together with hands-on special effects or real environments, but if you film 99.9% of your entire movie in CGI, the end result is a lazy filmmaker with one big cartoon instead of an actual movie.

See, it all started with "Star Wars" in 1977, but the technology didn't really begin to peak until the early 90's with movies like "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" and "Jurassic Park". Then, by the time the 2000s hit, filmmakers began taking it a few steps too far. This was hugely noticeable in George Lucas' "Star Wars" prequels where just about every single background and special effect was done entirely in CGI. The end result was a far cry from the original trilogy, even the actors themselves had a hard time bringing life to the blue and green screens surrounding them.

Nowadays, you can't even enjoy a horror or action movie without having to endure heavy doses of this crap. The question you might be asking yourself is where exactly does one draw the line between appropriate use and inappropriate use? The following examples will help give you an idea.

5 Movies with Proper CGI Usage

"Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991): Of course, the T-1000 character is the highlight of this classic. James Cameron effectively blended his interactions with the real world.

"Jurassic Park" (1993): Who could possibly forget how this masterpiece was done? Director Steven Spielberg and effects wizard Stan Winston successfully blended real life animatronics with CGI effects. The results stunned audiences everywhere back in 1993.

"Twister" (1996): "Twister" was a milestone for computer-generated effects, one of the best examples of blending practical effects and CGI involved an exploding tanker truck that was hurled by a tornado. Initially, the entire sequence was accomplished with practical effects that involved pyrotechnics, a stunt car, and a full-size mock-up of the tanker. Later on, ILM handled the tornado twirling the truck around towards the camera, the mock-up was removed and replaced by CGI.

"Independence Day" (1996): "ID4" was the biggest disaster and science fiction film of the mid-late 90's. One reason behind this is the special effects. "Independence Day" relied more on in-camera effects, model-making, miniatures, and pyrotechnics more than CGI; all-in-all, this helped the filmmakers save more money as well as establish far more effective results.

"Land of the Dead" (2005): One of the big money shots in this movie is where the zombies learn to walk underwater in order to cross the river into the fortified city. Upon rising up from the water, we see legions of them in the background. George Romero only used 20 or so zombies to film this, the zombies in the background were all done by CGI. A perfect example of computer and real world blending.

5 Movies with Improper CGI Usage

The "Star Wars" Prequel Trilogy (1999-2005): Do these three films really need any explanation? Most of the characters and backgrounds here are completely computerized and the performance of the actors are so darn wooden and cringeworthy, it was as if they had a hard time dealing with things that weren't really there. And most of what you saw in these movies was nothing but a bunch of blue and green screens to these actors.

The "Transformers" Movies (2007-2011): Do these movies really require any formal introduction when it comes to CGI effects? They're one big heap of a mess, it's as if the specials effects team for these films had no sense of direction, it's as if they decided 'Let's just have a bunch of huge shapeshifting robots rumble while their surroundings get trashed in the process'. These kind of action sequences cater to audience members with ADHD.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008): Two of the worst CGI sequences that stick out in this movie are as follows: a) A sword fight on two moving jeeps in the jungle - It's painfully obvious that it's really two actors standing on top of two different jeeps in front of a big green screen, that's how stupid it looks; b) CGI ants that move like water - There's nothing worse than having cartoonish-looking CGI fire ants that don't really look like the real thing.

"The Incredible Hulk" (2008): Again, we have a cartoonish-looking CGI Hulk running around on-screen. Let's not get started with the ridiculous and over-the-top showdown between Hulk and the Abomination, it was akin to watching an action sequence from one of the "Shrek" movies.

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" (2010): In one of Hollywood's latest attempts to cash-in on popular video game franchises, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" attempts to do too much all at once in the special effects department. The film is littered with CGI-filled action sequences that are dizzying behind relief. One scene, for instance, involves a huge sinkhole that opens up in the sand and the protagonist almost gets swallowed up but is somehow able to escape. How? It's rather hard to say because the way it was shot doesn't make it easy for the audience follow. We're just expected to swallow it, like a sinkhole. How does he get out? Who cares? He just gets out and it looks very cool, that's all that matters.... right?

Perhaps the movie studios are saving some money by filming almost every single action sequence and special FX shot in CGI, but the truth of the matter is that these movies end up being completed and released with zero heart and soul put into it. Aside from a worthwhile story, by combining real things with computer imagery shows us that the filmmakers actually care about what they're doing and are really putting effort into the project.

See, when one realizes that you can do practically everything and anything with a computer, it takes away a lot of creativity and realism from what you're trying to accomplish. In plain and simple terms, it just makes you lazy.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      MENTD 

      5 years ago

      What I don't get is everyone bitches about CGI but then they

      go fork out cash to support this trash. Boycott garbage like

      the upcoming WORLD WAR Z - Make this movie fail and movies

      like it fail and then maybe studios will stop pointing and clicking

      together movies and actually start creating believable f/x again.

    • profile image

      leon 

      5 years ago

      couldn't agree more although independence day was a steaming pile of ****. Great effects though

    • profile image

      Omar 

      5 years ago

      Completely agree with you! Don't forget to add John Carter to worst CGI films ever!

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)