CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

[yovargas]

Trollhunter was CGI??? I thought it was for reals!!

[kzer_za]

Good topic.

IMO, it's simply a matter of taste. But the problem, for me, is what I call "the jumble."

Let me explain.

I actually like CGI a lot, and don't need that CGI to be "photorealistic" (within reason). Even in PJ's films, I like the use of CGI in a lot of places. I like its use for Azog, Bolg, Beorn (especially that great transformation scene). I like it with Gollum, the oliphants, the cave troll, the balrog, etc. I actually prefer CGI orcs to the prosthetic baddies of the LOTR films.

What I dislike, intensely, are almost fully CGI sequences with CGI heroes, enemies, weapons, bushes, trees, caves, bridges, clouds, etc. The "jumble" of CGI. Why? It's not because the scenes don't look photorealistic. I'm not demanding photorealism. It's that the excesses in these scenes - the overload - makes everything happening incredibly busy, overwhelming, and ultimately unmemorable. It's a jumble, an inconsequential vapor (especially when the invincibility of some of the CGI characters - and the worthlessness of their adversaries - reinforces the fakery). To me, it feels like the artistry of shot composition, etc, goes right out the window with the ability to create entire sequences on a computer. The "too muchness" of the CGI in PJ's Hobbit films (particularly in scenes like Goblin Town and with the Smaug fight) can lead your brain to reject what you're seeing, and no longer care about the great visuals (though PJ somehow sold me on Barrels Out of Bond, minus the Bombur-ninja idiocy).

I think of it this way, in regards to the new BOFA trailer as an example.

A dwarf lord (say, Dain) on a CGI ram or boar is cool, just as an elf lord (Thranduil) on a CGI elk is cool (one of my favorite visual flourishes in AUJ). What isn't cool, in my mind, are thousands of CGI dwarves on CGI goats charging an army of CGI elves and men and orcs and bats and blah blah blah. Or CGI goat-chariots ridden by CGI dwarves confronting CGI wargs in a CGI environment.

There's a tendency to lump "CGI haters" into one category, but as with every issue, it's more complicated than that. To me it's the excess (and sloppy) use of CGI that bothers me, not the mere use of it, and not the photorealism. Heck, I still don't understand why everyone hated the wargs in TTT so much. There was a reasonable number of them, they blended in well with the environment, and they felt just right to me, photorealistic or not.

As for Harryhausen, to me he didn't overdo it (possibly because it was too technically difficult to do so). You don't get a bazillion skeleton warriors attacking the hero, and a CGI camera swooping in and out of their eye sockets, and nonsense like that. He had static locations and environments, and a few stop-motion creatures battling (or hanging out with) the real characters. Same goes with Jaws. There was one main animatronic (even if he's not very convincing, by today's standards), and some practical effects. It was measured. And it works!

PJ and his toys are like Icarus, IMO. He just flies too high to the sun. And when he does, the film falls apart into a "jumble."

I agree with this - the main problem isn't realism per se (though that is a part of it), but the lack of limitations.

I saw Guardians of the Galaxy last night. I liked parts of it, it's better than most superhero movies, and somewhere in there is the potential for a truly great action-comedy. But its witty script and other strengths are buried beneath a massive glut of drawn-out overloaded action scenes. All the action kills the movie's pacing and gives me sensory fatigue. And these scenes are just filled with too much STUFF on screen. With CG, you can make a shot as dense as you want. 50 fighter craft, a hundred explosions, 200 missiles, three of the main characters, and the enemy mothership all in the same shot? Go right ahead! I'm only slightly exaggerrating.

There's a lengthy action sequence early in GotG where the characters break out of a prison, and it's fun - but it's the kind of big action setpiece that probably would have been a climactic scene 15 years ago. Now it's in the first act. Every action movie is expected to have a bunch of these scenes throughout the movie, each meant to be flashier and more exciting than the last. There are so many of them and each one goes on forever, because with CG you can do anything you can imagine.

EDIT: I was harder on Guardians than I meant to be - it's a good movie within its genre. I only picked it because I had just seen it and it reminded me of some trends that frustrated me in contemporary filmmaking and also because I feel like these trends held back some of its potential, not because I think it's an especially egregious offender. But I should have picked something else as an example instead.

Basically, CG means directors no longer have any real external limitations if their budget is big, and many of them aren't capable of limiting themselves to not go into full directorial hedonism. Peter Jackson had to work within limitations for LotR and actually used quite a lot of old-fashioned film techniques alongside CG. Part of the reason for The Hobbit's excesses is that those limitations are removed - they're not even using forced perspective anymore. The barrel ride is fun, but do we really need both that AND Dwarves vs. Smaug? Still, I think The Hobbit movies do rise above the level of most contemporary action movies.

To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, directors have gotten so wrapped up in what they can do that they don't stop to think about whether they should. (And yes, that's a quote from one of the first movies to heavily use CG, but Jurassic Park doesn't abuse it and actually spends a lot of time on the characters and plot development before it gets to the big chases and stuff).

[axordil]

Whereas I think Guardians of the Galaxy's pacing was just fine, so YMMV. I think it IS a pretty great action-comedy. But then, the only time I've ever come close to sensory fatigue in a movie was the time I had to sit in the front row for Moulin Rouge.

I also think it integrated the CGI and live aspects better than WETA's more rushed efforts.

[kzer_za]

Well, I'm really just venting about CG in contemporary action films in general, especially superhero movies. Like I said, Guardians is above average as comic films go, so anyone who doesn't mind them will enjoy it.

[Frelga]

I just came back from watching the Guardians, and I had absolutely no issues with its effects. In fact, I found the action very well paced and the entire movie a great example of subordinating fancy visuals to characters and story. YMMV

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think we're probably getting off track of kzer's main point about CGI-heavy action films in general, not GotG...

Oh, and...um...Game of Thrones does it best!

Season 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f0nROPGmZQ
Season 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVitvEv ... -WhgKYQxjc
Season 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU3TW0285d8
Season 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlgvuywT9oM

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[kzer_za]

I think we're probably getting off track of kzer's main point about CGI-heavy action films in general, not GotG...

Yeah, I was harder on Guardians than I meant to be - it's a good movie within its genre. I only picked it because I had just seen it and it reminded me of some trends that frustrated me in contemporary filmmaking and also because I feel like these trends held back some of its potential, not because I think it's an especially egregious offender. But I should have picked something else as an example instead.

[Smaug's voice]

I also saw it only yesterday and felt the CGI and action was undermining the character and humor. And that's in general my complaint with all Marvel films (especially Avengers) and in some ways the TH films too (though, far less there).

[yovargas]

and in some ways the TH films too (though, far less there).

Funny as I would say far more for TH, DoS especially, than either Avengers or GotG. IMO both Avengers and GotG were both successful at being pretty darn character-centric even amongst all the action while in DoS I found myself regularly forgetting who or what this story was supposed to be about.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Challenge: watch those four short videos and tell me that the CGI in Game of Thrones isn't more convincing than most CGI you've seen, including in the Hobbit.

The reason I post them is that I think they speak directly to Al's (and my) assertion that CGI can be just as convincing as physical effects like sets and prosthetics.

For some reason, just because it's Game of Thrones (and I'm saying it) this perfect example seems to have been lost/ ignored.

I just can't win!

[Smaug's voice]

and in some ways the TH films too (though, far less there).

Funny as I would say far more for TH, DoS especially, than either Avengers or GotG. IMO both Avengers and GotG were both successful at being pretty darn character-centric even amongst all the action while in DoS I found myself regularly forgetting who or what this story was supposed to be about.

I feel the same way about nearly all Marvel films as I feel about the new Star Trek films.
All dazzling and pretty with some wise-cracking one-liners. But very rarely do I ever come to care about or feel for any of these characters. (none in Avengers, except maybe for Hulk)
I did for GotG though the same way I did for DOS. But GotG has far more eye-popping SFX which makes me uneasy than the more calmer DOS effects. (all relatively, that is)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Challenge: watch those four short videos and tell me that the CGI in Game of Thrones isn't more convincing than most CGI you've seen, including in the Hobbit.

I watched them, and I didn't see anything special. Particularly compared to the Hobbit films.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I can't believe that you're not being deliberately obtuse on this, just to stand your ground in defense of PJ. In those reels, the CGI structures, the armies, etc, look absolutely real. The very first clip of season 1, for example, with those red tents. They look 100% believable. There's nothing in the Hobbit that even comes close to that level of seamless CGI integration with the physical environment. Also take a look at the scenes between Roose and Ramsay Bolton, at 2:41 and 3:06 of the season 4 reel. Those armies in the background are CGI additions, and there's no seam. None.

I find it hard to believe that there's any question that the CGI in Game of Thrones (done with far, far less money) isn't ultimately more successful than the CGI in the Hobbit (and, I would add, more successful than a lot of physical modeling in Star Wars, LOTR, and other films that utilized models). With the right staging, lighting and composition, studios can make a tiny CGI budget go a long, long way.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You can find it hard to believe, but I don't see anything terribly impressive about those clips. I could lie and say that I did, just to satisfy you, but I really don't think that would serve any good purpose.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Let's leave aside whether or not you found the CGI terribly impressive, and ask: did you think the CGI, particularly the structures and armies I pointed out, looked real? As in, did it look like they were actually physical objects that were a part of the scene?

[yovargas]

I find it hard to believe that there's any question that the CGI in Game of Thrones (done with far, far less money) isn't ultimately more successful than the CGI in the Hobbit....

It's unfair to call it more "successful" when the two are being used for such radically different things. None of them showed anything entirely "unreal" (ie. things that don't exist in reality) or entirely CGI creatures which is where some films occasionally flop. Plus, I'd bet TH does many of the tricks found in that video too and just as well, but you can't really compare large-scale action set pieces filled with unreal monsters to a handful of mostly still shots of trees and tents and whatnot.

[Teremia]

I really enjoyed those GoT videos, I have to say. The building up of landscapes is extraordinary. I am relieved (on the actors' behalf) to see that some of those swords are CGI.

Also the giant works extremely well. Much more convincing, to my eyes, than the Hobbit's trolls.

HOWEVER, what I really loved especially in the LOTR films were the built environments and the non-CGI tricks (forced perspective and so on). They satisfied some sort of deep longing in me for things that are made from matter. That is undoubtedly an old prejudice that will fade with time, but for the moment, I still smile every time I think of the cleverness with which Gandalf was served food at a hobbit's table in LOTR.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I find it hard to believe that there's any question that the CGI in Game of Thrones (done with far, far less money) isn't ultimately more successful than the CGI in the Hobbit....

It's unfair to call it more "successful" when the two are being used for such radically different things. None of them showed anything entirely "unreal" (ie. things that don't exist in reality) or entirely CGI creatures which is where some films occasionally flop. Plus, I'd bet TH does many of the tricks found in that video too and just as well, but you can't really compare large-scale action set pieces filled with unreal monsters to a handful of mostly still shots of trees and tents and whatnot.

Exactly.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I find it hard to believe that there's any question that the CGI in Game of Thrones (done with far, far less money) isn't ultimately more successful than the CGI in the Hobbit....

It's unfair to call it more "successful" when the two are being used for such radically different things. None of them showed anything entirely "unreal" (ie. things that don't exist in reality) or entirely CGI creatures which is where some films occasionally flop. Plus, I'd bet TH does many of the tricks found in that video too and just as well, but you can't really compare large-scale action set pieces filled with unreal monsters to a handful of mostly still shots of trees and tents and whatnot.

But this goes straight to my point. Yes, the CGI in Game of Thrones and in TH is used very differently, and to create scenes that are very different. But that's one of the great flaws in PJ's films, IMO. He tries to do far too much with CGI, uses it far too often, uses it to realize wild and crazy camera shots, and uses it to portray far too many characters.

If, for example, PJ went with a minimalist approach, as GoT has done, focusing on structures and armies and keeping the camera relatively static, I think his films would be much more convincing. In AUJ and DOS, for example, the only CGI that is absolutely necessary is the CGI for the very large establishment shots of structures (Erebor, Dol Guldur, Mirkwood, gates of Moria, etc), the CGI for large armies, as in Azanulbizar, and the CGI for the dragon (and perhaps Sauron, which I liked). Everything else, including orcs, goblins, dwarves, wizards, waterfalls, etc., could have been completely physical. And if PJ decided to eschew the "amusement park ride-style action," he could have pulled it all off without the need to create fully CGI environments.

My point is exactly the one you make, yov. The CGI in the the two productions is used so differently, and for different purposes. In GoT, it is primarily used to enhance the beauty of a scene, or the sense of scale (but subtly). In TH, its used to give us rip-roaring romps across impossible spans, and to give us characters doing things that people could never do.

Therein lies my problem with PJ's films. If he only had some restraint, ala the creators of GoT (who really have no choice, given a much smaller budget) these films could have been absolute masterpieces, IMO.