i have an idea for hollywood. make a movie without CGI! i understand its convenient and its great and necessary to have a movie done with CGI..but hollywood somehow lacks a movie with a good story these days. i think if everything is too concentrated on trying to make a film full of awesome graphics, it ruins the chance of the film having a good storyline. i'm not saying films with flashy CGI is not capable of having a good storyline...but it just seems to be that way these days.

tell me your opinions...

Coming from a fella who works in the film business, I can say you're absolutely right. Too many films nowadays place too much of an emphasis on the "uber-cool" CG effects as a crutch to try to otherwise sell a half-baked movie.

It's pretty much the lazy-person's way out- instead of REALLY making a stuntman jump off a ten-story building, just CG a dude falling instead. Instead of REALLY blowing up that drug dealer's Cadillac, just throw in a CG Caddy and do a CG explosion on that. Why make sets for that sci-fi movie when you can just make all the actors perform on green screen and CG the set in later. Why have a real orchestra create a *****in' soundtrack when you can have some kid punch something out on his Casio keyboard.

Part of what makes movie-making (and movie-watching) so interesting is the whole "gee-whiz" factor, and not JUST from the director's vision, either. It comes from looking at the incredibly-detailed, non-standard sets that were painstakingly created by set carpenters. It comes from watching the hero fiddle with the weird props that light up and beep on cue. It comes from watching actual miniature (or full-size) spaceships or other objects getting blown to bits during some war. And that's because there are a great many people who have used their years of expertise and knowledge to make those things that make the viewer go wow... not some computer.

The only thing CG does well when dealing with movies is take away from that "gee-whiz" factor in movies. Instead of looking at a sequence and thinking "how did they do that???", the movie viewer will respond "oh... they did that with CG" instead. And that takes away from the thrill you would have had in watching a movie.

yesss....thank you black cat! well put. what exactly is it that you do in the film business anyway?

yesss....thank you black cat! well put. what exactly is it that you do in the film business anyway?

Pyrotechnic/mechanical/environmental special effects. Done that crap for a good part of my life, too. Unfortunately, it's also one of the first things the producers want to change over to CG, as they think they're gonna save money by having that pimply-faced computer geek do stuff instead of someone like me.

And in the end, it's all about cost- the producers would rather pay a bunch of computer kids a little better than minimum wage to pump out CG movies than pay a bunch of REAL people to make REAL movies.

There's no filming permits to fill out, no insurance policies to pay for, no actors or crew people to shell out payroll to (except for the computer kids, that is), and no locations/cars/props/wardrobe to rent. That means that the producers and the studios end up pocketing even more money than they already are.

Part of the reason why there'll be an actors' strike come the end of the month is that the actors want more control over their likenesses, especially when dealing with the CG arena. I won't get into the particulars of THAT argument, but if joe-blow producer plans on using an actor's face in a CG movie and tries not to pay the REAL actor any residuals for the use of said actor's face, chances are that something stinky is a foot.

that expalins the explosion on your page. anywho, sorry to say man, but your job may be on thin wires...how often do you work due to CG these days?

i see your point from afar. hollywood/producers will do whatever to make as much money as they can. its not only about using CGI, its losing the principles of a story that gets to me.
for instance, i hear of a live action akira being made with dicaprio's company, appians way. so far, its been rumored that dicaprio will play kenada, which only means, a lot is gonna have to change and its original story will simply suffer. i don't understand why these so called "artist" can't stick with the fundamentals. find asian actors, shoot it in japan(neo tokyo),stick to the story. they have the money to make it right...so why not?

The only movie thats come out recently with good CGI is Pan's Labyrinth O_O

Why not? Because they'd be taking a chance, that's why. The powers-that-be out there in Movieland would rather play it safe and churn out the same drivel starring the same talentless actors year after year than come up with projects that would actually be interesting.

Like I said, it's all about the money to the studios and the producers nowadays. The CG thing is big now because Pixar and a couple of other CG houses have had some luck with their projects, and the producers (like the mangy bunch of vultures they are) will swarm around anything they consider the "in thing". Of course, those Pixar movies actually HAVE at least something in terms of storyline and such.

And "art" hasn't been a part of the film industry for at least the last thirty years, after George Lucas released the original "Star Wars"- from that point on, it's been all about the money, period.

I mean... just WHY would they churn out ANOTHER Indiana Jones movie FOURTEEN years after the supposed "last and final" one? Because we wanna see an aged Indiana Jones "pass the torch" to a twenty-something douche-bag trying to pass himself off as a 50's greaser/motorcycle outlaw? Don't make me laugh.

exact-o-mundo!

honestly, i felt the same about indiana jones, but was nonetheless excited about the 4th installment. i enjoyed the original series. perhaps its a nostalgic thing...but its always fun to watch them. art still exist, but very subtly in hollywood.

If they had made Indy 4 at least as good as the originals, then it'd be fine- but as it was, everyone was just phoning everything in- there just wasn't the drive or the interest in making us believe in the movie. It was almost like they were trying to make that LeBeouf kid into the next Indy as fast as they could or something.

And while on the topic of Shia LeBeouf- since WHEN has it been mandatory that you can only be in your mid-twenties to be an action hero? I mean, c'mon- Harrison Ford was in his mid-thirties when he started with the Indiana Jones thing, and he'd be considered "old" (or as the corporate world would put it, "over-qualified") by today's standards if the film were made today.

I wouldn't even have a problem with LeBeouf if he could pull it off too, which he couldn't.



I'll also say this- that DiCaprio-produced "Akira" movie is gonna be a total stinker. Unless he finds people to do his movie who know what the IP is all about, he's gonna be up the creek without a paddle. A buttload of money isn't gonna help you make a good movie, you know...

agreed. indy 4 did not meet the original's standards so much. the entire movie was way too predictable...i.e, lebeouf as ford's son? and i can digg the end when it was almost implied that lebeouf would play the next indy...but only having ford snatching the hat back. though, i believe lebeouf has the potential, lets not begin a franchise that was great then, it might just destroy its name.

akira has potential because of its strong story...but will likely fail, because of its americanized twist.

As a fan of the original, i can say whole heartedly that the fan base has no interest in the live action version. It will only stain the awesomeness that was the animated version

Of course. Any attempt to make a live-action version of Akira (the original was mind-blowing, BTW) would do nothing but trample on what was a damn good animated movie.

Of course, this is all a major sign of another problem with (what has become of) Hollywood-

It would seem that every movie that could be made HAS been made, as almost every film released in the last couple of years has been a sequel or remake of an existing film, if not a soft-ball "sure-thing" movie intended to fragrantly cater to a fixed audience. There has been very little in the way or ORIGINAL films to be released lately, and it just shows how lazy (as well as greedy) the studios are with the projects they green-light.

In the end, it's all about the greed- the nameless, faceless suits in Corporate Hollywood would rather re-make (or continue) an already-existing project than take a chance and produce some new property. Since they already own all the trademarks, the IP rights, the merchandising deals, and history of the characters in the IP, all they have to do is have the Script-O-Matic 2000 to peck out a non-threatening, entertainment-for-the-whole-family style script meant to do nothing more than to abscond with YOUR money. It's a complete joke, and I've wasted a better part of eighteen years in the film business, too.

And they wonder why no one's going to see their movies...

Hey guys as one of the generation who grew up with CGI I have to say...I like Computer Generated effect as much if not more than then old school way for several reasons.

1: I always watch a movie first for the story...the second time is reserved for looking at the FX and trying to figure out which ones are CGI and which ones are old school...It's not as easy as you might think.\

2: Courtesy of a friend who works in movies...I have to say..the Idea of him not having to potentially die so some studio can make a buck sounds pretty good to me. if they can CGI him into the explosions instead of him actually having to be there more power to them.

and finally

3: You guys all have to admit some the the things done in the movies during the last few years would not have been possible without CGI

yes....i understand your point and back it up as much as i can. i do not deny the fact that CG has great potential and is a convenience to the film industry.

my point is that there are just way too much time and money being invested in a film with CG. and with every film with CG that comes out, not everyone has a great story. the industry is relying too much on CG to sell, and thats where the story lacks. look at transformers, amazing CG, but what a terrible story! the movie was basically a love story! CG is the "now" in the industry. that may not be a fact, but its pretty damn close!

On your points-

1. CG works the best when it's used as a tool, much like anything else in a film or TV production. Got a location that you simply CAN'T reproduce in real life? Fine- CG works wonders. Got some gag where some totally unrealistic has to happen? Great- bring in the CG.

The problem comes in when a production starts to use CG as a crutch and an easy cure-all for poor planning (and the desire to not want to spend money) on the producers' parts. When you're using CG to simulate... say... a car smoking its tires when it is more than capable of doing it on its own, then there's a problem. And a great many movies and TV shows are using CG as said crutch nowadays.

2. I work in the film business doing the real explosions, and I can faithfully say that the chances of ANYONE getting killed via something I did are completely nil. There are a great many safety measures and means of oversight nowadays on the state and federal level that something would have to REALLY get messed up for someone to get killed. And the state and federal oversight (in the form of "fire safety officers") simply won't let that happen.

People are just as likely get killed through means OTHER than pyro on a film as they are through any other means. Take the death of a technician during filming of "The Dark Knight", for example- there was no pyro involved at all when the incident took place, as a camera vehicle went out of control, sending people flying all over the place.

3. Like I said in "1."- CG works best when it's used as a tool and NOT as a crutch or cure-all for poor planning and fiscal greed on the part of the producers. If something simply can't be recreated in real-time through standard means, then CG will work wonders. However, when you have people CG'ing EVERYTHING, even when there are people who can recreate them in reality, you're putting people out of work.

And that's the unspoken thing about CG- you're putting a whole sector of people out of work for the sake of technical wizardry.