Register Now!

CGI Must Die: 5 Reasons Why

Posted by Andrew Osborne

Plastic surgery is a good metaphor for CGI (a.k.a. "computer-generated imagery"): it works best when you’re least aware of it, adding value without calling attention to its glaring, unnatural fakery. A little and you’re marveling at the natural, age-appropriate sexiness of Susan Sarandon, Helen Mirren or Meryl Streep, wondering “did she or didn’t she?” with regard to nips, tucks and nose jobs.  Too much, and you’re recoiling in horror at that freakish Cat Lady lady, gasping in shock over missing noses and airbag lips, or wondering why Nicole Kidman keeps wearing that creepy Nicole Kidman mask.

Hollywood has developed an unhealthy addiction to both plastic surgery and CGI, preferring the obviously fake to the convincingly real, whether in the form of grotesquely disproportionate rock-hard breasticles or pixilated atrocities like Speed Racer, the cinematic equivalent of watching other people's birthday brats play video games at Chuck E. Cheese for an endless 135 minutes.

Did Jar-Jar Binks teach us nothing? Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer a little special in my special effects: cinematic images that make me go, “Oh my God, how’d they do that?” rather than, “Dude, that reminds me of this awesome World of Warcraft battle I just posted on YouTube!”

If you’re one of the CGI addicted who think all non-pixelated movie effects are inherently “cheesy,” consider the following clips an intervention as we here at the Screengrab present five examples of amazing movie moments that had (almost) nothing to do with computer-generated imagery.

Just about any Buster Keaton movie 



See that car falling apart while Buster Keaton is driving it? See the front of that house falling and nearly crushing him? See that bridge collapsing with the train on it?  All that shit actually happened in real life, not in post-production!

The Road Warrior



Why are high speed car chases with actual cars (and trucks and motorcycles and gyrocopters) better than computerized car action?  Gee, I don’t know...maybe the same reason sex with an actual human being is better than internet porn?

The Thing (1982)



Sure, the shape-shifting alien action in John Carpenter’s The Thing may look as fake and unbelievable as CGI...but the viscous, tactile ooze has an icky, organic quality that's very hard to duplicate in the shiny world of greenscreen ones and zeroes.

Altered States



CGI scenes all tend to have a similar look, not unlike the legions of aging Hollywood starlets sporting “trout pout” and Spitting Image puppet faces after one too many visits to the neighborhood Botox dispensary.  Directors and special effects coordinators forced to get a little more creative, however, may come up with distinctive, fucked-up and memorable images like those found in this one-of-a-kind Ken Russell phantasmagoria.

Star Wars



And speaking of tactile...one word: models. The star destroyer in the opening scene of Star Wars (along with all the nooks and crannies of all the ships in 2001, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien) were and remain more iconic and dramatic than all the CGI pod-racers, Naboo royal cruisers or Trade Federation frigates the computers at Skywalker Ranch have ever rendered.

Don’t get me wrong. CGI has achieved some amazing things: the bullet-time sequences in The Matrix, Gollum and that buck naked Angelina Jolie in Beowulf. But enough is enough, people. It’s time for Hollywood to go cold turkey.

For the betterment of all humanity...CGI Must Die.


+ DIGG + DEL.ICIO.US + REDDIT
Posted May 12 2008, 02:00 PM
Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Tom Block said:

Terrific post.

May 12, 2008 2:49 PM

Sean said:

Amen. I have been saying this since Spider Man was completely ruined for me. I couldn't enjoy it when I realized spidey wasn't actually swinging from webs! There is something organic about real special effects.

You should have mentioned The Never Ending Story. IMAGINE IF THAT WAS ALL CGI??

May 12, 2008 7:53 PM

privateivan said:

I was watching Zulu on TCM the other night, and when the thousands of Zulu warriors showed up on top of the hill overlooking the British fort, it took my breath away. It was a simple panning shot--no FX, just about 1,000 extras. I looked at that with admiration. Later I thought, thank god they didn't have CGI. If they had, there would have been a flyover the collected warriors, swooshing in towards the screaming mouth of the Zulu chief. CGI-junkies in Hollywood have forgotten that they don't need CGI for everything, and that, if you can get a shot without CGI, then do it that way.

May 12, 2008 8:53 PM

adam christ said:

excellent feature! +10!

of course there are arguments on the other side, mainly with regard to characters that can't be adequately captured practically.  say what you will about ang lee's version and the upcoming reboot, but compare the CGI incredible hulk to lou ferrigno.  sure, iron lou was really there, really swinging real truck tires in real slow motion, but he was a just a big dude with green paint.  the hulk needed to be massive, way bigger than any suit could do justice to, and CGI was the answer.

and let's not forget marvelous mo-cap work by people like andy serkis.  gollum was cool and all, but look at king kong.  that movie was a steaming turd by all accounts, except it was elevated tremendously by an emotional kong audiences could genuinely fall in love with.  

the '31 version was incredible, it goes without saying, but let's not forget there were no doubt a fair share of luddites screaming back then that you shouldn't use stop motion or minatures in movies because it takes away from the reality of the work.

May 13, 2008 2:09 PM

Tom Block said:

I don't care so much about the "reality" of CGI effects, though when they're too obviously fake (like the Rome of "Gladiator" or the throngs of Orcs in "The Two Towers") it throws me out of the movie. But CGI's primary mission should be to help the story, and not settle for being what passes as "awesome" to potheads and adolescents. (One good example is the set of "Deadwood", where all the hills and trees surrounding the town were seamless CG effects.) The other thing is for filmmakers not to over-rely on them the way they do. Gladiator, Titanic, LOTR, all these goddam superhero flicks--99% of these suck as movies since they settle for providing sensation (and nostalgia) in lieu of a good story and characters. That's fine if that's all you're looking for, but why not get the whole (not to mention a more satisfying) package?

May 13, 2008 3:44 PM