Has CG Killed Our Imaginations?

[Benji]

Has CG Killed Our Imaginations?

I read with interest a lot of the reader comments about the new Incredible Hulk trailer. The main problem for those who didn't like it seems to be that the Hulk doesn't look real enough. It's a perfectly valid criticism – he doesn't always look utterly perfect and tangible – but it made me wonder if we've reached a point in cinema where we've lost the ability to suspend our disbelief. We are, after all, talking about a 10-foot tall green man, something you would be rather surprised to see standing in the queue at your local Tesco. Precisely how realistic can something entirely unrealistic be?

We never used to be so picky. If somebody watches the original King Kong or any of the works of Ray Harryhausen, you will never hear them complain about how the skeletons were a bit jerky or that the big ape's fur didn't blow realistically when he was climbing the Empire State Building (if they do complain, however, you should feel free to shoot them on the grounds of wrongness and philistinism). You just watch the film, acknowledge that what you are seeing couldn't possibly exist, admire the artistry it took to create it and choose to believe it anyway. That's what suspension of disbelief is: ignoring the protests of your eyes and more logical parts of your brain in order to enjoy a good story.

We've now arrived at a place where technology is capable of producing something so photo-realistic that if we can detect a small patch of skin that doesn't fold in the right way or an eye that fails to glint with emotion, we cry foul and declare what's on screen to be ridiculous and unbelievable. I've done it myself, huffing through Spider-Man 3 about the fact that the giant man made of sand just didn't look like a real giant man made of sand. I base this complaint on precisely no experience of giant men made of sand, just a belief in what he should look like. Apparently my vision contrasted with those of the vastly more talented and able people at ILM (or whomever created it). So, why have we become so demanding? Why have our eyes taken over the job of filmic enjoyment from our brains?

Maybe it's that we're spoiled. I look at Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean and can't separate him from the real people, so good is the CGI, so I know computer created characters can look perfect. Or I can see an actual emotional performance in the eyes of Peter Jackson's King Kong, so I know they don't have to be blank beauties. So does that mean we have to expect every film to hit those standards, even without budget in the upper $200-millions? Have the effects houses shot themselves in the foot by being too capable? I hope that I can still enjoy The Incredible Hulk even if I sometimes don't think the light bounced properly off Abomination's spine spikes. To mix my summer blockbusters a bit, I want to believe.

Maybe Guillermo Del Toro has the right idea in his approach to The Hobbit: do as much as you can with animatronics. Hell, let's go all the way. Bring back claymation. Or Fingerbobs.

I pulled the title directly, but I think he's more asking has CG killed our suspension of disbelief, which I think is actually pretty nail on, and I myself have been guilty of it often. I thought it might be interesting to discuss considering what's been said in the Iron Man thread, and I think the article makes some valid points, when do we start paying so much attention to such minor things at the expense of a great story?

I look at classic Doctor Who and compare it to the new ones, the effects are so different that I know some newer viewers who can't even bother to watch five minutes, but I love every second, not only despite the effects, but partially BECAUSE of them. By the same token, I watch Spider-Man 3 and can't stand the effects, despite the fact they're shiny and new, it just looks so half arsed to be, there feels like there's no craft, but surely I should be enjoying the storyline (well, I would be if the story had been good enough).

[METALMAN]

I never noticed this before I read this article, but now after reading it I get the feeling that I'm going to notice things like this in every CG film I watch.

[Toe]

I don't think that CGI has killed our suspension of disbelief. In movies where it is done well or not overly used, CGI can make it easier for us to suspend our disbelief, making the scene look more realistic. Really, a giant killer ape looks more realistic as a computer generated image then it does as a clay figure or a man in a suit.

Too often however the CGI is too shiny or sticks out too much from it's real surroundings. If, like in Star Wars, everything is CGI and digital, then it actually is good. But in some movies, mediocre CGI just distracts you.

When you see something in a movie for the first time, you shouldn't immediately be saying "Oh, that's CGI", but instead noticing the action or the character. Too often the CGI is overpowering and distracting.

[Skummy]

CG can be fantastic, if it's integrated well you don't even notice it - it's bad or over-the-top CG that's the problem. It goes the same for pretty much any technical aspect of film-making, the average person doesn't notice it unless it's done badly. Personally, I'm not a fan of CG as a kind of get-out clause - I don't like The Hulk being CG, I don't like so much of Spiderman being CG, because I want to know that somebody suffered for their art, I want to know that some poor bloke's been suspended on wires for two hours to get this particular shot, as time-consuming and brilliant a craft as CG animation is (I'm good friends with a 3D animator, and it's not uncommon to see him spending two hours getting an eyebrow movement just right), knowing that something was all done on computers just doesn't have the "magic".

Also, I fucking love stop motion, so anything that leads to less of that is a bad thing in my view.

[Momo]

CG has not killed our imaginations. He even says in paragraph 3 that he envisioned Sandman differently. If anything, it's fostering our imaginations.

CG killing suspension of disbelief though, is something I'm not sure about. I've never gone to a movie and expected every little detail to be spot on. While I do complement a films CGI for looking so realistic, I rarely say how shit it looks. How could I when I watch shows like Transformers: Beast Wars, and things like Appleseed. It would be incredibly hypocritical of me, and I'd like to think I'm not a hypocrite.

[stokeriño]

Here's a question: why do so many CG 'monsters' (or similar) do that stretchy, rubbery jaw thing when it just looks crap and unrealistic? ¬_¬ Just because they did it in The Mummy, it didn't mean everyone else had to copy.

I would also have to say that, snazzy ultra blockbuster films aside, the genre of horror is probably the one that's suffered the most from the introduction of CG. Why bother bringing the creepy when you can through a big ugly thing at the screen accompanied by loud noises?

Edited May 7, 2008 by Gul Stokeriño

[Hutch2004]

Look at the Star Wars trilogy. Models= awesome, CGI= terrible and fake looking. I'd rather them use something physical if they can, rather than just doing the whole thing on CGI, purely because I think it looks better on film if there's actually something there.

[Toe]

Look at the Star Wars trilogy. Models= awesome, CGI= terrible and fake looking. I'd rather them use something physical if they can, rather than just doing the whole thing on CGI, purely because I think it looks better on film if there's actually something there.

I think that really only applies to The Phantom Menace. The way they shot those movies, having a ton of CG monsters and things fit in and didn't look out of place.

[Maxx]

I look at it more in terms of Alien, Aliens and Predator 1 and 2 Vs Aliens Vs Predator. The first batch were all men in suit or animatronic and it looked great and for the most part still does. AVP was just a shitty CGI fest for the most part.

CGI doesn't ruin imaginations when its used properly. Films that are totally CGI are great for the most part, its a matter of making sure then when you're intergating CGI into live action films it doesn't look like crap, thats how you ruin the illusion.

I'm wondering if the rise of Blu Ray is going to cause a problem with this sort of thing. I was checking out Pirates of the Carribean 2 in the Sony store on Blu Ray. All the actors and such look spectacular and like they're standing in the room with you, but because of that, it made scenes with the Kraken look like absolute shit since everyone looks so real, CGI really stands out and becomes much more obvious

[TGC]

It is the nature of the beast.

CGI killed nothing, especially our imaginations. If you want to see if your imagination still runs wild and is good go read a good book, especially something by Lovecraft. That will test your imagination.

What GOOD CGI has done is show us that there is a difference between awesome houses doing lavish shots and so so houses doing highly budgeted shots. Not every film needs CGI, hell I'd venture to say that over 75% of films don't need any grand CGI shots. If anything we have a generation of directors who are willing to take the easy way out, and yes CGI is that compared to hours on end with SFX and people in suits, rather than doing what is right for the film. LOTR, Iron Man, Pirates, The Hulk(s), those all basically are helped by CGI. When Kevin Smith is using a CGI sheep in Jay And Silent Bob, we have a problem.

[Farmer Reil]

I definitely don't think CGI has killed our imagination. As others have said, that's the wrong word to use. Suspension of disbelief, maybe, but even then... only in some cases.

When the CGI is used only where it's *needed*, and is done to a standard that doesn't distract the viewer from the story, I don't think it's a bad thing at all. The monsters in AvP2: Requiem (for example) looked fantastic, and while the effects in Star Wars were never brilliant, they definitely weren't a distraction (Chewy, C3P0 and R2-D2 are good example of times when CGI wasn't needed, so it wasn't used. If the first Star Wars film was made nowadays, they'd probably have been CGI, and would probably be crap).

Beowulf, on the other hand...