movies/tv Which movie ruined everything? I'm talking about the CGI revolution.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

I included Transformers and Avatar... Because these two movies I think set the trend for making the excuse that we need CGI over making great stories. I am only talking about setting trends, whether or not you like these movies doesn't matter. I actually like Transformers from 2007, because it was something new and fresh. I could really care less for Avatar, because all Cameron did was just hype the consumer over the technology behind Avatar and used basic storytelling. It wasn't like when Cameron used limited CGI in 1991 for Terminator 2 and having it still hold up today.

 

I am reluctant to go and see Guardians of the Galaxy, even though part of me wants to see it, I don't want to. Why? Because Marvel is not innocent either. I loved watching the phase 1 movies and seeing the Avengers, but that's because we have super heroes/heroines and they were telling a story with the aid of specials effects. I even feel the newer Marvel movies are losing story quality. Movies like Transformers 1 through 4, Avatar, Pacific Rim and all these robot, alien movies are just cgi demos that I think are a waste of money.

 

Did movies like the Dark Knight need massive CGI for it to be good? No we had AAA actors/actresses give their best performance. Are movies like the original Star Wars trilogy hated today because the effects are outdated? No in fact people today love the movies the older they get, because it has charm, relatable characters, a fantasy lore that we can immerse into. I can't inject myself into Avatar, because in spite of all the gorgeous scenery in the movie, in sweet irony, I can't relate to anyone in the movie.

Edited August 7, 2014 by TheMarkz0ne

[boiteporte 591]

Well, Transformers was all about CGI.

 

The scenario was very simple and the characters were totally unrealistic in their behavior.

Avatar was the same.

 

On a general note, nowadays, blockbusters will prioritize CGI over story. Because a lot of people go to cinemas to see awesome special effects, and it's worth a lot of money. 

[Professor Annabella 330]

I am reluctant to go and see Guardians of the Galaxy, even though part of me wants to see it, I don't want to. Why? Because Marvel is not innocent either. I loved watching the phase 1 movies and seeing the Avengers, but that's because we have super heroes/heroines and they were telling a story with the aid of specials effects. I even feel the newer Marvel movies are losing story quality. Movies like Transformers 1 through 4, Avatar, Pacific Rim and all these robot, alien movies are just cgi demos that I think are a waste of money.

-Are you kidding me? Guardians of the Galaxy has a excellent, heart-felt, and classic story that everyone and their mother loves right now. I couldn't give two craps about the effects. Like you said, we all saw them before. CGI is in EVERY SINGLE movie. Why is it that CGI ruins things? I think that advanced effects make the movie better. Yes, there have been times where the only purpose of the movie is to awe you with shiny colors (Micheal Bay), but this is not the case with Marvel. I think Marvel's stories are getting even better, more complex, and awesome, that's what's making them better, not the effects they have been using for years now. The best thing about Marvel is that all their movies tie together, making it even more complex. Guardians of the Galaxy has already tied in with the Avengers via Thanos

 

I can't believe you called some of the best movies of this decade (Not Avatar, Transformers and Pacific Rim. I'm talking about some recent Marvel movies) a waste of money. Well, Disney doesn't think so, they are richer then ever!

Edited August 7, 2014 by Star-Lord

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

Well, Transformers was all about CGI.

 

The scenario was very simple and the characters were totally unrealistic in their behavior.

Avatar was the same.

 

On a general note, nowadays, blockbusters will prioritize CGI over story. Because a lot of people go to cinemas to see awesome special effects, and it's worth a lot of money. 

I know Transformers 2007 is just robots blowing things up. But at least it didn't ruin the Transformers lore. I know many die hard fans of the series who HATED IT, when Revenge of the Fallen came out, because it ruined all the autobots and decepticons personas. Also let's kill Megatron in every movie and just bring him back because we can. He died in 2 out of the 3 movies. He is now Galvatron in T4.

-Are you kidding me? Guardians of the Galaxy has a excellent, heart-felt, and classic story that everyone and their mother loves right now. I couldn't give two craps about the effects. Like you said, we all saw them before. CGI is in EVERY SINGLE movie. Why is it that CGI ruins things? I think that advanced effects make the movie better. Yes, there have been times where the only purpose of the movie is to awe you with shiny colors (Micheal Bay), but this is not the case with Marvel. I think Marvel's stories are getting even better, more complex, and awesome, that's what's making them better, not the effects they have been using for years now. The best thing about Marvel is that all their movies tie together, making it even more complex. Guardians of the Galaxy has already tied in with the Avengers via Thanos

 

I can't believe you called some of the best movies of this decade (Not Avatar, Transformers and Pacific Rim. I'm talking about some recent Marvel movies) a waste of money. Well, Disney doesn't think so, they are richer then ever!

I haven't read or even watched GOTG. I will most likely watch it. But let's use a movie like The Amazing Spiderman and hell even Rami's Spiderman. Why are Spiderman fans so resistant to those movies? Because they love the comics more, you know those single pages with colored panels. 

[Kay Dreamer 884]

@@TheMarkz0ne,

 

You're doing yourself a disservice by not seeing Guardians of the Galaxy. I thought it was great. A little cheesy at times, we all know how much Marvel love their puns... But it was great. Deliberately subverted and mocked audience expectations at every other turn, and when it wasn't doing that it was blindsiding you with emotions.

 

I will say this, though; Guardians makes WAY more sense if you know a little of the background comic lore. The various alien races in Marvel, and their sci/fi fantasy mishmash, are something I thoroughly enjoy about their comics. That made Guardians a great experience for me.

 

As for the two in your poll, I'm voting for Avatar because I never much cared for Transformers in the first place. Although I'm sure you can be adding Ninja Turtles to that list very soon... The preview of that I saw tonight made me want to hurl. Michael Bay wouldn't know a good plot if it beat him over the head.

[Professor Annabella 330]

I haven't read or even watched GOTG. I will most likely watch it. But let's use a movie like The Amazing Spiderman and hell even Rami's Spiderman. Why are Spiderman fans so resistant to those movies? Because they love the comics more, you know those single pages with colored panels. 

Nobody is perfect. I steer away from Spiderman, even though I have read the comics. Marvel has had their movies that were not good, but all the ones in the Avenger's scenario have been pretty damn good

[Jeric 46,834]

 

 

Terminator 2 and having it still hold up today.

 

I'll chime in more later, but I disagree about T2 still holding up. Edward Furlong was horrible as a child actor. I didn't realize this until watching the film a few years ago. Now it's become almost unwatchable specifically because of him.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

Nobody is perfect. I steer away from Spiderman, even though I have read the comics. Marvel has had their movies that were not good, but all the ones in the Avenger's scenario have been pretty damn good

I can respect your choices. Spiderman though is THE Marvel character and is actually up there with the iconic level of Superman or Batman. characters like Iron Man or Thor can't come close to Spiderman, even if you're not a Spidey fan.

Edited August 7, 2014 by TheMarkz0ne

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,151]

The movie that started the CG fad? Goodness, while I loved the third movie, I would blame the Star Wars prequel trilogy.

 

Granted I wouldn't call them awful, but they seemed to have started the whole MUST HAVE CGI phase, if you will.

 

I will mention that I enjoyed Avatar, BUT I have no intentions on seeing Transformers.

[Professor Annabella 330]

I can respect your choices. Spiderman though is THE Marvel character and is actually up there with the iconic level of Superman or Batman. characters like Iron Man or Thor can't come close to Spiderman, even if you're not a Spidey fan.

But as we can see, iconic superheroes aren't doing too good either. Batman's franchise is over, and Superman's is exactly what you said. All Man of Steel was, was CGI action with dull plot.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

The movie that started the CG fad? Goodness, while I loved the third movie, I would blame the Star Wars prequel trilogy.

 

Granted I wouldn't call them awful, but they seemed to have started the whole MUST HAVE CGI phase, if you will.

 

I will mention that I enjoyed Avatar, BUT I have no intentions on seeing Transformers.

How can I forget the prequel trilogy? lol. Well I like them... keyword liked them as a kid. I actually skipped school to see all 3 movies on their opening days. So I guess you could throw those movies in as well. I just think after Transformers, that's when things exploded.

[Jeric 46,834]

Now to address the poll at hand. Jurassic Park started the whole CG fad. It was the first major blockbuster to successfully meld photo realistic CGI elements into cellular film. In fact, the existence of Jurassic Park is why Lucas finally said, "Yep ... time to make more Star Wars". In between both JP and the Star Wars Prequels we had films like Dragonheart, MIB, Godzilla, etc that capitalized on the CGI fad. It became a reasonable and inexpensive way to tell stories on film. The Phantom Menace raised the bar and there was no turning back.

 

Jurassic Park. Kill it and you have a dramatic ripple effect. Who knows what would have happened?

[Fhaolan 4,468]

Heh. The Last Starfigthter, 1984. The first movie to use CGI to represent real-world objects integrated into live-action scenes. Prior to that CGI effects were for backgrounds and the like.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

But as we can see, iconic superheroes aren't doing too good either. Batman's franchise is over, and Superman's is exactly what you said. All Man of Steel was, was CGI action with dull plot.

Bamtan was never bad. Here's the problem with the iconic heroes. 

 

Batman got his massive reboot with Nolan and it was dependent on some minor CG. Superman was ruined by Superman Returns, so Synder and Nolan did Man of Steel and it had a story I cared about and was actually great, not Avengers or Iron Man 2008 quality, but still relevant.

 

Here's where CGI creates issues. Look at DC. DC is forced to shoe horn Batman and Wonder Woman into Man of Steel 2. Because DC needs to have a Justice League movie. So after all that hard work put into Nolan-verse, we have to scrap The Dark Knight(especially the Dark Knight) and then Begins and Rises. Now we have a new Batman, for no justified reason.

Now to address the poll at hand. Jurassic Park started the whole CG fad. It was the first major blockbuster to successfully meld photo realistic CGI elements into cellular film. In fact, the existence of Jurassic Park is why Lucas finally said, "Yep ... time to make more Star Wars". In between both JP and the Star Wars Prequels we had films like Dragonheart, MIB, Godzilla, etc that capitalized on the CGI fad. It became a reasonable and inexpensive way to tell stories on film. The Phantom Menace raised the bar and there was no turning back.

 

Jurassic Park. Kill it and you have a dramatic ripple effect. Who knows what would have happened?

I should have gone back farther. Jurassic Park didn't ruin anything though. It used special effects to aid the story of surviving on an island full of Dinosaurs. Avatar had no life in the CGI in spit of all the detail put into the film. Also, Lucas wanted to do the prequels regardless, Jurassic Park didn't matter. In fact, if Lucas didn't rush the prequel trilogy so he can compete with Titanic, we possibly could have had, slightly better prequel movies.

[Professor Annabella 330]

Bamtan was never bad. Here's the problem with the iconic heroes. 

 

Batman got his massive reboot with Nolan and it was dependent on some minor CG. Superman was ruined by Superman Returns, so Synder and Nolan did Man of Steel and it had a story I cared about and was actually great, not Avengers or Iron Man 2008 quality, but still relevant.

 

Here's where CGI creates issues. Look at DC. DC is forced to shoe horn Batman and Wonder Woman into Man of Steel 2. Because DC needs to have a Justice League movie. So after all that hard work put into Nolan-verse, we have to scrap The Dark Knight(especially the Dark Knight) and then Begins and Rises. Now we have a new Batman, for no justified reason.

See, the problem is that DC doesn't have a multi-billion dollar empire backing them. Disney is just getting stronger, and stronger, and richer, and richer. There is a contract already signing all the actors on for a 3RD Avengers movie, and all the movies that have to happen before that! I think DC already lost.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

See, the problem is that DC doesn't have a multi-billion dollar empire backing them. Disney is just getting stronger, and stronger, and richer, and richer. There is a contract already signing all the actors on for a 3RD Avengers movie, and all the movies that have to happen before that! I think DC already lost.

That isn't the point though. Warner Brothers can still compete with Disney. When I said waste of money earlier, I meant lets use that money to make us healthier. At Bronycon 2014, I was only safe, because I was in the convention center. I love entertainment and having fun, but after being in Baltimore, imagine what could happen if we spent that cgi money on cleaning cities, roads and making living situations better?

[Digit 321]

I can respect your choices. Spiderman though is THE Marvel character and is actually up there with the iconic level of Superman or Batman. characters like Iron Man or Thor can't come close to Spiderman, even if you're not a Spidey fan.

The spiderman movie rights are owned by sony entertainment they have time and time again missed the mark on their renditions of spidy.

 

The first trilogy was a please the mass kind of situation go with what people on a general level know. They made parker to be an unlikeable nerd who time and time agian miss used the "powers" he got. All 3 of the moviea felt convoluted and badly paced.

 

The new ones though they gwt alot more right and true to the comics they still fall a bit short i enjoy them more but i still feel something missing.

 

Now as for the orginal post about cgi where i do agree tjat ideas in hollywood have become stale and over used i wouldnt equiate that to cgi. Cgi is just the next step. It has allowed movie makers to create worlds that are far more than a desert with 2 suns. GoTG was a masterpiece in story telling, character growth and cgi. Without cgi we would have never gotten a good hulk movie (we wouldnt have had to experiance the other ether but i digress) Avatar cgi was absolutely mind bogglingly but its story was just dances with wolfs but with blue people. Cgi doesnt ruin a movie poor script writing, casting and direxting ruin a movie.

 

Look at airbender m.night shatupapon destroyed that were the cgi was good none of the other choices were.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

Just to let everybody now, I'm not this guy right here in regards to CG and it's usage.

 

http://blip.tv/confused-matthew/the-avengers-miniview-6614257

Edited August 7, 2014 by TheMarkz0ne

[Digit 321]

That isn't the point though. Warner Brothers can still compete with Disney. When I said waste of money earlier, I meant lets use that money to make us healthier. At Bronycon 2014, I was only safe, because I was in the convention center. I love entertainment and having fun, but after being in Baltimore, imagine what could happen if we spent that cgi money on cleaning cities, roads and making living situations better?

Currently entertainment is americas number 1 export on top of that the use of cgi is far cheaper than you would think. The reasons the movies are so expencive ia because of the actors. Also a states problems are not hollywoods problems if anything it creates movie opportunities.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

Currently entertainment is americas number 1 export on top of that the use of cgi is far cheaper than you would think. The reasons the movies are so expencive ia because of the actors. Also a states problems are not hollywoods problems if anything it creates movie opportunities.

So you're advocating that hollywood has the right to garner money and just idly let people suffer? 

[Digit 321]

So you're advocating that hollywood has the right to garner money and just idly let people suffer?

 

Yep they made the money and ghey paid the taxes on it. There fore they dont have to give a crap. Capitalism its whats for dinner.

[TheMarkz0ne 962]

Yep they made the money and ghey paid the taxes on it. There fore they dont have to give a crap. Capitalism its whats for dinner.

Corporations, like churches are tax exempt, but I digress. 

[Digit 321]

Corporations, like churches are tax exempt, but I digress.

 

....well that was posted and a face palm just isnt enough so

 

 

[Nulln 754]

I haven't seen either of those.

 

 The movie that was ruined by CGI for me was Alvin and the Chipmunks.  That was one of my favorite shows as a kid, and I was so excited when I heard they were making a new movie.  And then I saw the chipmunks.  My cute little chipmunks turned so ugly    Even worse, they brought in the chipettes.  They were my beautiful role models as a child, And now they looked... I don't even think hideous could describe what they did to my sweet little Eleanor.  

[Digit 321]

I haven't seen either of those.

 

 The movie that was ruined by CGI for me was Alvin and the Chipmunks.  That was one of my favorite shows as a kid, and I was so excited when I heard they were making a new movie.  And then I saw the chipmunks.  My cute little chipmunks turned so ugly    Even worse, they brought in the chipettes.  They were my beautiful role models as a child, And now they looked... I don't even think hideous could describe what they did to my sweet little Eleanor.

 

With movies like alvin and the smurfs they really shouldnhave made the whole movie cgi aniamtion. I think if it was simply a 3d cartoon they could have made it fun and avoides the disturbing look of sentiant realistic look chipmunks. Dreamworks probally could have done an amazing thing with both franchises.