Poll Have we reached oversaturation of CGI in Film and TV?

[valkyrie013]

Okay, we can do almost anything in CGI now adays, looking at Avatar, pretty much a whole movie, photo realistic.
But, that comes at a HUGE cost.
Cgi is a 3 point triangle, Cost, Time, Quality.. PICK 2!

Now, Cgi can look great, look at alot of the pre 2020 Marvel, almost a peak during Endgame.
But, if you look at the latest Flash movie, ( or honestly a good chunk of DC movies) the quality of the CGI isnt that great.
CGI is useful, helps tell a story, but to me, there has been an over reliance on it, and seeing how there working the people who do the CGI ( Run Ragged) and having alot of burn out, perhaps studios need to step back, make sure there not over working there people, and producing quality CGI.
Then thrers the over reliance of CGI in the first place, movies etc. don't do practical effects that much, though there is a turn to go back to more practical, and use CGI sparingly, or as a helper, not a crutch. Alot of the "Super Suits" are almost all cgi, or part cgi. Gone are the days, if you want to show batman jumping out of a plane, you get a stunt guy in a bat suit and have them Jump out of a Plane! now its just kinda bad CGI.

 

[Owain Taggart]

It depends on the type used. I think many people forget that CGI is also used in a supportive state where they don't want people to notice it's been used and most of the time one wouldn't know unless it's been pointed out. Heck, even a show like Heartland has used CGI extensively.

But I think when CGI is front and center and used to wow people, I think it can come to the point where it will be unsustainable. We used to say CGI was cheap, but then we're always pushing the envelope to get more and more eye-popping visuals, which frankly is a short-term gain, and we have more and more of these movies every year, it seems. I do feel movies had better stories when they didn't start to rely on CGI to keep it together.

 

[UssGlenn]

The CGI artists really need a union, there have been movement on that front but not a lot of progress. The problem is, of course, that you can just offshore it. There would have to be some regultory body that would require studios to use union cgi labor. It would be more expensive, but that's a good thing as it would make studios cut back on the amount of CGI. Its easier to erase stuff with CGI than to create something photorealistic from scratch.

 

[Mojochi]

It's not so much the proliferation/oversaturation imho, but that they think we won't notice or care when it's being used hackishly is the insult, like it's a cheat code for quality production standards. How often I see memes lamenting how the original Jurassic Park's FX somehow hold up better than a lot being done today, when they mostly have forgotten that it wasn't just CGI in that film, but rather a whole industry of varied FX artists working collectively/in conjunction with the production to render as believable an outcome as possible, however the processes best broke down, for each given circumstance.

It has convinced me that that forgone era had reached something of a zenith in production values, & now we're just kind of in the wake of a whole lot of pablum derived from its watered-down recipe, but it's an ever-continuing industry. Things alter it all the time, so there's still opportunities to see it & anything else be used well in the future. Even if it seems like there's too much of it, or hackneyed, it's the preeminent tool now. So the idea should be to find the best ways to make it worthwhile.

 

[Snaploud]

I've heard that a lot of the problems with third acts in Marvel movies is that they are filled with CGI battles largely designed without the input of directors or writers. There are a lot of reasons given (from movie series cohesiveness in tone to directors not knowing how to manage CGI), but the end result is the story taking a back-seat to the spectacle.

 

[publiusr]

A lot of CGI is invisible…little fixes in post’

 

[Mojochi]

I've heard that a lot of the problems with third acts in Marvel movies is that they are filled with CGI battles largely designed without the input of directors or writers. There are a lot of reasons given (from movie series cohesiveness in tone to directors not knowing how to manage CGI), but the end result is the story taking a back-seat to the spectacle.

And this is why it's real easy to look at Martin Scorcese bad mouthing those movies as not cinema & see nothing but old man yells at cloud, but he is in fact uniquely experienced, authoritatively knowledgeable, & most importantly, not entirely wrong, because it's clear they have crossed into some other entertainment vehicle that's primary product IS spectacle, like a 2-D amusement park.

However, to be fair, cinema has always kind of included that aspect. WTF is a jump scare horror movie if not also a spectacle attraction? If a comedy is trying to make you laugh at orchestrated times, & a tear jerker is trying to jerk out your tears similarly, then part of this medium is spectacle in & of itself, & that means the real debate is about how the industry is going to methodically achieve that goal among its ranks, which is ultimately going to be a battle fought in the union realm, which is what we're seeing unfold right now.

And unfortunately, the art we want to believe this medium is capable of has to be its bedfellow, because even art can be defined in these same terms of spectacle. It's all of those things to us at once, business, industry, art, and spectacle

 

[tonk'peh]

CGI is a tool, and when used effectively it's a great one! It's used in so many subtle ways in film and TV that you wouldn't expect, not just in big superhero battle scenes etc.

That being said....practical effects are also great and I think there is a problem of CGI being used lazily and haphazardly, (often suffering in quality because the artists are overworked and underpaid...) rather than holistically as one of several ingredients working in harmony to make a great movie.

One thing I am definitely not a fan of is the kind of CGI in the 2019 Lion King Remake- AKA, taking when it takes the precedent over interesting and original storytelling, as well as going for ugly and soulless greenscreen ~realism~ over a more stylised approach that resonates more emotionally. Everything in that movie feels fake and insubstantial.

 

[suarezguy]

It's gotten oversaturated, or just saturated, to where that's not a problem Seriously I think there being a lot of it has become very expected, really not considered unusual, and I don't think the quality is really declining but even if it has or in some cases did viewers aren't particularly bothered by there even being a lot of lesser CGI in a movie.

 

[Starkers]

CGI is like any other technology, it's either a benefit or a hazard. If it's a benefit it's not my problem.

 

[valkyrie013]

I forget what movie or series, but it was very recent, One company was doing some CG scenes, but then came down from on high that more would be needed, but the original company couldnt do it, so they hired some other company. That other company worked on a whole different pipeline and software, so everything for the scene from Company 1 had to be transfered and converted for company 2. Now they got the shots out, but they didn't have much time since release dates are set in carbonite.. so the scenes company 2 did looked sub standard. But they were done. Can't blame the CG company, they did there best with whatever time they were given.

Basically, VFX people just need more time to do there work, so they don't get burned out, and then the FX are better