CGI has ruined movies-discuss...

**Mr Mangoes** · 10-30-2010, 06:44 AM

Lots of films seem to rely on CGI instead of plot, character and acting. I think that's why so many fall short.

**Slothrop** · 10-30-2010, 09:20 AM

The worst has to be the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns

**wammer369** · 11-03-2010, 03:57 AM

I believe Willow, Young Sherlock Holmes, and The Abyss were all before T2.

RegarRAB

Mark

**ldyblucpl** · 11-03-2010, 12:00 PM

Yes, I know. I mentioned films before T2. I just said that it was after T2's success that things started to really kick off and Hollywood took notice.

**Niamh M** · 11-04-2010, 07:30 AM

I'd contend it was The Abyss rather than T2 that gave it the kick up the arse. Although The Abyss, T2 and then Jurrasic Park each in turn took it to a new level.

**sunrise kisser** · 11-04-2010, 07:51 AM

I don't think that The Abyss was very profitable, so although it would have made Hollwood take notice and showcase what could actually be done, I don't think it was until Terminator 2 that they realised that it was financially viable and could work for them as standard industry practice and be hugely profitable in the right hanRAB.

**Hannabug** · 11-04-2010, 02:42 PM

Wiki to the rescue...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...and_television

RegarRAB

Mark

**MeTheTwerd:)** · 11-04-2010, 07:51 PM

I believe Mr Spielberg investigated using CGI for some of the UFO's in the latter parts of CE, but the cost was ridiculously and the results were poor. Check out the documentary on the SE DVD.

CGI cannot be said to have ruined films. The truth is that before CGI became widley available all FX including stunt work were labour intensive and therefore costly. CGI came along and although can take some time to develop, as the techniques have advanced and the resolution of the effects has become more detailed, it has become cheaper and cheaper to include CGI, depending on the quality required for the production. The result is that 'B' movies can include inferior CGI. We might remember the B movie genre with some fondness when thinking about films from the 50s & 60s... the FX used there are every bit as poor and cheap as the CGI used these days. What's the difference?

**Bailey M** · 11-05-2010, 05:42 PM

Mostly for the way it was shot, I think. I've a book of stills from the movie, and when you get a good look at it it's rubbish; clearly a man in a rubber suit. The movie prevents you from getting that good look, which works fairly well in a horror movie.

Personally I prefer SF to horror. I want to see strange sights and imaginative visions. Hiding the monster is a cop-out for me.

**o.Oâ„¢** · 11-06-2010, 03:20 AM

The original Alien works up to the very last few minutes of the film, when all that hard work by Ridley is ruined in 5 seconRAB flat when we're treated to a "obviously a guy in a rubber suit" moment as the Alien bounces off the lifeboat. It looks dreadful and I've always hated that part of the movie.