There is CGI and then there is CGI

Makes no difference whatsoever, surely?

It is a pragmatic approach to many [expensive] problems that arise from shooting TV shows and films. I don't care if CGI is used as, from the example video above, it is very well done and means the show is likely to last longer as it is cheaper! :D
 
One of the biggest costs with shooting on location is paying compensation to those affected, cops for security, permits, hell, lawyers writing up contracts for people to sign, agreements for a business to be shut down for a day, or 3.

CGI isn't surprising though as others have mentioned its not really "cgi" in as far as what we generally accept CGI to be.

TO a certain degree theres just SO much tv shot these days it would be ridiculous with every show trying to shoot its stuff on location in New York and LA, half the city would be shut down daily with 50 different shows all having 10 locations per episode every week.

THe by product of so many shows is again that, everywheres already been shot once, or 582 times, so why reshoot the location again when you can just merge the two images.

Its interesting to see a few examples I didn't know about, Episodes is apparently lazy as hell, if I was one of the writers on Episodes and didn't get to film it in LA I'd sue someone :p

To a certain degree its very not noticeable because, for the most part the location isn't particularly important so theres not a huge reason to be looking anywhere other than at the characters. Some shows do it painfully badly, White Collar did it through the beginning of series 2, I think Kelly from saved by the bell was having a kid or something, was clearly never in the same location as her husband and it was WOEFUL green screen merging them together in scenes, literally the worst green screen I've ever seen.

The Lotro stuff is interesting but, not particularly difficult, the only insane scene is the rotating around the table situation where they are making a heck of a lot of effort, more to prove they can do it than actually having to have a scene where the camera moves at that particular time. As in more like the special effects/set team complaining to Jackson they were bored and wanted a challenge, or jackson bet them they couldn't do it than the story being ruined if they couldn't move the camera in that one scene.
 
Dont mind CGI at all when its used just to "fix" things - like to hide cables / wires or add a background in the distance

most cgi is done so badly though, I miss model shots, they actually look more believable
watch blade runners spinner scenes or moons outside stuff its way better than cgi (maybe the whole uncanny valley thing ?)
 
Hate CGI. Most of the time it completely removes the immersion for me. I even prefer movies like Clash of the Titans where the effects are made with plastecine models.

As James May (somewhat) put it when talking about building with lego when you were a child. These days you have all these pre-fabricated pieces that make lego look real when you put it together, where as when I was a kid it was all block shapes and your imagination filled the gaps. Very few sets came with instructions and you used your own brain to create. CGI is fabricated lego. Poor example? Maybe, but it's the best I way I can describe it to my mind.

A little CGI is fine, tidy up some rough edges, maybe add a few elements in. Like in early 90s, films like Total Recall for example (one of my favourite movies) it's not all stunt men, location and suits. There are some subtle little parts in that film that are awesome touches. The scene where the secretary is doing her nails with just a stylus for example.

Yes it's cheaper and easier to make films with CGI, but is that what we want? Would 2001: A Space Odyssey be such a classic if it was mostly done with CGI? Are we no longer impressed with stunt men? No longer impressed with real location explosions/scenery and filming techniques that look mind blowing? I also can't help but think CGI is now over used to cut on expenses and maximise box office profits too.

Over-use of CGI has killed my interest in movies for a good 10 years. No matter how realistic, how accurate... anything. In my mind I don't buy into whatever I'm watching.
 
As others have pointed out, most background replacement type work often tends to be because it would be more expensive and more effort to actually shut an area, insure it and employ all the actors, extras, crew and support staff to do it.

There is also the fact that the land owner or council or what have you might also refuse. That actually happened with the film I'm working on at the moment, despite it being a huge franchise.
 
Scott1990 said:
Really cool video, why does the screen they use have to be green?
Click to expand...
It can be any colour (blue used to be used a lot). I think they use green because it's the furthest from any kind of skin tones, therefore making it easier to separate people in front of the green screen.

Somnambulist said:
Compositing /= CGI
Click to expand...
Why? I'd still say compositing is part of the 'CGI umbrella' in a loose sense. Sure if you're comping shots you're not actually 'generating' images/models but without compositing the CGI would be useless no most instances. What good is a CGI car without being comped into the shot. That's nitpicking anyway.
 
As long as it's done well - which judging by that video it is in a lot of cases - then I have no beef with it being used by TV shows if it enables them to do more elsewhere / save on big budget sets.
 
Cool video bro.
You have now ruined everything :)
Even the Ugly Betty bit was amazing but I suppose it makes sense when she can walk into a green wall in Hollywood but the scene is set in New York (or somewhere).
Those 4 people walking in Russia and they're not there.
I never realised the simplest things are now CGI'd.
Please don't tell me they're not really in The Rovers in Coronation Street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom