web counter
 

Once Again CGI Ruins Everything: The First Five Minutes Of Spielberg's "Falling Skies"

By Joanna Robinson | Posted Under Videos | Comments (23)

falling-skies-noah-wyle.jpeg

In their previous articles about the upcoming TNT series “Falling Skies,” Pajiba writers and geek lords TK and Steven Lloyd Wilson registered their skepticism about leading man Noah Wyle. I believe the term “Librarian-shaped handicap” was bandied about. Judging by the just-released first five minutes of the show, old Doc Carter there isn’t the problem. Listen (not having scene those Librarian TV movies), I like Noah Wyle. He was great in The Myth of Fingerprints and the first eleven hundred seasons of “ER.” The problem, as far as I can see it, are the stupid CGI aliens. You let me know what you think.


[via /Film]

Oh sure, they dodge a bit of scrutiny by scuttling around in a dust cloud, but, ultimately, I think they look like stupid spider crabs. Possibly tasty in my sushi, but not at all terror-inducing. But, then again, I will concede my bias. I hate CGI. I loathe it. I find nothing endearing, convincing or terrifying about it. Those Prawns from District 9? I thought they looked fookin’ stupid. Sharlto Copley as Wikus was incredible, but the shitty CGI prevented me from caring when I was supposed to care and trembling when I was supposed to tremble.

district-9.jpeg

You know what’s scary? This will make me sound approximately 100 years old, but get off my non-CGI blades of grass, I don’t care. Puppets are f*cking scary. Remember puppets? Remember when hours and hours of meticulous craftsmanship went into scaring the bejaysusAlien_(1986)_-_Alien_queen.jpeg out of you? That unimpeachable source, Wikipedia, has this to say about the pants-wettingly scary Alien Queen from Aliens. “Standing at fourteen feet, it was operated using a mixture of puppeteers, control rods, hydraulics, cables, and a crane above to support it. Two puppeteers were inside the suit operating its arms, and sixteen were required to move it. All sequences involving the queen were filmed in-camera with no post-production manipulation.” Do hours and hours of meticulous work go into CGI? Of course they do. Did I find Gollum from LOTR pretty impressive? Of course I did. But I give most of that credit to Andy Serkis.

The most staggeringly gorgeous film I have seen in the last decade is Tarsem Singh’s The Fall which features jaw-droppingly beautiful locations and meticulously choreographed fight scenes and, according to the director, almost zero CGI. Watch that film on Netflix Instant and then tell me any computer generated Avatardation looked as good to you.

the_fall_movie_03.jpeg

Whether you love or hate CGI, I heartily reccomend you check out Cracked’s fantastic article 8 Move Special Effects You Won’t Believe Aren’t CGI. Not only do those effects look better, the amount of creativity that went into them is actually inspiring.

Okay, you know what, you’re probably right, I shouldn’t be so harsh on CGI. You say it still has the power to scare? I’ll agree. The most fearsome movie image I saw this year was pure CGI, and it still haunts my nightmares.

Tweeted_tron_legacy_young_jeff_bridges.jpeg

Joanna Robinson would like someone (preferably Lee Pace) to help her off this soapbox, lest she fall. Email! Twitter!









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← The Conspirator Review: Surratt/Merde | Sing This Corrosion to Me: Bellflower Teaser →









Comments

Couldn't find a contact, but I assume y'all have heard.

For the Doctor Who fanatics, we lost a great one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news/bulletin_110419_01/Elisabeth_Sladen

Posted by: JenCanRead at April 19, 2011 4:53 PM

The problem with most CGI, 'people' CGi in particular, is that all the technology has made CG artists lazy. OR probably more likely, had made producers happy. Happy not to have to rely on more creatives. The shiny, young Lebowski up there is the perfect example.

We, as artists, know how mouths work, we know how eyes should look, and quite often we are allowed to get it right. Check out Dude Jr's mouth up there. No one can yell as loudly as he was in that scene and still have a slight smirk in the corner of their mouths. No one can yell like that and keep their eyes calmly open as though they're reading the evening's Tivo list.

The technology allows industry whoevers, artist, producers, whoever had their hand in it, to be lazy and allow the computer to do the work. Little dots and billion dollar computers can't be wrong, right?

The hand of the artist is gone, a la the puppeteers mentioned above. Henson was a genius because he could give life with his hands. If an artist were allowed to actually go in and tweak the all-mighty computer's data and repair the failings in the Pwetty Pwetty Dot system they've got going, then it's possible that the "life" in them wouldn't seem so dead.

Unless you put micron sized dots over the entire actor's face, there's no possible way to get all the subtleties of human expression and movement when the reference points are inches apart. Body movement is even worse, as those PPD reference points are often even further apart. Even Avatard's special features shows how flawed this is, if you know what you're seeing. It was intended to be used as reference, with CG artists fine-tuning in post. I believe the fine-tuning has been all but eliminated.

But why should a director or producer or moneyman want to further tweak what he's been told is the end-all-be-all of special effects? Until it's proven with an actual product, no corp-wonk is going to believe that an invalid could possibly keep up with Cyberdine tech. They are going to take the very expensive PPD data and plug it in.

Speculation on my part, of course. I've no doubt that artists do sweeten the material a good bit once it's been uploaded, but it truly seems like the very things that convince our brains that these are people, are being overlooked for smoothing facial creases and adding pretty luminous stripes.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 19, 2011 5:02 PM

Linda Hamilton was a twin?! nowai!1!

Posted by: Protoguy at April 19, 2011 5:12 PM

I thought the cgi in District 9 was excellent, Joanna. We're through....for today. I'll read you tomorrow.

Posted by: dna at April 19, 2011 5:14 PM

journeying into the uncanny valley is always scary, but I thought what they did to create a young Bridges was pretty well done, and innovative. i was surprised at the amount of vitriol it recieved.

i lean more to the practical effect side of the spectrum, usually a pretty far lean, but well integrated quality CGI can be pretty good. it's just there are a lot of crappy movies that utilize CGI with all the power and skill as every other aspect of a shitty film.

I wonder, for people who are younger than cgi, who watched computer effect films as children--during that greatest time of imagination and susceptibility--if they end up with basic programming to accept cgi so that it engages and amazes them more than those who were already into adulthood before Jurassic Park(which was genius blending of puppets and cgi).

I mean, the prawns seemed more realistic than the 1933 king kong, so why do i get more thrilled and excited by the claymation? (and I thought the prawns were a great example of quality cgi, integrated in a story interacting with actors). I don't look forward to the visual spetacle of a cthulu because The Thing has already made me shit my pants about a thousand times. and the lightning action of Underworld scores an absolute zero next to poor David Kessler being savagely transformed.

I don't like to knock CGI. A lot of creative people work hard to bring the magic. And they achieve absolutely incredible things. It just doesn't blow my mind, ignite my imagination and get me wanting to hear how they did it the way puppets, animatronics, pyrotechnics, trick lighting, etc., etc., does.

Posted by: idleprimate at April 19, 2011 5:15 PM

protoguy, while i hesitate to step into the shoes of a computer effect defender, if you think about peter jackson's king kong--whatever you thought of the movie--that ape was a great 'actor' the things that went on with its face and body language, are inspired genius.

i hesitate too, to write off the effects houses as worthless because they are autobots driven by soulless bean counters. the house of mouse was an assembly line of driven slaves, and I'm sure there are endless rows of cubicles at pixar and maybe you couldn't tell the difference between a call centre and the place they make the effects for the pirates of the carribean movies.

a movie is as good as the synthesis of all its parts. Henson house had armies of people painting puppets, models and backdrops. they also had a visionary director and dedicated performers. is pixar so different?

Posted by: idleprimate at April 19, 2011 5:22 PM

Oh, JoRo, I know it's comedic hyperbole, but CGI doesn't ruin everything. The people (like Protoguy talked about) who create poor CG imagery are the ruiners. CGI is just a tool, like puppetry and animatronics, and if you can, there's no reason not to use it to help tell your story. CGI can enhance practical effects, or help execute actions that would be utterly impossible to achieve in reality (or, at least, impossible to achieve from a particular angle you want to capture). But, CGI shouldn't be your story. Even Pixar knows that.

Posted by: RobP at April 19, 2011 5:36 PM

Hmm! "idleprimate" defending the ape in King Kong. Not the most balanced of perspectives.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 19, 2011 5:37 PM

Wow. The CGI was so bad in that I couldn't get past a minute. It looks like it was drawn by little kids with crayon or something.

Posted by: Paultera at April 19, 2011 5:39 PM

@paddydog, now i've gone snorted coffee out my nose onto my keyboard

Posted by: idleprimate at April 19, 2011 5:43 PM

Sorry idleprimate, I couldn't resist.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 19, 2011 5:56 PM

Have any of you folks seen the new Facial Animation tech that Rockstar's breaking out for their new title LA Noire?

It might just be the kick in ass that Hollywood needs to get them to cut it with the creepy facial CGI. That means YOU Rob Zemeckis!

Posted by: MurderBot at April 19, 2011 6:17 PM

Rob Bottin's practical effects for John Carpenter's The Thing stand without equal. There isn't one frame of that film that CGI could improve or make more "realistic".

Which doesn't bode well for the prequel, I assume.

Posted by: Barry at April 19, 2011 6:32 PM

OK, yeah, I think the takeaway here is (if you clicked on the Cracked article):

LINDA HAMILTON HAS A TWIN????

That's kind of cheating, in my opinion. (We didn't use CGI because she has an IDENTICAL TWIN SISTER. Boy howdy does that come in handy.)

Also, I generally turn up my nose at overt CGI, but I found the CGI in District 9 to be very convincing. Huh. Different strokes, I guess.

Posted by: MM at April 19, 2011 6:38 PM

oh, how the mighty have fallen. joanna, joanna. district 9 was great. all of it. you're just not who i thought you were. ::wipes tear from cheek::

as for fallen skies, i agree the problem might not be noah whatever. it's the whole damn thing. this looks like utter crap. not crap, mind you. utter crap.

and, yes, the fall is one of the most beautiful movies out there. loved it. okay, you're forgiven.

Posted by: splinter at April 19, 2011 7:05 PM

How does JoRo defend her Jurassic Park love? Which is it? CGI Sucks or Raptors Rule? WE (politely) DEMAND ANSWERS!

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at April 19, 2011 7:55 PM

For me, it's about gravity.
Weight a puppet properly and gravity takes care of itself.
CGI alway fucks up the gravity because it all has to be put there.
That said, the aliens look like something the Kid Next Door in Toy Story might have come up with.

Posted by: Odnon. at April 19, 2011 8:00 PM

*optimus rhyme: well duh! the dinosaurs in jurassic park are real. it says so in the special features on the dvd.

Posted by: idleprimate at April 19, 2011 8:18 PM

@Idleprimate - I agree completely, and though I can't really confirm it or not, Kong's face and expression shows exactly what I was talking about - that the artists were allowed to go in and do their jobs. It may be that, since Kong was THE reason for the film, that extra time (and money) was gladly spent to make it look as lifelike as possible. Peter Jackson seems like the kind of director who would even insist on that level of attention. Other cues, for me at least, are the fact that they uglied up Kong. I can't see your average producer letting that go without a fight. And then, it's Andy Serkis again - so the argument that the actor (artist) underneath Kong raised it to the level of realism shown.

I don't believe CG ruins everything, I believe that budgetary shortcuts, producer shorthand and firectorial short-sightedness contribute to the half-finished look of most attempts.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 19, 2011 9:10 PM

I also admit I'm biased as an artist/designer. Admittedly, there are great producers and bean-counters out there and equally bad artists. I think the culprit at heart in either case is often money or laziness. Laziness at not taking the extra post session to sweeten it up. Money, in that there's not enough to pay for that extra session. The other option is just flat-out hackery. "It's good enough". Like Night at the Museum effects.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 20, 2011 12:04 AM

I could take or leave CGI.
If it doesn't look like CGI then of course it works but most of the time shit looks fake. The most annoying thing to me is CG blood. They can make realistic Dinosaurs but they can't make blood look like real blood???????
I really appreciate when things are done practically. I could not believe that the train scene in INCEPTION was all real. They really had a train going down Downtown Los Angeles. That is much more interesting than sitting at a computer adding layers of code.
As for FALLING SKIES, I don't mind the CG, I mind the creature design. Those crabs don't look like they are capable of the technology they possess.

Posted by: junierizzle at April 20, 2011 12:41 AM

Goodbye, Sarah Jane.

Posted by: The Wanderer at April 20, 2011 4:31 AM

Never mind the CGI, I'm sick of Spielberg making every movie a friggin family drama. He took one of the scariest movies of my childhood, War of the Worlds and ruined it with that family angle.

Also, why lately are all the alien movies about them kicking our asses? I miss the good old 50's alien movies where we stomped the crap out of them after a while.

Life sucks bad enough these days, why watch a movie where we are outgunned by ET at every turn?

Posted by: Max at April 20, 2011 10:32 AM