CGI in movies loses the realism to me - your opinion

Michael Piziak · 12-21-2022, 08:09 AM

I just turned on the movie "Attack of the Clones," a Star Wars movie.

The movies computer generated graphics, to me, loses the realism of the 1977+ original series, where they used small models to create things like ships....

Upon the 2002 movie opening, immediately, I noticed the star ships looked faked - the computer aided graphics (called CGI?) simply made it look generated.

Then, not far into the movie, Yoda appears on screen and speaks. The CGI used to create Yoda simply looks so fake to me.

Comments, anyone?

Last edited by Michael Piziak; 12-21-2022 at 08:28 AM.

**Sir Nameless** · 12-21-2022, 10:05 AM

Well, it is fake, and I think our brains are remarkably good at picking up visual inconsistencies, even if we can't put our finger on specifically what's wrong. The models can be problematic too (I distinctly remember once seeing a string holding up the Enterprise

) but a least they are real objects with real light falling on them.

I might get pilloried for saying this, but fake-looking CGI is the least of the problems of most of those films. While the visuals were impressive and probably state of the art for the time, I think they must have skimped on the budget lines for "plot" and "character development." For me (and I'd exclude the first two releases from this generalization) they were adrenaline pumps that were sometimes fun in the moment but were unsatisfying at the end.

Kind of like eating an entire pepperoni pizza in one sitting.

**Rondec** · 12-21-2022, 11:09 AM - **1 Like**

There is a reason why movies are rewatchable and it isn't really visuals. It is story, character building, good acting, and things like that -- basically similar stuff to what makes a good book work. All the 3D gimmicks and CGI in the world are just lipstick on a pig when done in service of a poor story.

It's the reason I could watch a movie like Casablanca or even the Princess Bride a hundred times, while Attack of the Clones is done after the first viewing.

What made the first Star Wars trilogy work was not really the puppets and things, but rather the heart that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher brought to the roles and infused an otherwise cliché ridden plot with something more. The newer films "look" better but they don't have the staying power.

Michael Piziak · 12-21-2022, 11:26 AM

Well, for me, in the first 5 minutes of the film, before I even get to any type of plot, the film didn't have a chance, as I felt like the film was flipping back and forth between CGI and real actors on screen. I don't think High Definition, like 1080p and above, do the film any favors either, as these high resolutions give such crystal clear images of the the computerized fakery. The original Star Wars, back around 1977, I actually felt like I was watching a story unfold in outer space - in a galaxy far far away. These new films, with their CGI, though, my brain kept reminding me it was occurring in a studio and on a computer screen.... In the 70's, when they used small models, it looked realistic enough to me to make me think something was occurring in outer space with real space ships...

Last edited by Michael Piziak; 12-21-2022 at 11:32 AM.

**mlag** · 12-21-2022, 02:05 PM - **1 Like**

Both old and new film techniques produce artifacts, if you ask me. Human brain is quite powerfull in analysing... and for sure if you start focusing on it.
To enjoy the movie it’s more important if you got carried away by the story and forget the gimmicks.

There might also be an effect of getting used to (grew up with) the gimmicks style, maybe the old stuff feels more familiar ( hence acceptable ) and the new gimmicks stuff just feels more uncommon to you. I guess a kids generation that grew up with PlayStation and the likes might feel differently, rather the other way around?
I guess my kids perceive a 70ties movie visuals as terrible dated....(indeed often from the first minute they watch). I remember ET (puppet) was ok’ish for them , till they started flying on their bikes...that was soooo fake for them. When watched initially when released, nobody bothered. Few decades later it looks dated, indeed.
So we might need to get trained on computer graphics...( hint : Avatar is out now 😉 ).

**Just1MoreDave** · 12-22-2022, 11:46 AM

My brother used to get a magazine, American Cinematographer maybe, in the late 70s to 80s. They would show the little models and describe the setups for tricky shots. I don't think the articles would be as interesting today.

**luftfluss** · 12-22-2022, 09:05 PM

I think that, specific to the OP's complaint, the issue is that in the original Star Wars movies the aesthetic was set - non-human-played characters are either puppets or animatronics. So when succeeding movies come out and those same characters are now CGI, it could take the viewer out that that "universe" a bit.

**Digitalis** · 12-22-2022, 09:29 PM - **1 Like**

To my eyes sloppy compositing with green screen scenes and discontinuities in lighting are by far the most egregious aspects of current special effects. When the technology was being pioneered there was a need to prove it could work, this resulted in a perfectionist approach which in this day and age is long gone. There are a number of filmmakers that use a lot of practical effects and physical props and it shows as the actors have something to work with. Some actor spoke of George Lucas that if he could use purely CGI actors he would, there were sequences in the clone wars where the set was a giant green labyrinth that the actors had to navigate and react to as if the environment was threatening...it's hard to be convincing when you're surrounded by wall to wall green scenery.

pinholecam · 12-22-2022, 11:35 PM

I find that its not the CGI (or no), but the element of danger is totally false and not there.
The 'get punched till floored' but suddenly gets the energy to win the opponent is overdone till death (as with the Nth time we see a slow-mo avoid the bullet/blade shot )
Blockbusters are all down to an established 'formula' that Hollywood thinks its refined over the years.
Might always hold true too, since a new generation is always there to find these formulas 'fresh'

Movie makers and writers need to think of new ways to bring back the sense that the protagonist may actually die (think Game of Thrones... )
I recall having not ever read/seen "Bridge on the River Kwai" and was so held in suspense as to whether the bridge would be blown...
Same thing with Inception, which I've heard was a good movie but had no clue what the hell it was and no idea if the protagonists would survive or not (or was it actually real / dream ).
(The availability of trailers, spoilers, etc, actually spoil the movie more than promote it imho )

Like photography, it still boils down to a good story, script, cinematography. (not a formula)

Jonathan Mac · 12-23-2022, 05:08 AM

This has been going on for many years. CGI, even if it's good by 2022 standards, and especially in science fiction, just makes everything look fake. Things were better when models were used.

The only real exception that comes to mind is the recent version of Dune, which is superb, and has really beautiful CGI.

Arjay Bee · 12-24-2022, 03:21 PM - **2 Likes**

CGI is very frequently used in movies and is not even noticed. My son is a character rigger for a major CGI studio and has credits in movies that you would not think had CGI in it. And then there are the obvious movies which couldnt have been made without CGI. He worked on a battle scene for Game of Thrones series 6 and was quite pleased when people criticised the scene for the cruelty in the treatment of the horses. The horses were 100% computer generated and people were convinced they were real. The company he worked for received an Emmy award for that battle sequence.

**richard0170** · 12-24-2022, 06:14 PM

Modern movies by and large just suck IMO. There are a number of faults, and they are not down to CGI.:-
1. Poor exposure. Many movies are grossly underexposed for some reason and I find them unwatchable as a consequence
2. Poor plot lines and unbelievable or more egregiously, unsympathetic characters.
3. Politically correct plots.
4. Lack of nuance.
5. Horrid stereotypes

disconnekt · 12-25-2022, 06:06 PM

At least for me, CGI in movies 20+ years ago looked good/great to where in a good chunk of movies didnt really look like cgi, whereas in the last ~10 years or so it looks horrible, even in huge movies.

I think it it due to it being a cost thing, where 20+ years ago it was "this CGI stuff is expensive to do/takes corever to do on computers , lets make sure its what we want & get it right the 1st time!" and it came out great.

Nowadays it feels more like "oh ya, this CGI stuff is cheap/doesnt take that long to do nowadays on a computer, lets just throw something together & shove it out the door." and it speaks for itself when it looks cheap/waaay overdone.

**Digitalis** · 12-25-2022, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by disconnekt

CGI in movies 20+ years ago looked good/great to where in a good chunk of movies didnt really look like cgi, whereas in the last ~10 years or so it looks horrible, even in huge movies.

Case in point, the special effects they used in the original back to the future ( second movie included) hold up surprisingly well.

**Rondec** · 12-26-2022, 04:15 AM

I still remember seeing the original Jurassic Park. It was pretty amazing and while the dinosaurs probably weren't perfect, the movie is well crafted and draws you in.

The most recent Jurassic Park has better looking dinosaurs and is an incoherent mess of a movie. I much prefer Spielberg's original, but it did need CGI to function as well as it did.

Even a movie like Avatar, which is basically all CGI, whether it works for you depends on whether you connect with the story being told, not whether you think these really tall blue people are realistic.

12-21-2022, 08:09 AM	#1
Michael Piziak Closed Account Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: West Virginia Posts: 2,815	CGI in movies loses the realism to me - your opinion I just turned on the movie "Attack of the Clones," a Star Wars movie. The movies computer generated graphics, to me, loses the realism of the 1977+ original series, where they used small models to create things like ships.... Upon the 2002 movie opening, immediately, I noticed the star ships looked faked - the computer aided graphics (called CGI?) simply made it look generated. Then, not far into the movie, Yoda appears on screen and speaks. The CGI used to create Yoda simply looks so fake to me. Comments, anyone? Last edited by Michael Piziak; 12-21-2022 at 08:28 AM.

12-22-2022, 11:35 PM	#9
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	I find that its not the CGI (or no), but the element of danger is totally false and not there. The 'get punched till floored' but suddenly gets the energy to win the opponent is overdone till death (as with the Nth time we see a slow-mo avoid the bullet/blade shot ) Blockbusters are all down to an established 'formula' that Hollywood thinks its refined over the years. Might always hold true too, since a new generation is always there to find these formulas 'fresh' Movie makers and writers need to think of new ways to bring back the sense that the protagonist may actually die (think Game of Thrones... ) I recall having not ever read/seen "Bridge on the River Kwai" and was so held in suspense as to whether the bridge would be blown... Same thing with Inception, which I've heard was a good movie but had no clue what the hell it was and no idea if the protagonists would survive or not (or was it actually real / dream ). (The availability of trailers, spoilers, etc, actually spoil the movie more than promote it imho ) Like photography, it still boils down to a good story, script, cinematography. (not a formula) Last edited by pinholecam; 12-22-2022 at 11:45 PM.

12-24-2022, 03:21 PM - 2 Likes	#11
Arjay Bee Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Horn Island, Torres Straits, Q Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,715	CGI is very frequently used in movies and is not even noticed. My son is a character rigger for a major CGI studio and has credits in movies that you would not think had CGI in it. And then there are the obvious movies which couldnt have been made without CGI. He worked on a battle scene for Game of Thrones series 6 and was quite pleased when people criticised the scene for the cruelty in the treatment of the horses. The horses were 100% computer generated and people were convinced they were real. The company he worked for received an Emmy award for that battle sequence. Last edited by Arjay Bee; 12-24-2022 at 03:29 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax DCU loses current folder	keos	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	15	09-02-2022 08:38 AM
Marketshares for cameras 2020: Canon wins biggest extras, Nikon loses worst	beholder3	Photographic Industry and Professionals	47	08-12-2021 08:14 AM
Modern Monetary Realism	jeffkrol	General Talk	9	08-28-2012 10:54 AM
Processing HDR for realism	mysticcowboy	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	21	07-03-2010 09:19 PM
give me your opinion	namtot	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	06-03-2010 04:57 PM

12-21-2022, 10:05 AM	#2
Sir Nameless Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Mass a chew sits Photos: Gallery Posts: 574	Well, it is fake, and I think our brains are remarkably good at picking up visual inconsistencies, even if we can't put our finger on specifically what's wrong. The models can be problematic too (I distinctly remember once seeing a string holding up the Enterprise ) but a least they are real objects with real light falling on them. I might get pilloried for saying this, but fake-looking CGI is the least of the problems of most of those films. While the visuals were impressive and probably state of the art for the time, I think they must have skimped on the budget lines for "plot" and "character development." For me (and I'd exclude the first two releases from this generalization) they were adrenaline pumps that were sometimes fun in the moment but were unsatisfying at the end. Kind of like eating an entire pepperoni pizza in one sitting.

12-21-2022, 11:09 AM - 1 Like	#3
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	There is a reason why movies are rewatchable and it isn't really visuals. It is story, character building, good acting, and things like that -- basically similar stuff to what makes a good book work. All the 3D gimmicks and CGI in the world are just lipstick on a pig when done in service of a poor story. It's the reason I could watch a movie like Casablanca or even the Princess Bride a hundred times, while Attack of the Clones is done after the first viewing. What made the first Star Wars trilogy work was not really the puppets and things, but rather the heart that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher brought to the roles and infused an otherwise cliché ridden plot with something more. The newer films "look" better but they don't have the staying power.

12-21-2022, 11:26 AM	#4
Michael Piziak Closed Account Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: West Virginia Posts: 2,815 Original Poster	Well, for me, in the first 5 minutes of the film, before I even get to any type of plot, the film didn't have a chance, as I felt like the film was flipping back and forth between CGI and real actors on screen. I don't think High Definition, like 1080p and above, do the film any favors either, as these high resolutions give such crystal clear images of the the computerized fakery. The original Star Wars, back around 1977, I actually felt like I was watching a story unfold in outer space - in a galaxy far far away. These new films, with their CGI, though, my brain kept reminding me it was occurring in a studio and on a computer screen.... In the 70's, when they used small models, it looked realistic enough to me to make me think something was occurring in outer space with real space ships... Last edited by Michael Piziak; 12-21-2022 at 11:32 AM.

12-21-2022, 02:05 PM - 1 Like	#5
mlag Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2021 Location: Zuiderkempen - Grote Netewoud - Belgium Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,397	Both old and new film techniques produce artifacts, if you ask me. Human brain is quite powerfull in analysing... and for sure if you start focusing on it. To enjoy the movie it’s more important if you got carried away by the story and forget the gimmicks. There might also be an effect of getting used to (grew up with) the gimmicks style, maybe the old stuff feels more familiar ( hence acceptable ) and the new gimmicks stuff just feels more uncommon to you. I guess a kids generation that grew up with PlayStation and the likes might feel differently, rather the other way around? I guess my kids perceive a 70ties movie visuals as terrible dated....(indeed often from the first minute they watch). I remember ET (puppet) was ok’ish for them , till they started flying on their bikes...that was soooo fake for them. When watched initially when released, nobody bothered. Few decades later it looks dated, indeed. So we might need to get trained on computer graphics...( hint : Avatar is out now 😉 ).

12-22-2022, 11:46 AM	#6
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	My brother used to get a magazine, American Cinematographer maybe, in the late 70s to 80s. They would show the little models and describe the setups for tricky shots. I don't think the articles would be as interesting today.

12-22-2022, 09:05 PM	#7
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	I think that, specific to the OP's complaint, the issue is that in the original Star Wars movies the aesthetic was set - non-human-played characters are either puppets or animatronics. So when succeeding movies come out and those same characters are now CGI, it could take the viewer out that that "universe" a bit.

12-22-2022, 09:29 PM - 1 Like	#8
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	To my eyes sloppy compositing with green screen scenes and discontinuities in lighting are by far the most egregious aspects of current special effects. When the technology was being pioneered there was a need to prove it could work, this resulted in a perfectionist approach which in this day and age is long gone. There are a number of filmmakers that use a lot of practical effects and physical props and it shows as the actors have something to work with. Some actor spoke of George Lucas that if he could use purely CGI actors he would, there were sequences in the clone wars where the set was a giant green labyrinth that the actors had to navigate and react to as if the environment was threatening...it's hard to be convincing when you're surrounded by wall to wall green scenery.

12-23-2022, 05:08 AM	#10
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,894	This has been going on for many years. CGI, even if it's good by 2022 standards, and especially in science fiction, just makes everything look fake. Things were better when models were used. The only real exception that comes to mind is the recent version of Dune, which is superb, and has really beautiful CGI.

12-24-2022, 06:14 PM	#12
richard0170 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,032	Modern movies by and large just suck IMO. There are a number of faults, and they are not down to CGI.:- 1. Poor exposure. Many movies are grossly underexposed for some reason and I find them unwatchable as a consequence 2. Poor plot lines and unbelievable or more egregiously, unsympathetic characters. 3. Politically correct plots. 4. Lack of nuance. 5. Horrid stereotypes

12-25-2022, 06:06 PM	#13
disconnekt Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: SoCal/I.E. Photos: Albums Posts: 1,699	At least for me, CGI in movies 20+ years ago looked good/great to where in a good chunk of movies didnt really look like cgi, whereas in the last ~10 years or so it looks horrible, even in huge movies. I think it it due to it being a cost thing, where 20+ years ago it was "this CGI stuff is expensive to do/takes corever to do on computers , lets make sure its what we want & get it right the 1st time!" and it came out great. Nowadays it feels more like "oh ya, this CGI stuff is cheap/doesnt take that long to do nowadays on a computer, lets just throw something together & shove it out the door." and it speaks for itself when it looks cheap/waaay overdone.

12-25-2022, 11:42 PM	#14
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by disconnekt CGI in movies 20+ years ago looked good/great to where in a good chunk of movies didnt really look like cgi, whereas in the last ~10 years or so it looks horrible, even in huge movies. Case in point, the special effects they used in the original back to the future ( second movie included) hold up surprisingly well.

12-26-2022, 04:15 AM	#15
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I still remember seeing the original Jurassic Park. It was pretty amazing and while the dinosaurs probably weren't perfect, the movie is well crafted and draws you in. The most recent Jurassic Park has better looking dinosaurs and is an incoherent mess of a movie. I much prefer Spielberg's original, but it did need CGI to function as well as it did. Even a movie like Avatar, which is basically all CGI, whether it works for you depends on whether you connect with the story being told, not whether you think these really tall blue people are realistic.