Avatar

Isn't that way more an indictment of the overabundance of shoddy CGI in movies?
That's what annoys me! These overbearing toyetic properties!

Seriously speaking, i had an discussion with my close friend that he told me that this was the reason why many filmmakers don't opt for making movies in 3D. That might harm the eyes of human. I don't know how far its true. But making a wild assumption, if we frequently watch all the movies in 3D, there is a possibility of losing our eye sight.

Nope: stereoscopic viewing (which is the Viewmaster technique) was already in vogue in the 1890s as a gimmick.
It's actually developed from photography, and crossed over into salon talks and oddities, which is closer to games than to films, I'd say.

But the whole point to my mind is neither here nor there.
3D -as some seem to forget- is HOW WE HAPPEN TO PERCEIVE THINGS.
So I'd say it's the NATURAL way of looking at things.

Now there's a HUGE challenge to translate that properly into any other medium (photo, film or game), and make sure there's no overabundance of data, and a linear and logical perception. Make no mistake: there's as much work to be done here on the psychological and the physical/physics level as there is on the purely technical one!

Natural it is alright. But i am not sure how cinematic its values are in reality.



I am not against it. I am worried 'cause the rise of technology in cinemas equals a rapid increase of output and a rapid drop of quality during the last 10 years or so. Is that truth, or not? The same applies to film music too.

Well, I can see D.'s point, up to a certain point: CGI was hailed as the greatest thing since stereo, and it's only truly enriched movie history in a very few select cases, even though it's being used and abused in everything from cartoons to sci-fi spectacles to historical romance.

One of the things that I found utterly spellbinding about the film Moon was the utter lack of CGI and the use of models. (I didn't know: I only learned this after I'd seen the film and raved about how good it looked).
I don't care what anyone says: you can see it, and it does make a difference. The depth, dimension and perceived massiveness registers on some level. I have no idea on the psychology of it, but it'd make for a fine thesis, I think!

Psychology is where all our technologies in the audio visual area are based so yeah, good point.

But that's the thing everybody is arguing: it has no values in and of itself.
It's just a technique.
It's there.
Without any moral or aesthetic compass.

It can be used.
It can be abused.
A with most any other technological development.

Now I'm as weary as the next guy on how it'll be used primarily (hell, the first run of 3D in the fifies/sixties also only saw cheapie horror and sci-fi flicks in 3D as these rendered the most opportunity for exploding spaceships and axes being thrown at your head), but I'm not holding that against the technique proper.

In fact, I'd be fascinated to be able to see (though it's likely I never will ) a full-immersion story.
Can you imagine -for example- the likes of Jurassic Park, where you'd be IN the jungle?
The 3D would never be the star... the story, and the dinosaurs are...but it'd add -quite literally- a marvellous extra dimension.

Best proof of that is that I saw the film in regular 2D, and there was no "slow point" in the narrative that was clearly created just to "show off" 3D.

There are actually bits and pieces of CGI in MOON too, both in the outdoor scenes and - amazingly - the Artifical Intelligence "GERTY"! It's all very seamless, though.

Indeed. The overuse and abuse of new technologies or the total dependence on it with no substance, is what brings shallowness and lack of depth in cinema.

Everytime I hear people say "Oh my god, look, it´s all CGI. That´s bad. God curse CGI", I cringe.

It´s true that the rise of CGI has changed movie-making, a lot. But there were always those trash movies. During the Seventies and Eighties, it were those monster movies with bad prosthetics and effects, the SciFi trash. These days, even trash movies have high production values and look great. That´s why it´s harder to say beforehand what´s trash and what´s not. I don´t think we get more trash, I think we get better looking trash that´s sold as A-movies but is indeed nothing but C or D storywise. Also, a lot of filmmakers have to get accustomed to the fact that CGI alone won´t save your movie if the story is bad. Lucas fell into that trap. I doubt Cameron will do the same, but we´ll have to see.

What I do not and will not support is the point of view where CGI enhanced movies are bad because of the CGI itself. Some things wouldn´t have been possible (or would have looked ridiculous) if done with standard effects. But beside that, I think we can seperate four different kinds of CGI movies.

1) Invisible & Enhancing CGI
There are those which use CGI only as a support to get things done. Filming in L.A. and inserting CGI skyscrapers to make us believe we´re in New York falls into that category, as do the ping pong balls in Forrest Gump, and I think we would all agree that this kind of stuff is great and fantastic. Altering the reality to make us believe we´re in a different time (like early 20th century New York, for example), is a subcategory, unless it creates a specific artistic view like London in Sweeney Todd or Rome in Gladiator, then it falls under category 2.

2) Massive World-building
The CGI is used to create a totally different environment. Depending on the quality of the CGI or the artistic view of the director, this can either work or not. Personally, I find this to be one of the most amazing things to do with CGI, and one of the best reasons to do it. After all, setting the stage at another time or world is a part of entertaining storytelling, and CGI is the only technique that makes it possible. Bigatures, as the miniatures for LOTR were called, are another possibility, but they always need CGI enhancement for support, so CGI is the way to go. Even if the director forgets that a story needs likable characters doing interesting stuff, I can totally feel entertained just by watching this strange and different place IF the CGI is done well and believable. As much as the SW prequels suck story- and characterwise, I could spend hours watching details and looking at the beauty of the worlds of the SW universe. I´m sorry, but the old trilogy never looked as if they were on another world (Dagobah being the one exception); this is where the new trilogy truly shines and does what it does best. King Kong has the same quality. I expect Avatar to fall into the same category, with the 3D as an additional method of enhancement. It´s there where I see the best use and the assumed greatness of the tech, showing us things we can not ever see in any other way.

3) CGI as Story
In this category, CGI is used to drive the story. What happens on screen is mainly supported by CGI. 2012 would be the most obvious current choice, but I strongly believe that this is no bad thing either. If the story is strong, nothing speaks against this technique. My proof? Jurassic Park. And the Riddick movies with their astrophysics problems which are just genius. Of course, Avatar will rely heavily on CGI to enhance the story, but as I see it, it is another part of showing us this strange new world. There just IS no normal life to fight with or against, so they have to use CGI creatures. This is why I don´t think Avatar falls under the gimmicky CGI category.

4) Pixar & Co.
Toy Story. Ice Age. Final Fantasy. Totally CGI-created world. Nuff said. No bad thing either.

So, what now? I think CGI is a great tool to help and enhance making films of EVERY kind of genre. There are hundreds of movies out there which use CGI just to enhance this or that element which you just don´t notice, and I applaud them for that. And when used to create new worlds and new civilizations, CGI artists are able to show me what Roddenberry made me dream about since thirty-five years ago.

It´s just in those CGI spectacle movies where CGI is a gimmick that´s used to sell us something we would never look at otherwise (2012). They look great, they are sold as A-movies, but the truth is, they are the trash of the 21st century. And I can live perfectly with that, since that´s hardly the majority of movies released. Just because they are seemingly everywhere that doesn´t mean that they stand for what CGI is about. As a matter of fact, I think there are just a dozen or so each year.

But there are so many good examples for use of CGI that I can´t see why anyone would doubt that the rise of CGI was a bad day for storytelling. Beside the fact that there are still hundreds of movies coming out each year which have no CGI at all and just tell their little or great story as good or as bad as ever.

Now let´s talk again about the question whether 3D truly is a danger to good storytelling...

Two different things again:
God curse CGI? Not a bit of it. CGI can be used to wonderful effect (witness, like you say, it's supporting role in films like Jurassic Park or any other film where CGI aspects are blended seamlessly with a true-life background.)

I completely disagree with you on the world-building thing, though. which always looks plastic to me (case in point Jackson's King Kong where -in wry contrast to other versions- nothing BUT the ape looks real!). But then we butted heads over this before.

To me the best use of CGI is a supportive one, and in that capacity true visionary visual styles for films are now possible.
Lucky us!

Existing locations, suitably "coloured up".
California was a great Endor. Norway a great Hoth. El Teide a great neolithic landscape.
Et cetera.

The only benefit of full CGI landscapes is that you can do things that actually do not exist (and therefore by very definition will look unreal. Which is fine). But recreating existing landscapes (jungles, lava, rocks) without incorporating real-life elements simply has never looked convincing enough to me.

Snow covered mountains are cool.