Could such a thing be likely in our future? Where we can modify CGI films like we do video games? I think it could do for movies what is currently done for video games. You could change what you don't like, for instance. It would also add replayability and interactivity to a movie, giving you a reason to watch it more than once (since, let's face it, movies are, with rare exception, linear [far more than video games]).

Could such a thing be likely in our future? Where we can modify CGI films like we do video games? I think it could do for movies what is currently done for video games. You could change what you don't like, for instance. It would also add replayability and interactivity to a movie, giving you a reason to watch it more than once (since, let's face it, movies are, with rare exception, linear [far more than video games]).

I always said that Citizen Kane could had used more boobs.

I don't think a market for this sort of thing would be very available in any near future. I know I wouldn't be very interested. A movie is too short and limited a format to make altering the bits & pieces I don't like to feel worth the probable time it would take to do it and have it come out well when played back.

 

I mean, I might not like a character in a movie, but the effort to scrub them out of the film and replace the role they fill with some other cgi-creation of my own....no, too much work for the payoff. But then, I'm lazy.

99% of all fully CGI movies are crap. Final fantasy, Beowulf, etc. They look really pretty and cost a lot of money to make, but that alone was never enough.

99% of all fully CGI movies are crap. Final fantasy, Beowulf, etc. They look really pretty and cost a lot of money to make, but that alone was never enough.

 

Yeah, those Pixar chumps are a bunch of chumps.

wall-e or however you spell it was good, but then pixar aren't trying to ape human actors, they are using the tech for something it's better suited for. a lot if cgi animated films do wind up looking generic though. they are too perfect, nothing looks like that other than a cgi film

Wouldn't the bulk of CGI films be the type of stuff we get from Pixar and Dreamworks and whatnot.

 

 

Why does CGI have to mean attempting to bridge the uncanny valley?

 

What's that, you say? My sideburns pasted on in photoshop? Prepostrous!!

 

 

 

 

The uncanny valley is leapt over on a daily basis these days, you just dont notice it when they do it. It's only when someone like Robert Zemeckis tries to do Polar Express, Beowulf, Scrooge etc. that it looks a bit weird. I think they did quite well on Avatar and Davey Jones in the second PotC film was brilliantly done as well.

 

 

And you cant re-render or remake CG films just like that, there is just too much work and trickery that goes into each frame that it's impossible.

Edited December 30, 201015 yr by Kaftan Barlast

Avatar was still a crap movie though.

Avatar was still a crap movie though.

 

You know, the top grossing movies of all time are

 

1. Avatar

2. Titanic

3. Lord of the Rings: RotK

4. Pirates of the Caribbean: DMC

5. Toy Story 3

 

So apparently the entire world disagrees with you. But hey, keep bashing what is popular, it used to be pretty hip and I am sure it will come around again.

 

Interestingly enough, these all feature a good deal of CGI.

Appealing to the largest possible audience is a sure way to achieve mediocrity.

 

I like Pirats DMC and LoTR 1 a lot though, call it the exception that proves the rule.

Or denial.

Yeah, and MacD's is the best food in the world.

 

Actually I saw the Scrooge film above and have to give it props for using a lot of Dickensian English.

 

Not sure if the word filter will let one of the greatest English authors through.

 

Actually, I'd love to see what Dickens would write about the internet.

Thing is, there's plenty of utter filth movies that don't use CGI in them as well.

 

Whether or not CGI is present in a movie is hardly a precursor to the movie being qualitatively good or bad.

If top-tier VFX houses like ILM or Weta are invovled, it guarantees high production values. The film might very well be retarded, but it will look good.

 

 

 

Avatar was rubbish as a film, but as a demo of the capabilities of CG and stereoscopic 3D cinema, it was great. Now, imagine if someone sensible would have been given that kind of money and freedom to make a film?

Here's hope a capable artists like Ridley Scott will do his magic with all this fancy CG/3D stuff on the Alien prequel(s).

I'd pay good money for a modded version of Avatar where the blue hippies get pwned by evil space mercenaries and their natural resources are pillaged to make more tanks, planes, bombs and stuff.

I'd pay good money for a modded version of Avatar where the blue hippies get pwned by evil space mercenaries and their natural resources are pillaged to make more tanks, planes, bombs and stuff.

 

YES

 

And end the whole damn thing with a mushroom-cloud. I would gladly pay 11 euros to watch that in 3D.

So apparently the entire world disagrees with you. But hey, keep bashing what is popular, it used to be pretty hip and I am sure it will come around again.

Isn't that what this forum is built on?

 

Honestly, I only saw Avatar for the first time a couple of weeks ago. It was the kind of chlorine-bleached adventure that always, or generally, becomes hugely popular. I didn't think it was bad, but I didn't find it particularly exceptional either (and visually, I remember being more impressed with the Dark Knight's IMAX scenes), solid three stars. Of course, I could have been just an exceptionally jaded day, I've been unable to watch a lot of movies recently. Still have the Inception blu-ray waiting, I saw it in theatre but I want to see how it scores for repeat watchability (something that I've always been disappointed with Nolan's movies).

So apparently the entire world disagrees with you. But hey, keep bashing what is popular, it used to be pretty hip and I am sure it will come around again.

 

Or they could just actually not like it, heh. Never seen Avatar, consensus from people here was that it was pretty but otherwise wasn't grand.

So apparently the entire world disagrees with you. But hey, keep bashing what is popular, it used to be pretty hip and I am sure it will come around again.

Isn't that what this forum is built on?

 

Honestly, I only saw Avatar for the first time a couple of weeks ago. It was the kind of chlorine-bleached adventure that always, or generally, becomes hugely popular. I didn't think it was bad, but I didn't find it particularly exceptional either (and visually, I remember being more impressed with the Dark Knight's IMAX scenes), solid three stars. Of course, I could have been just an exceptionally jaded day, I've been unable to watch a lot of movies recently. Still have the Inception blu-ray waiting, I saw it in theatre but I want to see how it scores for repeat watchability (something that I've always been disappointed with Nolan's movies).

 

Every time someone mentions 'Inception', i think of this.

 

Great movie btw, i actually saw it twice. Granted though there are more thought-provoking movies out there.

Thing is, there's plenty of utter filth movies that don't use CGI in them as well.

 

Whether or not CGI is present in a movie is hardly a precursor to the movie being qualitatively good or bad.

 

I am probably talking through my hat here, but I'd say actually CGI DOES make it more likely that a film is utter balls. Mainly because it can be made by a disparate team, with even less commitment to the project, even less supervision, and initiated by people with less credentials in making film.

 

Just a notion.

Black Swan used CGI. Would you say that film was rubbish?

I'd pay good money for a modded version of Avatar where the blue hippies get pwned by evil space mercenaries and their natural resources are pillaged to make more tanks, planes, bombs and stuff.

I'd pay good money to see your face when you realize that Avatar is planned as a trilogy.

Black Swan used CGI. Would you say that film was rubbish?

For the longest time I was convinced there was some kind of Tyler Durden mind **** going on. Decent movie, I didn't know Portman could act on account of Star Wars.

 

We are not just talking about movies with CGI sequences in them, that would rule out anything with effects, but movies where the actors aren't the biggest attraction.