CGI in general

Posted by Shawnkara from spider-wc024.proxy.aol.com on May 06, 2001 at 05:44:31:

Sometimes I whole-heartedly agree with what you guys are saying, sometimes I slightly disagree but either way it's an alarming trend. CGI, in its inception, was intended for use only when a scene or desired effect proved too dangerous, too expensive or just plain impossible to do in reality. But anymore it's not a tool to make good films better; it's an excuse to just make a lot of bad films. Because of these films even the good films that use CGI are being sucked into a lump sum of "cheese". Some films deserve this distinction, some do not. The only things I can think of in "The Mummy" that used CGI were Imhotep's reanimated corpse, the Scarab beetles and most of the scenes involving Imhotep's powers. The other mummies and the warriors, I believe, were live action characters assisted by CGI. Yes, it is possible to find people skinny enough to play mummies; think back to "The Monster Squad". "The Mummy" films may have over used CGI, but at least it came off believable for the most part. Imhotep's corpse looked a Hell of a lot better in the second film. I was, however, very disappointed with the Scorpion King. This is a classic case of CGI over kill. Why did they not just add the Rock's torso to the scorpion body? Hell, even the producers of "Xena" figured that out when they did that half-horse guy. I'm sure that someday the Fox network will do a special called "When Good CGI Goes Bad" but, until then, try to a little more open minded when slapping your "cheese" label on something. Just my two cents....

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: Sometimes I whole-heartedly agree with what you guys are saying, sometimes I slightly disagree but either way it's an alarming trend. CGI, in its inception, was intended for use only when a scene or desired effect proved too dangerous, too expensive or just plain impossible to do in reality. But anymore it's not a tool to make good films better; it's an excuse to just make a lot of bad films. Because of these films even the good films that use CGI are being sucked into a lump sum of "cheese". Some films deserve this distinction, some do not. The only things I can think of in "The Mummy" that used CGI were Imhotep's reanimated corpse, the Scarab beetles and most of the scenes involving Imhotep's powers. The other mummies and the warriors, I believe, were live action characters assisted by CGI. Yes, it is possible to find people skinny enough to play mummies; think back to "The Monster Squad". "The Mummy" films may have over used CGI, but at least it came off believable for the most part. Imhotep's corpse looked a Hell of a lot better in the second film. I was, however, very disappointed with the Scorpion King. This is a classic case of CGI over kill. Why did they not just add the Rock's torso to the scorpion body? Hell, even the producers of "Xena" figured that out when they did that half-horse guy. I'm sure that someday the Fox network will do a special called "When Good CGI Goes Bad" but, until then, try to a little more open minded when slapping your "cheese" label on something. Just my two cents....

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]