I think its timed we all faced it: COMPUTER ANIMATION SUCKS (1582 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.05 on 40 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by iddqd (View user info) at 2006-06-22 12:12:26 EDT
Excuse me if I'm being too obvious here, but I haven't seen a post or an article on this subject here or elsewhere.
Anyway, as the title says, computer animation sucks. It really does. Rememebr when it first came out, right around Terminator 2? There were all these tv shows about how it was done, how cool it all was, and how mindblowing cg is. Remember those days? How you'd stare agape in sheer childlike wonderment as the T1000 RE-FUCKING-FORMED OH MY FUCKING GOD LOOK AT THAT!
And it was pretty cool. Now, after countless films chock-full of cg, David Fincher spending shitloads of time and money to put in the most innocuous of cg, jsut because, well, he's David fucking Fincher; the lustre has worn off. Actually, the lustre wore off years ago, when it became industry standard, now it's just fucking annoying.
What do I find so annoying about computer animation?
Take a good look at it next time you see a film that has it as a main feature. For example I was foolish enough to go and see Narnia a few months ago, and it jsut re-inforced it for me. There was this griffon or some shit, flying along, it goes to do a dive and it does this complex triple summy with 3/4 gainer, fourteen twists and some extra sun glinting of the individually moving feathers for extra effect.
Why can't you geeky cunts just have the fucking thing dive normally? No, it's gotta do the most complex aerobatic move ever. We know you can make it all look cool, we know you're all very talented and very good at what you do.
WE DONT GIVE A FUCK. COMPUTER ANIMATION IS NOT AS SPECIAL AS YOU GEEKS THINK IT IS.
We, as a species are no longer amazed by what a computer can do to make a bird look 'real'. That's the thing, they don't look real, because you people can't help yourselves from tweaking it to make it look 'more' real.
Think back to the halcyon days of the first Star Wars. No computer animation, nothing. Just a bunch of puppets and a shitload of hard work. Actors actually having to act and, more importantly, INTERACT with other beings, not just a big, green screen. Here's a message for you George Lucas:
THE PUPPETS LOOKED BETTER.
Puppets got us Chewbacca. CG got us Jar-jar.
Need I say more?
User Reviews
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-11-23 19:41:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not the technology - it's always the talent.
This will always be the case
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-11-23 19:35:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Puppets got us Barney and CG got us Gollum.
You need to say less.
Submitted by mynameisandy (user info) at 2006-11-23 19:27:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Couldn't agree more.
Submitted by RenTheUnsightly (user info) at 2006-07-14 01:43:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
word
Submitted by pirate_pipi (user info) at 2006-07-07 03:54:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
CGI is worth admiration on two levels:
1) It's fucking hard to do. Can you do that shit? I can't.
2) It's kinda pretty.
But it is over used, so +2
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2006-07-07 03:27:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The last sentance was the most correct thiung I've read in months.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-06-25 17:33:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree that it is over done. What I don't understand is why The Matrix looked more realistic than Reloaded.
Submitted by dr_weazel (user info) at 2006-06-25 17:07:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You are, in fact, a complete retard.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2006-06-22 20:48:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you honestly think, say yoda for example, looked better in the original trilogy then in the second trilogy I'll have to recommend glasses. Or death. In fact, AND death. Not or.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-06-22 18:32:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Thank you. Some of it is cool, but it's usually so obvious and in-your-face. I miss the good old days.
Submitted by no_one (user info) at 2006-06-22 15:37:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
eh, I like CG, but I couldn't resist this comment:
...Star Wars. No computer animation, nothing. Just a bunch of puppets and a shitload of hard work. Actors actually having to act...
...Star Wars...Actors actually having to act...
I've seen the movies, I like them. but what on earth made you think there was any acting in there?
no. no. no.
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:51:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Puppets got us Chewbacca. CG got us Jar-jar.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:40:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:56:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
In a world without CGI, would Yoda have NEEDED to fight the Emperor?
------
Of course not, they had the Ewoks for that! They could nuke Storm Troopers with sticks, dude! Just imagine what they could do with black powder or some plumbers putty!
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:36:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sort of reminds me of the DVD vs VHS debate. Yes, back in the day we had to fast forward through 3-5 minutes of commercials before we got to a movie. Now we can just hit the "next" button to jump through the previews, at which point we will wait through a two-minute CG opening sequence (controls don't work at this point) so we can wait thirty seconds for the 'interactive' menu to load, at which point we can finally push the play button so that we can watch the two-minute transition that finally leads to the opening credits.
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:22:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My favourite is probably the Nintendo Power video of the making of the first Donkey Kong for the SNES. Hardcore.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:16:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
how bout puppets got us ewoks. the little bebe ewoks were so friggin cute. jar jar was not so cute.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-22 13:15:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:56:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
How much do you weigh?
===
DEMOLITION MAN QUOTE!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:57:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:45:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
and what do you think blue/greeb screens are for? CGI, retard.
-----------
you really are fucking stupid. The blue screens have been around for 50 years, you think they had CGI 50 years ago? The blue screens can be used to superimpose ANY footage, CGI or just film. They FILM the models of buildings blowing up on a tiny scale, then superimpose it behind the actors using the blue screen, if they put CGI rendered film behind them it would be CGI, normal film, NOT CGI, you stupid fucking frog
===
Ah ok, I see what you mean.
You need to calm down, little man, you're making a scene.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:56:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:40:19 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Puppets got us Chewbacca. CG got us Jar-jar."
This is one of the most profound things ever said about anything in the history of everything ever.
____________________________________________________
I agree. The only problem with it is that Chewbacca wasn't a puppet. Maybe could have said Yoda. But the puppet Yoda never could have fought Dooku or the Emperor. Which would be an example of what you were talking about with the griffon having to do super-aero-gymnastics just because they could make it.
In a world without CGI, would Yoda have NEEDED to fight the Emperor?
Think on this, I must.
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE! I HAVE GOT TO STOP SAYING SHIT LIKE THAT.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:56:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:43:48 (#)
Ranking: -2
Computer animation owns. You're an idiot cuz you're jealous you don't have the mad animation skillz0rs.
Yes movies that use it excessively become boring, because they think flashy CG can make up for lack of characters, story, etc... Like Matrix Reloaded and The 3 new StarWars movies.
But when you have a strong movie, and the CG is used to comlpiment it and achieve things which simply cannot be done by physical special effects, the results are amazing. Like the first matrix, X-men I and II, and Lord of the Rings. So it is indeed an amazing valuable tool.
Just look at the Osama bin ladin's confession tapes... without 3D animation, it would be obvious that the Bush admin was behind 9/11.
--------------------------------
How much do you weigh?
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:54:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I had to google Jar Jar because I've never seen any of the Star Wars movies. This is what came up: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0899/jar.html
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:54:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Puppets got us Chewbacca. CG got us Jar-jar."
Submitted by polymorph505 (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:49:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Thank god for Troma Videos
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I love the nerd fighting on this post. I don't think I have an opinion on CGI, sorry.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:45:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and what do you think blue/greeb screens are for? CGI, retard.
-----------
you really are fucking stupid. The blue screens have been around for 50 years, you think they had CGI 50 years ago? The blue screens can be used to superimpose ANY footage, CGI or just film. They FILM the models of buildings blowing up on a tiny scale, then superimpose it behind the actors using the blue screen, if they put CGI rendered film behind them it would be CGI, normal film, NOT CGI, you stupid fucking frog
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:43:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Computer animation owns. You're an idiot cuz you're jealous you don't have the mad animation skillz0rs.
Yes movies that use it excessively become boring, because they think flashy CG can make up for lack of characters, story, etc... Like Matrix Reloaded and The 3 new StarWars movies.
But when you have a strong movie, and the CG is used to comlpiment it and achieve things which simply cannot be done by physical special effects, the results are amazing. Like the first matrix, X-men I and II, and Lord of the Rings. So it is indeed an amazing valuable tool.
Just look at the Osama bin ladin's confession tapes... without 3D animation, it would be obvious that the Bush admin was behind 9/11.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:41:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:27:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
I mean they might have done it the traditional way, model buildings then a blue/green screen behind the actors, retard
===
and what do you think blue/greeb screens are for? CGI, retard.
Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:40:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Puppets got us Chewbacca. CG got us Jar-jar."
This is one of the most profound things ever said about anything in the history of everything ever.
Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:39:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Now that's a rant.
Submitted by hyprspacd (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:39:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:14:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
CGI isn't the problem. CGI without an interesting script is the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puppets got us Chewbacca. CG got us Jar-jar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES and YES
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:28:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Dude if you want to see great special effects watch Buckaroo Bonzai.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:27:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
isn't*
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:27:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I mean they might have done it the traditional way, model buildings then a blue/green screen behind the actors, retard
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:27:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i fucking HATE that there is real artistry in special effects any more. where's the make up? where's the foam latex? where's the tubes and fake blood and explosions and all that stuff that made it a true craft? i can understand using cg to touch up things and make certain effects a little more seamless but ONLY using it makes me very very sad. i'm already going into pirates of the caribbean 2 disappointed because it's kind of like a creature feature without a real creature. damn good thing johnny depp's in that.
just cuz something new comes along doesn't mean the old should be forgotten. someone needs to bring true cinematography and true crafstmanship back to hollywood. they suck now.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:27:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I concur.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:26:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:23:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
Who cares, movies suck anyway. The only CGI I've ever liked was the buildings blowing up at the end of fight club, and I don't even think that was CGI, so I don't know
===
sure they blew up an entire city for a movie
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:25:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
does anything not suck? i mean, im a bitter little person, and even i enjoy some things. yeah yeah yeah, youll answer 'rape, paedophilia, abotions andother related things' are great, but saying 'films suck' really does cut a whole lot of our culture right the fuck out for you.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:23:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who cares, movies suck anyway. The only CGI I've ever liked was the buildings blowing up at the end of fight club, and I don't even think that was CGI, so I don't know
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:14:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
CGI isn't the problem. CGI without an interesting script is the problem.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-06-22 12:13:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Puppets got us Chewbacca. CG got us Jar-jar.
Need I say more?
-------------
No, no you do not