Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CGI About to Boom In Hollywood

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the whats-your-vector-victor dept.

FortKnox writes "Because of the success of "Monsters Inc" and "Shrek", many major hollywood studios are scrambling getting on the CGI bandwagon. Looks like we're about to get smothered by CGI movies left and right. For those that like to tinker with CG, it might be a good time to go jobhunting..." Several upcoming movies mentioned. Some ven look like they might have potential ;)

10 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. Hey Hollywood... by Spackler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't forget that Shrek (and both Toy Story movies for that matter) was a great movie because it had a good script! If you just put out the same crap (*cough* FF *cough*), it will not be successful.

    1. Write a good script

    2. Make it with good actors (LOTR) or CGI.

    3. Make money.

    It is really pretty simple.

    1. Re:Hey Hollywood... by stew77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Definately true. Shrek would even have been a great success if it wasn't high quality CGI but bad cartoons like the Tracy Ullman Simpsons. At least, I went to see Shreck because of the graphics, but I ended up laughing my ass off and couldn't pay any attention to the rendering at all.

    2. Re:Hey Hollywood... by DeadVulcan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, there's a principle in movies called MOTSS ("more of the same stuff"... or for the cynical, "more of the same sh*t").

      And even more unfortunately, sometimes that principle actually works, really REALLY well.

      *sigh*

      --
      Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
      Power in the hands of the accountable.
  2. Hmm.... by DeadVulcan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just hope they realize that the success of "Shrek" had nothing to do with the fact that it was CGI, and that merely using CGI will not necessarily guarantee them the success of "Shrek."

    --
    Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
    Power in the hands of the accountable.
  3. Okay article, but... by gkbarr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    they never mentioned "Final Fantasy" when talking about big-time CGI films. Maybe I'm just a geek, but I thought the CG landscapes (and the whole film) were amazing. Certainly much more realistic than Shrek's cartoonish CG scapes.

    I still live action actors, so maybe a combination (Roger Rabbit, Cool World, etc.) of CG and live action is on the horizon.

    --
    Sapere Aude - Homer
  4. This is what the Market Wants!! by The+Cat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MORE CLONES!!

    MORE SEQUELS!!!

    MORE PIXELS!!!!

    HIGHER BUDGETS!!!!

    MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE!!!!!

    One. ONE decent memorable character. ONE good storyline that wasn't licensed from a book. (Notice where the REALLY good movies come from?) ONE skillful use of setting, or non-canned music, or silence, or symbolism, or metaphor.

    All the money in Hollywood, and NONE OF THESE THINGS can be produced, apparently.

    But they can spend NINE FIGURES on CG!! Oh, sure. No problem.

    Funny. The game industry is trying desperately to be Hollywood, and Hollywood is trying frantically to be the game industry.

    Maybe instead of the THX thing, they'll put up a sign that says:

    "The audience is yawning"

    1. Re:This is what the Market Wants!! by BluedemonX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, let's look at it this way. The general public does NOT want clever characters, insightful plots, witty writing, etc.

      It wants jiggling breasts, special effects, fight scenes, puerile humor, big explosions, men with almost no bodyfat, and a plot simpler than the rules to a tractor pull.

      The guy that brought up Hidden Tiger Crouching Dragon or whatever the hell it is - please remember that it's basically fight scenes, lovemaking, people waving swords around, special effects, etc. as well as a plot you can summarize in one sentence.

      RULE ONE - if you can't tell me what the movie's about in one sentence, forget it.

      RULE TWO - if there's no T&A, forget it.

      RULE THREE - if there's no violence, forget it. Unless it's a French film, in which case double up on rule two, but realise noone outside France will ever watch it.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  5. CGI killing traditional animation? by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I think CGI is starting to phase out traditional animation," Swallow said. "But I think that is very much because of a generational divide. For a generation that is used to seeing these kind of digital images in video games, this is what they start to expect."

    Hmmm... Apparently these guys are talking about Dizney and Dizney alone. The animation houses in Japan have done a great deal to convert over to digital CG production without sacrificing the look of traditional animation.

    Take a good, close look at 'Love Hina', 'Excel Saga', or any newer anime and notice that the cels have all been 'painted' in Photoshop. On some of the closeup shots, you can make out typical Photoshop resizing residue and common filter effects.

    CG may be killing the fatiguing process of 'pencil-paint-photograph', but not traditional animation.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  6. Re:You know, it's not just CG-only stuff by Graymalkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A good example of what you point out as the twilight of the latex/foam rubber monster special effects would be the Jurasic Park series. In the first movie there was a scale T-Rex built that fully interacted with the characters. It LOOKED real which was the important thing. In JP2 there was the scene with the raptors fighting and rolling around whilst the actors tried to avoid them. That was also fairly impressive because the raptors made dust fly and moved objects the real actors interacted with. Two different mathods of making dinosaurs with pretty much the same effect on film. On the otherhand look at the difference between the technology used between SW:ANH and SW:TPM. Specifically in the last fight scene between in both movies. In ANH they used some blue screens overlayed with glass matte paintings in post production. It gave the same sense of scope that the same technique using computers did 20 years later. The goal is realism by whatever means, I don't think all filmmakers are going to abandon their old style of making realistic images just because of new wizbang technology.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  7. Re:You know, it's not just CG-only stuff by bryanbrunton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >> but movies like Lord of the Rings and (to a lesser extent, IMHO) Star Wars: Episode One have shown how the effective use of CG can not only compliment human acting

    To a lesser extent? You are far understating that comparison.

    Peter Jackson specifically went away from the overuse of CG in LoTR. He, instead, made excellent use of miniatures that were completed by CG effects. That's why the effects in LoTR are so good. They completed the movie and story, not distracted and demanded center stage.

    We must all thank the Old Took, that Lucas or a film maker like him didn't get ahold of LoTR. Who knows what lifeless and disgusting Jar-Jar-Hobbits we would have had to deal with.

    The careful use of CG in LoTR distinguishes it from the CG crazed film making of George Lucas.