CGI: From Excitement to Excess

Articles - Main

By David Outten

CGI (Computer Generated Imagry) has come a very long way in a short time. It really took off in 1993 when Steven Spielberg used it to add some incredibly realistic looking dinosaurs to JURASSIC PARK.

Since that time it’s become Hollywood’s addiction. Each of the major studios acts as if they must use more of it to stay ahead of the other studios. It really is incredible. Famous early special effects wizards like Ray Harryhausen would have loved to have it back 1958 when he made THE 7^TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD. However, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

All because you can now make movies with any characters you can imagine doesn’t mean Hollywood should spend the majority of its resources on CGI tentpoles (movies they hope will earn enough to keep their “circus tent” standing). Nor does it mean children need to see every nightmarish creature adults dream up in their fallen souls.

Hollywood is a “me too” culture. When a movie does spectacularly well, all the studios try to match what they think generated the success. When THE SOUND OF MUSIC was a spectacular hit for 20^th Century Fox in 1965, several big budget roadshow musicals were made. They were shot in 70mm, they had preludes and intermissions, and they had lots of music and big stars. But, they didn’t have the heart or the story of THE SOUND OF MUSIC. Several were absolute financial disasters. STAR, directed by Robert Wise and starring Julie Andrews herself, was about Gertrude Lawrence, a vulgar, selfish Broadway actress who ignored her daughter and was obsessed about her career. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why audiences who loved THE SOUND OF MUSIC said, “No, thank you,” to STAR.

Hollywood could be in big trouble if audiences begin to say, “No, thank you,” to more of their tentpole CGI movies. Mark Zoradi, the then president of the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, said while giving out the Kairos Prize in 2008, “You can assemble the greatest cast, the greatest crew, go to the most beautiful locations in the world, but as Hollywood has proven more than a few thousand times, if you don’t have a decent script, ya got nothin’.” He could have included, “You can spend $150 million on CGI.”

People don’t rush out to buy Blu-ray movies simply because they like higher resolution. They buy movies they like (on Blu-ray). Likewise, where some people may have gone to JURASSIC PARK to marvel (pun intended) at the special effects, few are as impressed by CGI today. A movie comes out practically every week with more CGI than JURASSIC PARK had.

Yes, CGI can still get better. Motion capture CGI still looks like an uncomfortable midground between a Pixar animation and reality. The day will come when someone can make a CGI “John Wayne” movie you’d think was made in 1950. Of course, all because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be sone. Frankly though, a new movie with a cast of characters from Hollywood’s graveyards would be preferable to some of the hellish CGI creations giving children nightmares today.

Face it, Hollywood now has to compete not only with television, but also YouTube, Facebook, and Netflix. When every Tom, Dick and Harry has a video camera with pixel density approaching Hollywood quality, Hollywood sees CGI as its insurance policy. A home videographer can’t do $150 million worth of CGI. Hollywood likes to make movies even church members in Albany, Georgia can’t afford to make.