---

Column # 3: CGI, An Unappreciated Magic

One evening a friend and me were discussing The Ring 2. We both agreed the movie was a horrible follow-up, an extremely mediocre sequel to what had turned out to be a great moment in the genre. A possession story? Sigh. What had happened to the Samara virus? Killer deer? Didn't the screenwriter know that the deer is one of the most non-threatening creatures imaginable to have menace your characters?

We talked more. That little kid was fine in the first one, but he just couldn't hold up an entire movie like that. And what happened to the scary scenes? The original had a lot of really frightening moments, where were they this time around?

After finally running out of negatives, we decided to focus on the positives, on the things the movie had gotten right. Well, Naomi Watts did ok, we agreed. A long pause. And uh, um, some of the music, the cinematography, were also passable. Long pause. "Well," I said, "you gotta admit that bath-tub sequence was pretty impressive." Another pause. "The water effect, it was memorable." My friend said nothing. I looked at him in surprise. "You didn't think that was a cool effect?" He shook his head. "No, not really."

CGI (computer generated imagery), like all aspects of a production, such as costumes, lighting, set design, or sound effects, is an important part of the final product. Just as quality music can add power to a scene, or a splendid set can add a sense of beauty or realism to a film, a well done, computer generated effect can add an element of magic that makes the whole experience more worthwhile. The Ring 2, for all of its faults, contained an impressive CGI sequence involving the supernatural manipulation of water.

"I thought that was a beautiful moment," I said to my friend. "The movie was bad over all, but during that scene I felt some wonder at what was happening, you have to admit that was a hell of a thing to see." My friend shook his head. "The quality of the CGI didn't look any better than most other movies."

As technology has advanced and become increasingly realistic and affordable, more and more high dollar productions have adopted it as a necessary way to bring fantastic images to life. Indeed, CGI has proven itself so useful, so amazing, that nearly every blockbuster made today utilizes it in some fashion. Whether it is used to depict a fictional creature or simply to illustrate a character making an impossible leap, CGI and the use of computer generated images has proven itself as an absolute necessity in today's Cineplex.

With its sudden surge in usage has risen a debate, is CGI being used too much? When is it ok for a filmmaker to use CGI in a scene? When is it inappropriate? The issue of CGI has become so large that it is arguably the most debated topic in movie fandom today. When something becomes popular, it automatically develops a community of people who hate it for its success. And unfortunately with CGI, this hatred has grown so large and so intense that it has spiraled out of control. People who love movies have begun to infect each other with a mindset, a mindset that simply states; "CGI is bad."

Now, with the constant usage of computer effects, as with all innovations, there are going to be abuses. I'm not going to pretend that there haven't been movies that have used low quality CGI, or relied too heavily on effects to sell a movie that had story problems, but we cannot allow these things to taint our opinion of an effect. We must recognize that it is not the effect that should be blamed, but how it was used. To say that an effect or technique "sucks", is foolish. Just think about when the first movies with sound came out, imagine an audience watching their first non-silent picture, if the movie were bad, would that mean that sound "sucks"? No, absolutely not, it just would mean that particular motion picture wasn't good. But in listening to discussions both spoken and on the web, you would think that computerized effects were destroying motion pictures altogether, the way moviegoers attack CGI.

I watched Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire recently, and I was amazed at how much pure imagination I was able to see on the screen. Dragons that looked real, flying broomsticks, magic spells, all brought to life with computer technology. Most of these (except perhaps for the dragon) could be created with practical effects, but would they look half as good? The answer is obvious.

How often do you hear someone saying that the costumes ruined the movie? Or the music? Or the set design? Compare that to the number of times you've heard someone blame the CGI, and you begin to see my point.

As movie-goers we are truly lucky to be living in an age where such wonderfully crafted effects are commonplace, and the next time you want to insult a movie because it utilizes CGI I would ask you to imagine some of your favorite movies without it. Would Spider-Man, Lord Of The Rings, or Star Wars be as visually exciting without computer effects? The answer is obvious. -Vhs Caveman, 12/9/05