The most pointless uses of CGI effects in movie history

If movie or series have a huge dragon or located in a another world like game of throne or star wars, then conputer effects or C.G.I is the anwer. Ever since the late 1980s, CGI has become an affordable way for movie studio, it’s also not only for making great effect but also for the most arbitrary and minor reasons.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
The character, Tobey Maguire in this film, must be bald. But doing so, his contract required $15.000 to shave his head. So the director, Terry Gilliam, used a bald cap with CGI instead. But it was more expensive for them in the end.

Ghost Rider
Appart from keeping his agent very bust, one of Nicolas Cage’s hobbies is to stay in shape. But unfortunately this 42 year old was not shape enoght for this movie, so the producers used CGI to make his abs bigger in the post-production.

Waterworld
The 1995’s movie, Waterworld, not only have script issues but it also have “water” issue. The water apparently not realistic enough, so the CGI staff added some blue stuff to fill out backdrops and they also improve splashes.

Your Highness
Because the movie is a R-rated movie, but there was a problem regarding Natalie Portman’s derriere is not suitable for young audiences. So they make a digitally shaped thong to solve the problem.

Blood Diamond
At the post-production, the tragic phone-call scene at the end of “Blood Diamon”, they decided that Jennifer Connelly’s expression was not distressed enogh. The CGI staff added some effect to add tears to her face.

Francis Ford Coppola’s Three Rules of Filmmaking

In a 99u.com interview famous film director, Francis Ford Coppola (the director of The Godfather), explains up to two points which may be quite shocking to people. The very first is that his accomplishment with The Godfather in fact derailed him from the plan to create intimate, personal movie which he was obsessed with, Coppola wished to get up and make movies according to his dreams and nightmares.

The second is that he thinks artists are not meant to be rich.

Coppola shows back in the origins of art and also the benefactor model. Coppola additionally take into account the idea of getting an additional source of income to ensure that film-making can continue to be a difficult hobby and an outlet for taking risks. He’s absolutely, idealistically right (even though he does wonder why art needs to cost money (which is a little like wondering why digital cameras need to cost money)), and also around the radical idea that perhaps everyone should be able to see art of all types without cost, he gives his three principles for film-making.

These are:

1. Write and direct original screenplays.
2. Make them with the most modern technology available.
3. Self-finance them.

It is that last point which confuse the majority of people.

I think the main reason why he tells people to self-finance their film is because he believe that cinema language happened by experimentation – by people not knowing what to do – and if you go to any producer today and you want to make something different, that has never been made before, they are gonna throw you out, because they want to make the same movie that works, the movies that produce money. Without experimenting different things, the cinema isn’t going to change a lot. And the cinema is still very young, it’s still 100 years old. And when cinema become commercial industry, and then they began to say to the pioneers, “Don’t experiment. We want to make money. We don’t want to take chances”. He also said “If you don’t take a risk then how are you going to make something really beautiful, that hasn’t been seen before?”

In his movie in 2007 (The Rainmaker) had end up ten years before and was not self-financed. Today his American Zoe trope outfit deals with production on his movies, however he’s also in a far different place compared to the majority of movie-makers. He’s an institution, and his job is operating a major winery (instead of new film-maker’s part-time job, which is serving wine into glasses during the lunch time).

Nevertheless, Coppola’s ideas can and should be taken to heart. He has some great suggestions over the interview, and i also look forward to the day when he begins giving out his movies for nothing.

What do you think?

Question For Iron Man 3

I watched Iron Man 3 when it’s first showing in Berlin. And if you continue reading this article, I think that you have watched it too. Why? Because Iron Man 3 is a pretty good film. And second, there will be spoilers in the article. As a fan of the Iron Man series, I have a lot of question and a lot of disappointment regarding Iron Man 3.

1. Why Tell Your Enemy on Live TV and not Ready for a Fight?

I mean, if you tell your enemy where you most vulnerable is, why don’t he prepare something like radar system or air missiles? With the help of J.A.R.V.I.S, he can tell it for make a defence system on the way home. Tony Start has always been a hot-blooded person, but he never underestimate his enemy.

2. Why is the Extremist Terrorist so Over Powered?

So by edit the DNA, the soldiers are supposed to be an immortal, but the downside is that becoming an unstable bomb device. But why make it more like a Japanese comics that can fire-breathing and instantly be mastering acrobatic combat moves?

3. Where Is SHIELD Doing/Where Did They Go?

I know, this is not AVENGERS, but Tony Stark is having a glimpse where he go to the outer space inside Iron Man 3 movies. America is under attack, and the president is threatened. It is all the reason for Nick Fury and the team to show up. But if the SHIELD is not showing up, a simple explanation would be enough for me.

4. If the Mandarin Is only an Actor, Why’s There A Captain America’s Shield Tattoo on His Neck?

 

Why does it have captain america’s shield? It has bugged me for the whole movie. If he is only an actor, then what is the meaning of the tattoo?

5. What Will Happen In Avengers 2

As we know, that Tony Stark Have Already Remove the Shrapnel From His Chest. Does it means that there will be no Iron Man in the next Avengers? If so, I think that all the Avengers fans will be very disappointed. Because Iron Man is the main point why Avenger so awesome is.

Does anyone have lingering questions about Iron Man 3 or answer for my question?

CGI For Better or Worse?

If you followed my blog, then you would have understand how CGI works. It is making an image with only using computer. But many people Think that CGI ruined Movies. It makes a movie unrealistic. The CGI technology enable us to make the tiniest detail on the movie, but on the other hand, it’s very depressive when a movie rely so much on the CGI effect, and making the movie very unreal.

Here is a video when a movie is with and without CGI:

My opinion is that the computer effect is a tool, and we must use the tool correctly. For me CGI is like make-up for the movie. And when something new coming up, there will be someone that share the different opinion. It is like when color was first introduced into cinema, many people found it a gimmick inferior to black and white. Avatar is an example how we can create another world, and for me movies is mainly escaping the reality, so that we can feel another experience that we never had before.

CGI in the hands of great artist and filmmakers will opens up a world full of possibility, and the limit is our imaginations. For producers and writers, it allows them to make a movie like never before.

I think that the CGI will be the next big thing, it will become  a new era of film making without restrictions, acting without boundaries and storytelling without limitations. What do you guys think about CGI?