Should CGI movies aim for photo-realism?

 Video games these day are aiming to look closest to reality it makes me wonder how long it will be until CGI producers start aiming for photo-realism. Do you think they should make CGI movies look realistic or keep it cartoony?

I think they can do both. Pixar movies are probably always going to be cartoony, while other films like 2012 and Avatar go for the realism.

" I think they can do both. Pixar movies are probably always going to be cartoony, while other films like 2012 and Avatar go for the realism. "

" I'm kinda vague on the question here. When have they NOT been striving for photo-realism? Rome wasn't built in a day. "

How do you mean realistic and cartoony? Realistic as in textures and cartoony as in disproportionate bodies?

I don't really see the point. Or, I do, the point just seems creepy. Its like "hey we can cast dead actors in our movies now". Okay, but why would you want to? Surreal things, fictional things that don't exist, are always going to look fake even with the best CGI because they don't actually exist. Our brains are weird about processing new things, it doesn't really take form until you understand how it works to a certain extent. So things that don't exist can never really look as real as real things, and remaking real things pitch perfect into CGI just seems slightly pointless save for virtual sex.

" @FalseDeity said:

" I'm kinda vague on the question here. When have they NOT been striving for photo-realism? Rome wasn't built in a day. "

Almost every CGI movie that's released have purposely made blocky and cartoony character models and scenery. "

"save for virtual sex. "

" @L4wz said:

" @FalseDeity said:

" I'm kinda vague on the question here. When have they NOT been striving for photo-realism? Rome wasn't built in a day. "

Almost every CGI movie that's released have purposely made blocky and cartoony character models and scenery. "

i think your full of shit. :) "

depends on the movie of course

" @ryanwho said:

"save for virtual sex. "

Really, this is probably going to be the biggest revenue for photo realism and virtual reality, not movies. "

mr uncanny vally says no

Why not just use real actors then? In my opinion CGI is for things that are not possible. Like aliens or crazy effects.

" Why not just use real actors then? In my opinion CGI is for things that are not possible. Like aliens or crazy effects. "

It's up to the director on how his vision is to be portrayed. I'd rather not impose anything on someone else's artistic vision. I imagine if they wanted high visual fidelity, though, they wouldn't make a full CGI movie. But certain movies like The Polar Express and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within already do strive for somewhat realistic modeling.

Both.

I personally don't mind what CG looks like, as long as it's artistic, clever, and original.

Only if that's the look they want artistically, other wards I think there is no need for every movie going that direction. Pixar doesn't seem to be going that direction, sometimes a more cartooney look is better. For games I think its kind of bland that every game goes the direction of more real, Nintendo doesn't seem to be going that direction either. Seems Pixar and Nintendo share this in common. For me the more I get a real style I tend to enjoy the cartooney style more.

I think there will always be room for cartoon-ish CGI movies like Pixar's.

No. Just use a camera. Cheaper and easier. Aiming for photorealistic CGI characters is just too much work, waste of resources, manpower, and money, as well as having a very high risk of it failing miserably.
 
@L4wz said:

" @Twilight said:

" Why not just use real actors then? In my opinion CGI is for things that are not possible. Like aliens or crazy effects. "

What about video games? The only complaints I heard about Crysis's graphics was that their PC couldn't run it. I am just asking but why should it be different for movies? "

" mr uncanny vally says no "

As far as games go I want them to  look as awesome and crazy as possible.  However there is always a place for other graphical art styles.  But when someone asks me what do you want to see in the next generation of consoles I don't say motion control or 3-D stuff.  I say better graphics and physics.  Thats just me though.

" @Twilight said:

" Why not just use real actors then? In my opinion CGI is for things that are not possible. Like aliens or crazy effects. "

What about video games? The only complaints I heard about Crysis's graphics was that their PC couldn't run it. I am just asking but why should it be different for movies? "

" @L4wz said:

" @Twilight said:

" Why not just use real actors then? In my opinion CGI is for things that are not possible. Like aliens or crazy effects. "

What about video games? The only complaints I heard about Crysis's graphics was that their PC couldn't run it. I am just asking but why should it be different for movies? "

Because movies can use a camera and achieve the same effect. Using CGI for something that is possible in real life is a waste of money and time. "

" @FalseDeity said:

" I'm kinda vague on the question here. When have they NOT been striving for photo-realism? Rome wasn't built in a day. "

Almost every CGI movie that's released have purposely made blocky and cartoony character models and scenery. "

" @damswedon said:

" mr uncanny vally says no "

The uncanny valley doesn't say that you can't reach photo-realism.  It just states that, after a certain point, the closer you get but still failing has exponentially negative effects on human emotion towards that particular artificial being. "

As you said as the (lets call them) dolls get more realistic we will begin to see them as just that dolls. We will begin to be off put by their acting and they will become less human. In Wall-E pixar knew this so instead of making an off-putting love story with these dolls the had to use robots. At the moment the only cgi "humans" that have been good were directed or placed on the skeleton of an actual human. Avatar (Supposedly) and Gollum fro the lord of the rings both used that.
Personally I think that we will never be able to create near human emoting dolls. no matter how realistic the dolls are themselves. Anyway reality sucks. if i wanted to see reality I would look outside.

Well that's up to whoever's making the movie. Some want that cartoony, cutesy look, while others go artsy fartsy with cell-shading or something like that. But the people who want photorealism, should definitely go for realism :P.

I personally prefer stylistic to realistic, but it depends on the movie.

I think there is a place for realistic CG, but I prefer when people take a more stylized approach to it.

Stylistic>realistic, and if a CGI movie is aiming for realism, odds are that they'd probably just be better off using real actors.

I'd argue that games these days are heading more in an artistic direction, and I think movies should, too. That stylization doesn't have to be cutesy and cartoony, it can also be gritty or hyper-realistic. I also think there should be a return to animated movies (a-la the Disney-esque movies of olde).

Both, but CGI filmmakers have been aiming for photo-realism for ages now, not something new or anything. Whether or not they actually do it well, is another story though.

I've never really had this "uncanny valley" problem. I really liked Spirits Within, for instance. That said, from what I've seen CGI development is getting a lot cheaper. I'm not informed about cinema like I am about video games, but it seems like there will be room for more than one approach.

No, why try to recreate something that already exists? CGI should only be used to do things that are not possible to capture on camera, magical worlds and creatures and stuff like that. Moviemakers these days have gone the lazy way and rely on CGI for absolutely everything.  
 
Take the freefall on Quantum of Solace for example, something like that was done better and without CGI in Moonraker, which was made in the 70s.  

Why can't we have both like we do with games?

" @L4wz said:

" @Delta_Ass said:

" I think they can do both. Pixar movies are probably always going to be cartoony, while other films like 2012 and Avatar go for the realism. "

I mean full CGI movies aiming for photo-realism like Crysis. "

Do you not have a window?, Crysis is far from Photo-Realism, unless you were hinting at the game aiming for realism "

Lol at your comment, I don't know any game out there that doesn't look more realistic or similar to cg because it's semi realistic looking with alot of cartoony graphics and bright textures that looks like clumps of shit. The only game that looks more real than cg movies is crysis on very high settings.   
  
Yes it's about time cg starts pushing their graphics to being more realistic, after all this time, besides final fantasy the spirits within or animatrix for that cg scene, nothing is pushing the envelope which is embarassing. Honestly the last thing we need is another movie about talking cars or toys or fish.

There are movies that have aimed for photorealism. It just depends on the movie.

Realistic

How many photorealistic characters can you name in movies?

There is only Final Fantasy Spirits Within and Avatar. That's characters though. With human characters, it's going to be extremely rare to find them in CG... why would you want to replace something technology can never reproduce? Even if you could, the cost is tremendous. Your answer is no, photorealistic characters will never be here. The technology is already there, it's just that artists have a hard time replicating something so real that the slightest detail will seem uncanny to us.

What about photorealistic sets?

Sure. This is already here. Check out any Sci Fi movie (star wars prequels, avatar), and you'll find out that most of the shots are altered with CG in mind. Movies that aren't Sci Fi and that are grounded more towards reality (district 9, lotr), you can build sets for the majority of it, and then CG.

To answer your question, movies are not going in any new direction. It's already where it needs to be. Full CG for Pixar. A lot of CG for Sci Fi, but still Live Action. 

Yeah they should. The awesome thing about CGI is that they are not bound to any physical limitations that real actors and stuntmen are, which makes for really fun stuff.

" @FalseDeity said:

" I'm kinda vague on the question here. When have they NOT been striving for photo-realism? Rome wasn't built in a day. "

Almost every CGI movie that's released have purposely made blocky and cartoony character models and scenery. "

Really depends on the production company and the style they are striving for. I don't want to see Disney and Pixar making photo-realistic movies. I just don't think their market is known for that. I could care less if it was and I would still see it, but it depends on what you want.