5 replies to this topic

[filmboy94]

Watching films in the 21st century, I find mostly two things: product placement and CGI. Don't get me wrong; CGI has made storytelling easier. But, shouldn't there be an equilibrium between humans and CGI?

[jucadsloa]

filmboy94, on 02 May 2010 - 1:15 AM, said:

Watching films in the 21st century, I find mostly two things: product placement and CGI. Don't get me wrong; CGI has made storytelling easier. But, shouldn't there be an equilibrium between humans and CGI?

There is no such things in 21st century . Everyone talking about CGI . To be honest , I prefer old school and stile , like Kubrick's . See ya .  

[Definitif]

If it does not affect the richness of the plot and feelings, I do not specifically dislike it. As far as picturing landscape and scenery, I really enjoy CGIs. But I do doubt the usage of it in mimicking people. It's far difficult to completely depict human feelings using nowadays computer techs. Finally you will end up with an unemotional semi-product.

[Edshu]

Well, for animation, CGI adds depth which traditional animation never could.  Just take one look at any Pixar movie, and you'll see why computer animation is the go-to medium for family entertainment.  But, I assume you're talking about CGI in live-action movies, which I am very critical of.  CGI is used to a marvelous effect in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, The Matrix, Captain America: The First Avenger, Inception, Avatar, and much more, but The Green Lantern, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, and Clash of the Titans prove that with great power comes great responsibility.  It always turns out spectacular when a modern director uses some, but very little CGI in their works- a fine example would be The Dark Knight, which uses minimal CGI to make the action both realistic and awesome.

[Bourne]

CGI is great - but it has to be used properly. It can enhance storytelling and visual impact, but it is very important not to go overboard. The problem is that making films is very expensive and if you can save a lot of money by using CGI, the choice is made for you. Even the best production studios have budgets.

[joig]

Edshu, on 13 February 2012 - 8:56 PM, said:

Well, for animation, CGI adds depth which traditional animation never could.  Just take one look at any Pixar movie, and you'll see why computer animation is the go-to medium for family entertainment.  But, I assume you're talking about CGI in live-action movies, which I am very critical of.  CGI is used to a marvelous effect in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, The Matrix, Captain America: The First Avenger, Inception, Avatar, and much more, but The Green Lantern, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, and Clash of the Titans prove that with great power comes great responsibility.  It always turns out spectacular when a modern director uses some, but very little CGI in their works- a fine example would be The Dark Knight, which uses minimal CGI to make the action both realistic and awesome.

Ok in my oppinion I think it has nothing to do with CGI really. The movies you use as a example are just bad movies and would have been also even if some other method had been used.