Note: The following are my opinions, and are based solely upon my perception(s) as an individual human. I do not intend to imply any of the following as fact. Please read and reply in such a manner that takes this into account.
CGI: computer-generated imagery; Animated graphics produced by computer and used in film or television.
CGI; it seems like an excellent concept. Something that should provide effects not before possible for the purposes of enhancing the entertainment value of movies. But let’s examine the real effect this has had, now that CGI is a prevalent technology.
Do you believe that the majority films are better because of CGI? I, for one, don’t! I find the obvious non-real textures, lighting and physics that are common in CGI impregnated films to be of distraction from an otherwise good film. In some cases, I find the CGI to make a borderline watchable film worse than it should have been.
Let’s consider a few big box office films that feature very poor CGI animation and/or effects.
The Incredible Hulk: This movie features CGI that is totally unconvincing in appearance as well as in physics. I know, I know, this is a comic book brought to life(an excuse for BAD CGI?) -- but I found myself laughing as the Hulk jumped what seemed to be miles in one bound. This movie, I thought, seemed worse due to the CGI. I would have been more impressed if they had just covered a strong-arm guy in green make-up, as they did in the late 70’s Hulk television series. The green-painted man looked allot more convincing to me than the comedic CGI character used in the recent big-budget movie.
Spider Man(1 and 2): These movies feature some pretty poor CGI. The CGI animated scenes of Spider Man jumping and climbing, among other things, looked more like scenes from a video game rather than a live action film. The Spider Man CGI object itself, was not convincing at any point, either.
Star Wars(New versions vs. classic trilogy): The new Star Wars films, to me, look pathetic. The computer animation was totally unconvincing -- and that scene of Yoda in battle -- hmm; I tried not to laugh, I swear! The original trilogy looked ‘real’ for all intents and purposes. The use of scale models and latex creatures, at least, seemed mostly real and believable to an extent. The new films, to me, are seriously downgraded in believability. It also seemed, to me, that the original trilogy relied more upon a strong story, and that the new movies rely more upon effect as a substitute for story.
Cat Woman: Ok, Miss Berry is hotter than hell, but not even Miss Berry can distract one from the laughable CGI effects found within this feature film. The resurrection scene, with that CGI cat, was especially entertaining -- as a comedic component! Did anyone find the scene in that jewelry store, with Cat Woman bouncing across the walls like, well, nothing in the real world -- entertaining in a serious sense?
The bottom line is that films are worse today, as far as effects, than they were 15 years ago when studios were forced to use scale models and latex monsters. Because much of this was done in the real world, they were also forced to adhere to at least most laws of apparent physics! In a way, I see this as analogous to compression in commercial recordings today. Before the mid-90’s, it was impossible to compress music to the extent possible today -- digital compression algorithms were needed to reach the current levels. An example of previous technological limitations that forced *experts* to remain within a wise boundary? I think YES. While the new technologies ARE beneficial when used wisely -- it seems that the qualifier(wise) is not present in most cases today.
Please reply, letting your feelings be known. Call me an idiot, if you like. I don’t mind; just speak your mind!
-Chris