CGI yeah on no?

[spiderman2]

So I have seen a lot of talk online about CGI and if its good or not I mean if people like it or not. So my question is CGI good or not? I think CGI is great because there are just some things you cant do with out CGI and most CGI like 95% of it looks so realistic now that you cant even tell that it is CGI or not. Usly the only CGI that looks bad is CGI you see on a low budget movie on the SIFI changel like shark nado or something. You even have some things that people think are CGI that are not. I was just watching the other day dark knight special trilogy special features stuff online has I was able to finely find the new special features online and I found out that in dark knight when the truck that they joker flips over flips is was practicly effects I thought for sure that was CGI. How ever at the same time I think it is good to not just realiey on CGI and use practical effects when you can because even though most CGI looks good or even great has special effects get to looking better and better stuff that looks good now will start to look worse and worse. It is like with video games when ps2 came out people thought it looked good but with technology getting better and better now ps2 games don't look that good after seeing ps3 and ps4 type grapchis. So CGI doesn't age has while where if you really do something it will continue to looks good. I think that is why Jurassic park doesn't look like a 21 year old movie because they used a lot of animaytranisc instead of just CGI. The other thing is when you use CGI depening on the movie the actors have nothing to see and respond to where if you really have something there they then have something to interact with witch can make it easier to get good or even great acting.

 

[Sexy Magician]

CGI is of course good, granted some movies on a lesser budget use it poorly, but when it's done right it can achieve beautiful, wonderful achievements for the eyes, just think of all the movies that couldn't have been made without it.

 

[dark_b]

good thread.

i think what we first need to talk is the hypocrisy. for example 10 year old CGI ages very bad. 20-40 years old animatronic ages very good. which is a lie.

90% of the animatronic effects that i like look like 100% fake puppets with obvious robotic arms under fake skin. i still love the movie but i doesnt look real.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Good cgi is good. Bad cgi is bad.

 

[Damage11]

CGI is a tool. The artist wielding it is what matters.

 

[terry78]

It's an evolutionary process, it's always going to be changing. So yeah, it is a good thing. The caveman thought fire was bad until he didn't have to eat smilodon meat raw anymore.

 

[MMB]

CGI in general? Yea it's good imo, and it will probably get even better. It's allways case to case though, and even if it's good I don't think it should be used all the time.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

CGI is great if it is used to help tell the story and not over used as a "Hey! See what we can do!!!" thing.

Point in case, the Star Wars prequels...

 

[Supernova]

great example of this thread is

good/ yeah, Rise of the planet of the apes:

Spoiler

Bad/ no, Sharknado 2:

Spoiler

 

[Bim]

CGI is great when done right.

 

[Morlock]

CGI is great if it is used to help tell the story and not over used as a "Hey! See what we can do!!!" thing.

Point in case, the Star Wars prequels...

Eh, for the most part I don't think the CGI actually got in the way of story telling in the prequels. The story telling would have been absolutely just as bad even if everything was acheived practically. The Phantom Menace actually had more model work than any other film up to that point (that record might actually stand). The movies simply aren't that good in terms of writing and the CG is an easily tangible difference between the new films and the old that people latch on to.

If the movies simply had better storytelling and improved acting in a few areas, the perception of the CGI in the prequels would be very different I think, a la Lord of the Rings. Jar Jar Binks is an annoying character, but the effects work was actually quite impressive for 1999. Attack of the Clones was one of the first major Hollywood films shot entirely digitally, something that has become the default now .

 

[TheDreamMaster]

CGI is a good thing, as long as it is used correctly. For example, Jurassic Park still holds up today because it used a lot of practical effects, but it used enough CGI when needed, such as full body shots for the Rex, the Brachiosaur, and some of the raptor shots etc.

It also depends the amount of time (and of course money) put into it, because we can have Jurassic Park and Avatar CGI, and then we can have Sharknado CGI.