Does anyone know why they made a CGI model of the dog in Call of the Wild with Harrison Ford when they could have used an actual dog actor?
This is in no way related but I always appreciated directors particularly Christopher Nolan that advocated using practical effects rather than extensive CGI. I was surprised to find out how much practical effects were used in his films that I originally assumed were CGI. Of course I'm not comparing Christopher Nolan to James Gunn's style of film-making.
I recall in Captain Marvel if I'm not mistaken--they did use a real cat though, didn't they?--however the cat's face and expressions ended up being enhanced post-filming. The CGI was very noticeable. The cat never looked convincing which was my main argument. Not that it was terrible CGI, but it looked off. It didn't look like a real car. At least not the face. It almost felt as if it was that time when Steven Spielberg re-released E.T. for the 20th anniversary only to have the original E.T. animatronic puppet be replaced entirely by CGI, to which Spielberg years later said, he regretted doing.
But on the subject of using animals for acting, I don't know if by this point, if the film industry has considered using domestic animals in film and TV as animal abuse. I am in no way supportive of taming wild animals and using them for performances, but dogs are domestic animals. Not that I'm saying domestic animals don't get exploited or abused either, but I just think a real dog could have been used. Granted I know that they can't make a dog fly or shoot lasers out of its eyes, so of course some CGI should be acquired. It doesn't seem that hard to have a real dog lick someone's face at the very least.
I'm not slamming the movie. I'm still happy we have Krypto.
time.com
.
