Commander_Jim wrote:Thr problem with CGI is that its ushered in a kind of lazyness into filmmaking. Before CGI because of the limitations of practical effects it meant that special effects were used very sparingly, just a couple of "wow" scenes per movie, the rest of the film actually had to be carried by story and great characters. And when you're absorbed into a movie because of the story and characters, it just made the special effects moments all the more believable. Now they dont need to worry about story and characters because movies can be comprised of constant CGI spectacle. And as realistic as it has become, movies have never been less believable because we dont buy the cardboard cutout characters and arent absorbed by what little story there is..
As someone who is studying computer science and the art of computer graphic images ... I just want to tell you that LAZINESS has no part in the creation of CGI unless the person behind it is lazy. You're blaming an system of effects that at one point was praised by people in stuff like The Abyss, Terminator 2, oh and let's not forget Jurassic Park. I think you fail to explain that isn't the tool that's the problem, it's the people. I love Practical effects and Paul Fieg in a Blu-ray extra claimed that he prefers that era of special effects over modern day work, but he also makes a point that CGI does way more than practicality. Yes, today, I commend people of the past for their efforts at trying to make something real. I give you the best example: THE LOVE BUG. That film is one of the goofiest Disney films ever, but EVERY single shot with the car pulling some trick or cartoony style or actual racing is all practicality ... but if you asked any of those guys, would they have been better or felt better if they used CGI then for some of the shots, they'll give you a heartily big YES! You're saying the limitations of reality makes someone work harder in the field of special effects, but I call bullshit on that. A PERSON IS THE LIMITATION AS MUCH AS THE EFFECT. You're not in love with practicality, you're in love with the effort because I bet you that if you went into practical special effects or CGI, you'll realize both require an intensive amount of learning and experience to make them as real as possible. Ghostbusters ATC valued character. Erin was an insecure book worm who by the end realized that shit doesn't matter when its you and your friends who are the last line of defense between two clashing dimensions. Jillian was an eccentric personality who like Bill Murray, poked fun at things, but unlike Bill she was caught up in it all and when the moments required her to be scared, afraid/worried, or concerned, it actually happened, meaning she wasn't a walking one-liner joke machine. How many people thought she was the Egon and well lookie here, she wasn't that at all. You also have Abby who is the cheerleader who just doesn't want to show negativity, but positivity when the mood was killing everybody else because she wanted her friends to not give up on what she knew could be real and how many people are there in the world like that? Even the director admits that the full story could only be truly appreciated with 2-3 hours and guess what? The extended edition did that for many people so obviously its true that he valued character and story, and if it wasn't for the men and women in suits at SONY, we could of gotten that in Theaters. You don't know what goes on behind the scenes of most big films. I get so f****g pissed off by people who think its all a technical pile of wires and lights and electricity going on when in reality there is art to the science of computation because if there wasn't then all those algorithms that made a T-Rex come back to life in 1993 wouldn't have been even in the thought of those software engineers at ILM. I mean for God's sake, the Marvel films are beloved by millions for their character and story equally as their effects and that is 90% CGI.