Quote
Originally posted by: sybeman
I'm not going to try to go back and find the post I want to quote, so just trust me that someone on here (or more than one person) said that they can tell when CG is used in a movie.
I can too -- and I hate it!
WARNING: I wrote the rant below and realised it rambled on and didn't really get to the point. Read at your own risk!
Special effects shots are (or should be) used only when you can't actually do what it is you want shot. Effects shots should still seem natural within the context of the film. I mean, I obviously know that there aren't spaceships and that, but if they look real, then that's great. Suspension of disbelief! I mean, when I first saw ESB and saw Yoda, he was really there on Dagobah. Once the movie was over, well, yeah, he was a puppet, but I believed he was real. Special effects have done their job when you believe it's real. In my opinion, if there's CG in a movie, I don't want to know it. I don't want to be able to tell where the CG effects are. They should be seamless. I hate hearing "The effects in that movie were awesome!" If you noticed where the CG effects (or any special effects) were, they haven't done their job. If you lose that suspension of disbelief, then it's not real for you anymore. CG never seems to fit in because it's not real enough. It pulls me out of the film, and it's that much harder to enjoy.
Thanks for listening.
The quote was mine, but you didn't need that. I think you've hit the nail right on the head. I agree with you that essentially, CG fails to suspend disbelief if used frequently, and for long periods of time. That's why I prefer the performance of the puppet Yoda in ESB/ROTJ, and it's also why I think the use of animatronics is what should be looked into. I think that to an extent, it combines the rigid movement of machines with the fluid movement of CG.