TheBoost said:
CO said:
T2 and The Abyss are perfect movies where CGI makes them better, but does not overtake the movie.
The Prequels are loaded with CG and just looks like an animated movie (Episode I isn't that bad as that actually has real environments) Episode II & III are just animated movies with real life characters and wont age well 20 years from now.
Who ever complained Mary Poppins had matte-work overtaking the movie? Does the fact the penguins are plainly 2D animated pen-and-ink figures date that movie terribly? Do the obviously stop-motion skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts overtake the movie? Or is this simply anti-CG bias.
Acting as if the opening minutes of Ep. III aren't simply spectacular use of CGI, and that the Mustafar duel isn't a breathtaking accomplishment is just denying the overwhelming quality of the work.
If we're under the impression that the special effects in the OT have aged with amazing grace, take a look at the nits being picked in the fan-edit forum. And that's some of the best work with models, matte-paintings, puppets, and stop motion ever done. Take a gander at the middle of the pack special effects from 20-30 years ago.
I think a plurality concede that CGI is a great tool. Two problems with it are that it is so pervasive and it is inferior to certain physical effects.
The pervasiveness means that the special effect isn't usually something in the background that receives little attention (like matte paintings) but is all over the place (eg Ronto butt). We are forced to confront the unreality (eg Ronto butt) and CGI looks especially unreal when placed in actual footage. If it is going to be at the forefront, it better be very well done, whether CGI or physical.
For biological entities, the unreality is especially glaring. But what happens when we need unreal entities (eg fighting skeletons, Gollum, Yoda)? I find puppet Yoda far more real than CGI Yoda. This doesn't mean puppet Yoda is flawless or that I am utterly fooled into believing Yoda is actually real. But puppet Yoda is one super awesome puppet. And not having seen a living Yoda before, I am sufficiently fooled. But having seen puppet Yoda (as well as real cloth), CGI Yoda really does pale in comparison. I think EyeShotFirst is absolutely right on this point. Gollum works in large part because we haven't seen him before. We are glad to suspend disbelief for special effects, including CGI, but that does not make CGI superior (I've always disliked the unreality of Gollum's fall into the lava, btw). If we look with a more critical eye, Gollum is cartoonish and would pale in comparison to physical effects. Compare puppet and CGI Sy Snootles.
Imagine if Lucas had today's CGI in 1977. Perhaps Chewbacca would be the bushbaby that Lucas always wanted with unreal CGI hair. We wouldn't have the same kind of expression in Mayhew's eyes, his shrug at the droid, the basic reality that comes with human movement (which CGI can only capture up to an extent). When we must use physical effects, reality imposes design compromises and time for designs to evolve more radically than George commanding, 'go cook me up this bushbaby guy on the computer.'
I imagine CGI could do a better job than stop motion for the distant shot of Luke's Tauntaun, for fighting skeletons, and allow for more spectacular space battles. But that doesn't mean it should be everywhere.
CGI isn't bad, it's just not as great as many believe.