Ok, after scanning through Mollo's two threads below where he rants about bad CG ruining movies, I had to start this thread.
Now, this is a more theoretical and internal question, something you'll have to think about how to answer. If you think you can prove your point in one sentence, you're not thinking hard enough.
A lot of people are quick to bash CG claiming that "it will never be as good as models and matte paintings". However, CG is still evolving - both the technology and the people - no matter how much a studio or director likes to claim otherwise. They're usually just saying that theirs is the best because they're trying to sell their product.
Considering that what's regarded as "photorealistic CG" - starting with T2 and Jurassic Park at the beginning of the 90's - is less than 20 years old and still growing, are people's complaints about "so much bad CGI" truly justified, or are modern audiences just more aware of the fact that it's being used in the first place, so they're looking for it harder instead of just sitting back and enjoying the movie?
So, put on your thinking caps and support your position - be it for or against - with logic and common sense. Lists of "good CGI in these films" and "bad CGI in those films" isn't enough...explain WHY the CGI is good in this film and bad in that one. "Because you can see that it's CG" isn't enough - HOW can you tell it's CG? What tipped you off? Hint - the fact that it's a of creature that doesn't exist in the real world doesn't count. Talk about the quality of the image, not the content.
Once some other people post their perspectives, I'll come back and throw mine in. I don't want to taint the discussion up front.
Now, this is a more theoretical and internal question, something you'll have to think about how to answer. If you think you can prove your point in one sentence, you're not thinking hard enough.
A lot of people are quick to bash CG claiming that "it will never be as good as models and matte paintings". However, CG is still evolving - both the technology and the people - no matter how much a studio or director likes to claim otherwise. They're usually just saying that theirs is the best because they're trying to sell their product.
Considering that what's regarded as "photorealistic CG" - starting with T2 and Jurassic Park at the beginning of the 90's - is less than 20 years old and still growing, are people's complaints about "so much bad CGI" truly justified, or are modern audiences just more aware of the fact that it's being used in the first place, so they're looking for it harder instead of just sitting back and enjoying the movie?
So, put on your thinking caps and support your position - be it for or against - with logic and common sense. Lists of "good CGI in these films" and "bad CGI in those films" isn't enough...explain WHY the CGI is good in this film and bad in that one. "Because you can see that it's CG" isn't enough - HOW can you tell it's CG? What tipped you off? Hint - the fact that it's a of creature that doesn't exist in the real world doesn't count. Talk about the quality of the image, not the content.
Once some other people post their perspectives, I'll come back and throw mine in. I don't want to taint the discussion up front.