Has CGI gotten stale?

[Cowabungaa]

Well I wouldn't call it stale, but definatly overused. It makes everything feel so easy and fake, plus if the movie contains too much of it you can see it in the acting.

It's one of the main reasons why I prefer the original Star Wars trilogy over the new one. It feels a lot more real, mostly because it actually is more real, and when Luke chops off the arm of that yeti thing, an actual arm (a fake one, but still a real object) falls on the ground. I like that.

The new trilogy is an example of overusing CGI, when it's used in taste and discretion (when it blends with the movie) it can make a good film great. But it can make a decent film crap as well.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Buying 700 square feet of green fabric and employing 10 animators and 5 modellers is cheaper than a construction studio to build a set is the short answer. Traditional camera tricks of the trade for special effects have been done away with because CG is far cheaper, and that's the only reason.

And if you're curious about all the cruddy animated children's films coming out, companies are trying to follow the leader [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FollowTheLeader], Pixar.

 

[Dr Ampersand]

CGI is like glitter. Too much and looks horrible. A little here and there and it's a nice touch.

 

[Julianking93]

Some CGI is good. Like in the recent District 9, that was great. Or in Cloverfield. Sure it was only glimpses of the monster, but it was still cool.

And look how much it cost to make those movies. They were both about 30 million a piece.

But look at Transformers. That movie cost like 200 million dollars to make and it had shitty CGI.

[small/]not to mention shitty acting[/small]

It seems like the higher the budget, the worse the CGI gets.