CGI means nothing. There have always been crappy films which sold lots of tickets because the special effects overwhelmed the audience (see: Earthquake). There are few good films (compared to the bad ones) released every year. CGI is a tool for the filmmaker, nothing more. If the filmmaker chooses to make a film simply to show off special effects, without regard for script, continuity, deeper meanings, or even coherence, that is a choice -- often a commercially-viable choice.

But a filmmaker can also use CGI to improve the telling of the story -- where script, acting, and form dominate the presentation. Just as better lenses, better sound equipment, authentic costumes (zippers in westerns? really?), can enhance the viewing experience. Audiences expect a certain level of believability when they view a film. When the filmmaker shows the unusual, the fantastic, the amazing -- special effects are there to give the audience a sense of reality: that it is a spaceship taking off, a monster attacking, a light sabre swooshing... We expect the effects to be as real as we expect at the time we see the film... King Kong was very real to the 1930's era audience. The sword-bearing skeletons were amazing in the Harryhausen films. Today we see Iron Man and see a comic book hero come to life. But it, unlike many other comic book films, has a fine script, acting above high school level, and a verisimilitude which convinces us it could be happening and we care, even if we are not comic book fans or special effects junkies.

I am a comic book and science fiction fan for more than a half century. Yet I cannot stand a film which ignores good filmmaking to hit me over the head with special effects -- I want good filmmaking first, then use the tools available to highten my experience.

CGI is a tool, nothing more.

Personally, I would agree with some of the above points. CGI certainly is a tool, and as any tool... it can be used badly.

Personally I love CGI, solely for the reason that with CGI... so many stories are made possible to visualise with CGI. As CGI becomes more sophisticated, the results become more realistic. Let's take Lord of the Rings for example. Do you think the battle scenes would have been so fantastic without CGI? The Ents look believable without CGI?

Or could a movie like The Matrix have even been made?

In this day and age, CGI has become the norm for special effects.

For instance, it seems to me that Spider-Man 3 relied too heavily on unrealistic computer graphics, which I think is wrong for ol' Peter Parker: he is a man after all. A fictional man, a super poweful man, but still a man, in the story.
I think CGI is fine either if it's made in a way that you don't notice the trick (e.g. some battle scenes in The Patriot), or for movies that are totally unrealistic (e.g. a computer generated reality in Matrix), but not for every movie.

In todays big budget special effects movies CGI is inevitable.
If it is used professional I like it alot.

Of course cheap CGI effect suck donkey balls

greetings
Donnie

My answer is simple: Gollum

As others said, CGI is a tool. Properly used it can yield breathtaking results.

cya, Mithi

PS And yes, "properly" excludes some (a lot?) of the changes that were made to Star Wars 4-6. But that is another discussion IHMO, because the problem is that there are changes in the first place.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
With regards to The Matrix, I actually preferred the effects in the first film, where less CGI was used.
In the subsequent films I thought the CGI Neo and Smith(s) looked like bendy toys and it totally destroyed the illusion for me.

Strangely enough, this is one of the examples that stuck in my head as well. Most of the special effects from the original Matrix worked well, but the later films seemed to use CGI far more liberally and for many of the scenes, to lesser effect. The Smith / Neo fight in particular I think was mediocre made awful by a ridiculous decision to use slow-motion.

I think that the strength of CGI is in 'touching up' and enhancing. It allows you to blend images (green/blue - screen) and extend shots from a 'real' core to a virtual horizon. When it's put centre stage and made to do most of the work, I think that the flaws shine through. The Ents from LOtR were mentioned - the detail on them was animatronic extended and blended with CGI and using CGI-only in long shots. Why? I think that that is a more appropriate use of CGI than many I see.

Mentioning Gollum... he was an impressive CGI creation, but instantly recognisable as CGI. If you watch the start of RotK, showing Gollum's 'creation', it's actually fairly obvious at what point they make the transition from makeup and prosthetic to CGI. The mere fact that I can spot that makes me question whether Gollum really is impressive, or simply impressive for CGI?

Stuart

Quoting DariusKyrak:

Quote:
Ah, but you see I'm not questioning the CGI element of 'special-effects movies', but CGI AS a tool. I actually wonder if CGI is a step backwards from the techniques used a few years ago. To question this, Star Wars is an excellent example (because the effects were re-visited, because there are movies made in different 'special effects eras', and because they're so widely seen).

Consider the band/singer in Jaba's palace. Originally puppets, the special editions completely replaced them with CGI... I believe, to their determent. Yes, the more active performance of the SE was closer to George Lucas' vision, but I think that they both: a) looked less 'real' , and b) caused George to get carried away. I think that the same can be seen with the sarlacc pit.

Comparing creatures from the original films (episodes IV-VI) and the new films (episodes I-III), I found the Rancor (monster under Jaba's palace) a far more believable and impressive creature than any of the CGI creations in the later films.

Stuart

No, it most emphatically is NOT a step backwards.  I agree with everything Cliff said, and would further like to point out that there are many movies out today -- good ones, mind you -- that would have been impossible to do without CGI.  The Lord of the Rings trilogy springs immediately to mind.  A great director will use every tool at his disposal to make the best movie he can, but at the same time he knows when NOT to use a certain tool.  CGI is often used when it doesn't need to be, but it isn't the fault of the technology; just the director.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
You should also take into account Gollum's performance. It was the motion-capture acting of Andy Serkis that "sold" Gollum to the audience. The realistic "appearance" of a character doesn't matter as much as realistic behaviour. After all, we accepted Yoda and he was a muppet!

My understanding is that they motion captured his movements.  The facial expressions...especially the eyes...were all done by the animators.  The part where he was talking to himself by the water was nothing short of spectacular.