|
CGI, as with any tool, is only as good as the person using it. And in this case, it is only as good as the filmmaker's vision for using it.
Van Helsing is one film that best illustrates one extreme. There's a story and some possibly interesting characters. Wrap it all around with CGI and you've got a movie? Of course...not. A glaring example of the CGI-nut gone wild.
The character of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings is something of a middle man. It's no too excessively CGI but the inertia is missing. It took me a while to notice this. Try it and see. The more you look, the more it becomes evident that no matter how well-made Gollum may be, his texture and movements is still a notch off.
The best example I can think of is in the use of CGI in Black Hawk Down. And here lies the other end of the CGI spectrum. The filmmaker's intention was to use the tool in order to enhance the film. It was so well-executed that I didn't even know CGI was used, until it was shown in one of the DVD's featurettes.
CGI-enhanced films? Knock yourselves out. Come to think of it, why don't they use old-fashioned "foam latex and kayro syrup" as bedlam23 says, and then enhance it with CGI.
CGI-monsters? I think they should really put in tons more effort, as The STE says, before it's modestly believable so as not to disrupt the film.
|