|
CGI should be a supplement- not an indulgement. A wise filmmaker will use CGI in small doses, and if it plays a more crucial role in the film, its appearance should be brief or sheltered by shadow or some other real obstruction.
Example of good CGI: The Mist (to use the forementioned discussion). Every creature in the film is oozing with CGI. Why does it work? Because we see the creatures in quick, flashy doses (pterodactyl things aside). Another good example of the same technique would be the first half of The Host. The second half fell apart for me...mostly because I got too good of a glimpse at that video game-like dinosaur thing, and it lost all credibility.
Example of bad CGI: Exorcist: The Beginning. When a filmmaker tries to pass a human being off with a full body suit a' CGI, complete with face and expressions, it doesn't work- most especially when this subject is in full visibility for minutes on end. The genious of the original Exorcist's make-up design was that it was so...well, for lack of better words, real-looking. Audiences could see every texture of every lump and scar on Regan's face because it was really there. Thirty years later, when audiences watch this "new and improved" possessed being, she looks more like a Spider-man villian. CGI in large doses serves as a distraction, and therefore only detaches the viewer from what is happening.
That's how I see things anyway...
__________________
|