Say no to CGI
Out of context: Reply #22
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- loool0
I think that CG is mainly used for commercial films and for showing of, which is from my point of view : wrong. Investing so much money for RnD, artist overtimes, and who knows how much researches just to make Transformers, Hulk, Avengers or whatever superhero shit movie which makes you run away screaming from the cinema is really not cool. But it's not always like that: Gaspar Noe used it for Enter the Void and made (again in my opinion) a masterpiece full of rich and groundbreaking imagery which he would hardly accomplish using different methods. What is good is that CG slowly gets out of the "rich guys club" and now we are starting to see studios which can make pretty decent renders for not so much cash, which brings us to the situation that we have fine CG in some less commercial films or series. The numbers of young and willing to experiment directors is increasing and the technology is becoming available to them. It should blossom at some point where we will watch really groundbreaking stuff made by experimental artistic directors, which should lead to something exciting (CG in Melancholia from Von Trier, beginning of Tree of Life etc.). Again I am pointing out that CG today is used mainly for showing of in situations where it's maybe not even needed and for shitty movies, but saying no to CG just for the sake of it while probably using all the technology available to you like computer, internet, camera, cellphone etc is maybe a bit rigid in my opinion. CG is a visual expression, which will lead to new stuff, and I don't see any reason why I would say no to it...