Svitska Donkun wrote:CGI is a misused tool thats become far too pervasive. And CGI is most certainly not always more convincing. I find well made animatronics the most convincing of creature effects. Just because CGI is convenient and easy doesn't make it better. CGI, as I said, should be used sparingly and when there's no other options. It should be used to blend, not project. I will site LOTR and Jurassic Park again as perfect examples.
So... a major company should use a more expensive and difficult technique that is not going to appeal to a wide audience, when there is a cheaper alternative that, when done properly, can look just as stunning- if for no other reason than the potential to create something that LOOKS realistic, even when you know it's not?
Look at King Kong. The effects used in that were incredible. They weren't goofy, fake, and, for the most part, not very obvious, despite much of the moving being JAM PACKED with CGI. Even though you know what you're looking at is computer effects, you still can't help but have the feeling that, if you were there on set, you could reach out and touch what you're seeing on screen. I'm not a fan of CG-fest films, honestly, but when I look at something that goes to that level of detail, I can't help but be impressed. When I think about what effects artists did in 2005 with Kong, I can't help but be excited about even more advanced techniques being applied to Godzilla.
Suitmation, while being nostalgic, fun, and creates a sort-of tangibility for the movie, does limit what the creature can do in the film. CGI opens a whole new door for Godzilla, and in the hands of a company with a good track record for CGI and the funds to make use of, would actually be cool to see.
Is CGI in Hollywood overused? Yes. Does that mean it shouldn't touch a Godzilla film? No.
89 Days and Counting.
RIP Doug Nason, 2/23/11