A scene of Babylon from ALEXANDER (2004)
Is anyone impressed by this CGI scenes? I never really care for them. They almost always look fake or like some elaborate animation. Visually, it's striking for a few seconds but the longer these scenes remain on screen, the less impressive they become. It's not that different than matte paintings seen in old movies but these somehow look more like paintings than actual matte paintings of the past.
3 comments:
CGI is vastly overrated and a big reason why a lot of movies stink today because they rely almost entirely upon it. Many peplum movies have much more impressive sets even though done on relatively small budgets. Just goes to show what a fine Italian hand can do.
It's weird -I don't know what it is about CGI, but it carries a feeling of fakery which is stronger (to me) than any old glass painting. The same goes for CG animations compared to practical effects. I think one thing is simply the fact that nowadays I take for granted that the imagery I'm watching is created in the computer, and I'm unimpressed by the effort. Then, watching an older movie I see similar images created with "hand-made" effects, and I can't figure out exactly how it's done; I only know that there is skill, timing, and effort behind a successful effects shot and that carries with it great respect from me.
I used to hate CGI scenes but soon realized, as you observe, they are nothing more than 21st century matte shots. Also as you point out they are WAY overdone, IMO needlessly so. Nearly every one-on-one scene seems to be executed against a green screen on which is projected a background such as a sunset or ocean view. You'd think with enough ocean views in southern California or the Mediterranean they could leave the freakin' studio for a realistic shot.
Post a Comment