CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) hit the big time almost 20 years ago now with the release of Terminator 2. Without the CGI content, it's doubtful that the film could have been made. It was also the first time that CGI was a showcase -front of house- special effect, rather than a filler background effect (films such as Batman Returns had Catwoman as CGI in some places, The Crow filled in action distance animations too - lots of other examples).
Since that point, pretty much every film you see will now have CGI sitting there doing all the hard work special effects people did.
Need a spaceship to land behind your main actors? Put them in front of a green screen and add it later.
You can't quite find a house that's right for a scene? Use any and CGI can fix it later.
CGI has allowed film makers the chance to do anything within the realms of their imagination. There's absolutely no limit to what is now possible.
However, has this been the death of "good movies"?
Look at the new Star Wars trilogy. CGI out of every orifice, but they're a very sterile, poor film compared tot he original "low tech" films. Lord of the Rings is expansive, mind blowing and incredible - but there's just something ultimately false about it.
CGI is a lovely quick fix, directors no longer need to think their way around problems - just dump in the CGI and "I can do what I like". I think it's stifling film making rather than releasing it.
Avatar is the obvious big one. An entire world and eco system inside a computer. Yet let's look at T2 - Cameron's other big budget epic. It's a mix of CGI, but mostly traditional methods (stunt drivers and real cars, make-up, plastic sets, etc. For me T2 is the most "real". I can believe in it because traditional effects act in a real manner, not in some crazy ass way the director wants the laws of physics and light to work.
Out of various "Best 100 films ever" lists, you'll find probably less than 5 films that have CGI as a main role in the film. More films in the last 20 years without CGI as a main component are in the lists (I'm excluding films like Toy Story and Nemo which are 100% animation and obviously so).
I'd also say that while a fair few of those top 100 films are "effects heavy", that if CGI had been around when they were made, they'd have been much worse for it.
So, what do you think?
Here are a few top 100 lists:
http://www.filmsite.org/momentsindx.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 808785.ece
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/100-g ... f-all-time
Since that point, pretty much every film you see will now have CGI sitting there doing all the hard work special effects people did.
Need a spaceship to land behind your main actors? Put them in front of a green screen and add it later.
You can't quite find a house that's right for a scene? Use any and CGI can fix it later.
CGI has allowed film makers the chance to do anything within the realms of their imagination. There's absolutely no limit to what is now possible.
However, has this been the death of "good movies"?
Look at the new Star Wars trilogy. CGI out of every orifice, but they're a very sterile, poor film compared tot he original "low tech" films. Lord of the Rings is expansive, mind blowing and incredible - but there's just something ultimately false about it.
CGI is a lovely quick fix, directors no longer need to think their way around problems - just dump in the CGI and "I can do what I like". I think it's stifling film making rather than releasing it.
Avatar is the obvious big one. An entire world and eco system inside a computer. Yet let's look at T2 - Cameron's other big budget epic. It's a mix of CGI, but mostly traditional methods (stunt drivers and real cars, make-up, plastic sets, etc. For me T2 is the most "real". I can believe in it because traditional effects act in a real manner, not in some crazy ass way the director wants the laws of physics and light to work.
Out of various "Best 100 films ever" lists, you'll find probably less than 5 films that have CGI as a main role in the film. More films in the last 20 years without CGI as a main component are in the lists (I'm excluding films like Toy Story and Nemo which are 100% animation and obviously so).
I'd also say that while a fair few of those top 100 films are "effects heavy", that if CGI had been around when they were made, they'd have been much worse for it.
So, what do you think?
Here are a few top 100 lists:
http://www.filmsite.org/momentsindx.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 808785.ece
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/100-g ... f-all-time