CGI is, in my view, one of the most important components to consider in the way of contemporary film-making. After all, it is able to bring life to special features that might not have that degree of life otherwise. There are so many ways in which it can be used, whether it is the creation of characters that cannot be seen in reality or bringing life to landscapes that are able to prove aesthetically pleasing. With that said, is it possible that CGI can be argued to be one of the most overused features in film?
On the surface, this appears to be the case. It's interesting because CGI is almost like the film and TV equivalent of the seasons changing; it's just something that we have come to expect. When we see impressive visuals like Iron Man, in the third movie of his trilogy, descending from the sky in order to save a number of civilians, we don't say, "Look at how fake this appears." CGI is involved but it's incorporated in such a way that we don't try to search for a wizard behind the curtain.
Think of CGI as almost like the whipped cream atop an ice cream sundae. Of course you will want whipped cream because it adds something special to the overall dish. However, what happens when it seems as though there is too much whipped cream? That particular experience winds up leaving something to be desired. CGI is the same way; too little and the product becomes cheap. If there is too much CGI, though, it stops looking less like an authentic piece of art and more like a synthetically manufactured entity.
It's easy to say that CGI is oftentimes utilized poorly, even now when it's been around for a number of years. For example, upon watching the first "Twilight" movie, I did not care for many of the visuals. At first, the paler colors were interesting, as I thought they added to the somber atmosphere of the film in general. However, once the CGI werewolves made their presence, I found myself taken out of the experience. Yes, werewolves are creations of fiction but the movie-going audience should not be made aware of this.
Keep in mind that "Twilight" was not meant to be a movie that was aware of itself; otherwise poor CGI would have been excusable. However, this is an example of a studio not utilizing CGI in the way that others are able to. With so many different effects that can be incorporated, it's clear that there are some will come across more than others, depending on not only experience but the competency of the studios behind certain films. Perhaps one day the movie industry will reach a point where CGI will appear authentic across the board.
On the surface, this appears to be the case. It's interesting because CGI is almost like the film and TV equivalent of the seasons changing; it's just something that we have come to expect. When we see impressive visuals like Iron Man, in the third movie of his trilogy, descending from the sky in order to save a number of civilians, we don't say, "Look at how fake this appears." CGI is involved but it's incorporated in such a way that we don't try to search for a wizard behind the curtain.
Think of CGI as almost like the whipped cream atop an ice cream sundae. Of course you will want whipped cream because it adds something special to the overall dish. However, what happens when it seems as though there is too much whipped cream? That particular experience winds up leaving something to be desired. CGI is the same way; too little and the product becomes cheap. If there is too much CGI, though, it stops looking less like an authentic piece of art and more like a synthetically manufactured entity.
It's easy to say that CGI is oftentimes utilized poorly, even now when it's been around for a number of years. For example, upon watching the first "Twilight" movie, I did not care for many of the visuals. At first, the paler colors were interesting, as I thought they added to the somber atmosphere of the film in general. However, once the CGI werewolves made their presence, I found myself taken out of the experience. Yes, werewolves are creations of fiction but the movie-going audience should not be made aware of this.
Keep in mind that "Twilight" was not meant to be a movie that was aware of itself; otherwise poor CGI would have been excusable. However, this is an example of a studio not utilizing CGI in the way that others are able to. With so many different effects that can be incorporated, it's clear that there are some will come across more than others, depending on not only experience but the competency of the studios behind certain films. Perhaps one day the movie industry will reach a point where CGI will appear authentic across the board.
About the Author:
If you are intrigued in film design and other such fields, please look at art schools in Seattle for more information.. This article, Can CGI Prove To Be Overexposed? is available for free reprint.
No comments:
Post a Comment