The prelogy was as much badly done than badly timed, they were still trying to go over using the technology[1] for the sake of it, nowadays you see people using CGI to help the experience more often.
People will probably realize that all of this is unnecessary. There was a video on youtube showing how much CGI there was even in a movie like The wolf of Wall Street. It's incredible how everything is faked (scenery, mood, ...), you end up wondering how people did make movies at all before. Well they did it pretty well.
CGI characters and stage are bad because they lack .. depth. I watch Alien often and only a few seconds of it sucks you into the ship. Same for Blade Runner, the guys are walking in an actual street, it probably embeds the whole crew a lot more, giving realism that can't be achieved in green rooms (Star Wars < 4 shined in this department, it was as bad a Soap Operas).
All of this require good sense and good sense of measure. Terminator 2 SFX very pretty crude in retrospect, but the editing made them blend perfectly. If you do frame by frame you'll laugh as some shots were really bad, but in real time, it never shows, the pace, framing, action compels your mind to think about the story, not the pixels.
[1] which makes the original trilogy even more impressive, most was invented on the spot yet it wasn't detrimental to the story.
> It's incredible how everything is faked (scenery, mood, ...), you end up wondering how people did make movies at all before. Well they did it pretty well.
Sometimes, just as films now are sometimes done well; just as often as now, they did it poorly, too...and, in any case, almost as much was faked even when CGI wasn't the tool used to fake it.
> CGI characters and stage are bad because they lack .. depth.
CGI characters and stage are sometimes good because, compared to alternative special effects techniques, they have depth and realism.
Sometimes not. Like any other technique in cinema, the art is in how it is used as much as whether it is used.
Maybe I'm biased by my love of minimalism (making a good movie without tech appeals to me) but also by the fact that movies are overblown these days. They're higher resolution but on the wrong dimensions, more backstory details, more detailed background decorum, more background characters. CGI lowered the threshold too much, and now movies are out of low-hanging fruits. I agree with you about the 'how' and that's what I tried to show before, back in the days the cost forced people to weight carefully how shots were to be made; not anymore.
People will probably realize that all of this is unnecessary. There was a video on youtube showing how much CGI there was even in a movie like The wolf of Wall Street. It's incredible how everything is faked (scenery, mood, ...), you end up wondering how people did make movies at all before. Well they did it pretty well.
CGI characters and stage are bad because they lack .. depth. I watch Alien often and only a few seconds of it sucks you into the ship. Same for Blade Runner, the guys are walking in an actual street, it probably embeds the whole crew a lot more, giving realism that can't be achieved in green rooms (Star Wars < 4 shined in this department, it was as bad a Soap Operas).
All of this require good sense and good sense of measure. Terminator 2 SFX very pretty crude in retrospect, but the editing made them blend perfectly. If you do frame by frame you'll laugh as some shots were really bad, but in real time, it never shows, the pace, framing, action compels your mind to think about the story, not the pixels.
[1] which makes the original trilogy even more impressive, most was invented on the spot yet it wasn't detrimental to the story.