> 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.
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.