You misunderstood what I mean... the CGI process is not easy for the artists involving in the actual effects, but it is often easier for the director himself than setting up and filming a large elaborate stunt. He just shoots his actors in front of a bluescreen and lets the CGI artists handle the big load.

I think as much as CGI is hard to do, it is relatively easy to depend on rather than construct whole sets or rely on people like Stan Winston or Rick Baker to do creatures.

I remember one critic before saying that films like Apocalypse Now or Gangs of New York (considering its modest returns) may never be made anymore due to two things: laziness and budget.

As mentioned by someone, Empire Strikes Back and Bladerunner retains its classic quality due to its production design, not CGI. I mean, even if the older Star Wars, in today's standards, would look too aged, they still looked incredibly real compared to some of recent CGI-filled films.

One example I can think of, and not really a good movie to begin with was Schwarzenegger's Eraser during the gator scene. There was no ounce of suspense whatsoever since it was so obvious that the alligator was CGI. It would have been better if they actually built a mechanical alligator.

Used indirectly (the others) or as THE main vehicle (Shrek) I like it.

Used direclty (Barlog, Spiderman) I hate it.

DIE ANOTHER DAY is my less favorite Bond movie because of the CGI, and the horrible ending.

Funny how the two things people mention, Eraser and Mummy Returns were VFX shots by from ILM, who is considered the god-father of all effects houses.

Again, it's a matter of time and money. If you're not given any time & money for pre-production R&D (which nobody really pays for except the visual effects facility to try to win the job) and your schedule went from 6 weeks (which was pretty tight to begin with) down to 3 weeks to complete and then the director wants to add scenes not part of the original shot list of effects (but doesn't want to pay because the show is already overbudget that he'll take anything he can get), sure, it will pretty much look like crap.

Look at Final Fantasy... that took about 6 years to complete and they still didn't get things right no matter how much they advanced the technology and came as close to photorealism as possible. 6 years! The Matrix Reloaded had an extra year and a half to get their shots complete and they settled for what was onscreen, which is pretty far from the look Final Fantasy established.

A lot of you that complain about how bad effects look probably have no idea in what goes on to get a shot from script to screen, the budget, the man power, the incredulous schedules. It would make your head spin. And having been behind the scenes at 3 facitlities, I still marvel at the work done in such a short amount of time. Perfect or not.

Are you talking about the Bond surfing montage in the beginning of Die Another Day? From what I know of this scene, there were stunt doubles actually surfing those waves. It's on the 2nd disc of the DVD. Laird Hamilton and his friends did the stunts. It looks like they had to digitally grade the video to make it look like it was nighttime when they were actually shooting during the day. Still, with those goggles and those huge waves, it was an incredibly dangerous stunt.

Laird Hamilton is a big wave surfer and has pioneered tow surfing.

Here is Hamilton's latest DVD.

And now about the CGI debate:

LOTR and Star Wars are the two franchises I know which consistently use both models and CGI. I think for those films, it gives it an "other-worldly" feel to them.

The alternative...maybe we can go back to stop-motion photography (e.g. Clash of the Titans) and processed driving shots (like most of The Love Bug which I bought recently).

We're talking about the parasailing scene near the end.

A lot of people keep mentioning that we don't realize the expense that goes into creating a CGI effect.

But - why would it cost anything at all? I mean - I understand in the old days you build the highly detailed model ship or go through a painstaking process of applying layers of latex makeup to some actor. I can see how that costs money. But aside from the salary you pay to the guy working the computer (and the initial investment made in the computer program itself) - why would any CGI effect be expensive?

At 24 frames per second, think of each frame as a digital painting you need to pay for, and that quickly adds up in films that have lots and lots of CGI.

CGI is expensive, but compared to using practical effects it's relatively cheap and you get more "bang for your buck."

I think CGI in movies breaks down into 3 simple catagories;
1)CG so good you don't think twice(jurrasic park,starship troopers).
2)CG you notice straight away but still looks cool (spiderman,XXX,Ep.2)
3)CG you notice straight away and you just wonder why ?(The haunting,die another day).
also the other problem I have with die another day is that in 19 previos films he doesn't surf and in this one he does it twice.
My theory about CGI is that just because you can do it CGI doesn't mean you should.
I don't know if anyone else remembers this when is when Ep.2 came out lucas was on CNN saying that they get the technology and write the story around that,doesn't that say alot about?

Another reason for bad CGI is bad directors.

I heard Robert Zemekis speak once and he mentioned something I'd never realized: Effects houses are often sloppy and rushed and don't do a good job.

A director needs a shot, all the effects houses bid for it, one of them wins, then they do the shot and submit it for aproval by the director. At this point the director says "yeah that's great put it in the film" or "no that sucks do it again." Zemekis said that often an effects house might be perfectly capable of doing the shot perfectly, but they do a rush job and hope the director doesn't care. In the case of crap movies w/ crap directors like Mummy 2 and Eraser this makes some sense. On the other hand a more insistant, demanding, visionary director will demand the shot redone untill it's to his satisfaction.

Because it can take anywhere from 3 - 10 guys working on a single vfx shot. Now take a look at something like Spider-man. I believe that movie had over 500+ effects shots... now multiply that by the low number of 3, then multiply by their salary. (The average person makes between $50 - $75K, some TD's make $100K+) Sure some of the things are done by the same person, but still, that's a shitload of money. It's not just a single guy in front of a computer doing everything. Stay for the end credits and see how many names are up there for visual effects.

I don't doubt that's true. But I saw the Mummy effects team's presentation at SIGGRAPH and they were very proud of the work they presented.

Part of it, too, is that we have seen the evolution of CGI and have been "trained" to spot it. We know what to look for and can invariably spot it. Add to that the "making of" videos showcasing the effects. I believe some people confuse "spotting CGI" with "bad CGI". In other words, no matter how good it is, we call it bad because we can recognize the effect. I don't know about you, but I've always been able to spot effects. From miniatures to matte paintings, from stop-motion animation to chroma-key, there has never been a totally convincing effect. Even the Thing, as cool as it is, still looks like puppets. Blade Runner, I could always see the wires. Remember how cool the bladder effect first looked back in the early 80s, then it got to be ubiquitous and easy to spot the tell-tale thickening of where the bladders we inserted?

Personally, I think people should just relax and stop whining about effects. I saw the Matrix 2 the other day and remarked how if you can spot the fake Smiths in the Burly Brawl, you are trying too hard to spot them. Yeah, they are there, but just sit back and take in the action instead of trying to pick it apart and I guarantee you'll enjoy the films more. If you are a person that is really and truly bothered by spotting CGI then you really need to stop watching fantasy films. The days of Erich Von Strohiem building entire cities and using casts of 1000s are gone. I, for one, am just glad they managed to finally get rid of that blue fringe on composite shots.

Agreed. I miss that too.