Thank you! Don't forget to confirm subscription in your email.
I think that if Shakespeare had had access to CGI, he would have used it. Imagine Lear conjuring the storm and the lightning.
If you take my performance or my understanding of the role and my appreciation for story and then dress it in CGI, that I guess becomes an action film.
My favorite parts about 'The Battle of Five Armies' were the moments where you could clearly see that we were looking at New Zealand. That it wasn't done in post, it wasn't CGI, it was the beautiful, incredible creation of Mother Nature in all of her splendor.
I really love a challenge, but in 'Downton' it was really hard going because there's no CGI - what you see is what you get. These were real explosions right in front of our faces, and you just had to make sure that you cleared out of the way.
I think there is a certain charm to the hand drawn image that I like. My problem with CGI is that it's so rich in texture that my eyes actually get tired. Everything is in focus down to the littlest leaf.
The vast majority of the CGI budget is labor.
Even today, a lot of the CGI you see in movies is so clean and crisp that it just looks fake. It's weird: the more advanced they get, the faker it looks.
The nature of the movies is different than it was five years ago, and they're all driven by the possibilities of CGI, which means you can make anything happen on screen that you can possibly desire.
I think audiences have hit the wall with CGI and special effects. They have seen so many over-the-top events that they can't suspend disbelief.
Critics in particular treat CGI as a virus that's infecting film.
