Obviously, CGI in the last ten years has gone through such leaps and bounds that today, people are looking for these kinds of movies to wow audiences with technology.— Avi Arad
Revealing Cgi quotations
With the CGI, suddenly there's a thousand enemies instead of six - the army goes off into the horizon. You don't need that. The audience loses its relationship with the threat on the screen. That's something that's consistently happening and it makes these movies like video games and that's a soulless enterprise. It's all kinetics without emotion.
Even if I had $200 million, I’m very wary of overusing CGI.
I think it’s a great tool and it can be used really effectively, but I feel like it does tend to be overused and especially in sci-fi stuff.
CGI has a lot of backlash now. I think it's just because there are so many people doing it. It's a tool and it's only as good as the people behind it.
What's happened with computer technology is perfectly timed for someone with my set of skills. I tell stories with pictures. What I love about CGI is that if I can think it, it can be put on the screen.
Considering all the legal hassle child stars can be, I won't be surprised when they are phased out by CGI children voiced by adult actors.
As far as CGI and hand-drawn animation, I consider them both nothing more than tools for drawing pictures, the same as crayons or oils. Which is why, to me, the most important thing is what it is you are drawing, and in the themes that I depict, I think hand-drawing is the most effective.
Actually I think CGI has the potential to equal or even surpass what the human hand can do.
When I first read Lord of the Rings I wanted to see a film of it.
But at that time the technology wasn't there, there was no such thing as CGI.
When I did Yoda, me and three other people worked our asses off, and I was sweating every single day, it was tough as hell. Now that it's CGI, 24 people work on Yoda, and I get all the credit -- I do nothing.
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.
You can't just do cheap CGI and think that's going to work. It doesn't.
I just don't think CGI is up to manipulating the human face yet.
I feel like you can get away with it with aliens or monsters or something that's intentionally foreign, but I have yet to see anything digital to do with the human face that doesn't just look ridiculous.
These days, you'd probably shoot it in the daylight and manipulate it in the post. That's [how] most people would do it. [I did the same thing with] with 'Diving Bell and the Butterfly'. No CGI. It's all live photography. And I like that, it's very challenging and exciting to be able to do that.
I'm a big believer in just using CGI to polish what you get on camera.
The vast majority of the CGI budget is labor.
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.
It's always fun when you're doing the CGI stuff, to actually get to work with someone who is real, who's there.
CGI has fully ruined car crashes. Because how can you be impressed with them now? When you watch them in the '70s, it was real cars, real metal, real blasts. They're really doing it and risking their lives.
I think sometimes big budget means explosions! CGI! CGI, the possibilities are so limitless that it begins to be impractical.
With some CGI, I think the brain slightly perceives that things aren't real.
There's no gravity, the light's not quite real, the shadows aren't quite real.
I once said that CGI makes you less inventive.
At the time I was bemoaning the loss of the practical stunt. If a stunt can be done practically and safely, I'd rather do it old-style.
Large-budget movies start to lose focus on the story and the actors, and it becomes purely about the visual, or CGI, or framing with the cranes, or whatever it may be.
When I was a kid, I thought I would be an action-movie hero.
I was like, "They're gonna be able to CGI my legs by that point." And then I realized that it was probably better if I stayed a little closer to who I actually am rather than trying to be Bruce Willis.
On MTV, the dialogue can be a little darker, more interesting and edgy.
.. the animation is just phenomenal. It's a CGI program that's doing all the animation.
I love scuba diving. I'm an avid diver. And, there's this beautiful world that's more incredible than any CGI film we could ever make, that we're destroying, for what? It's heartbreaking to me.
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.
We don't have any CGI with any of the car stuff.
I think it's a real experience when you see this car going through really fast really wild and you see me driving a lot of the times and also a big chase in downtown Atlanta. It's just incredible.
It's been about 15 years, and I've never really worked seriously in CGI and I thought that here was an opportunity to do the kinds of things that I was not able to do on Ghostbusters.
I think that's what's happened with a lot of people in films these days: they're so enamored with the process, whether it's CGI or using a huge crane that they lose sight of being resourceful. Sometimes you go into a room and all you need is one lamp to light the room. Sometimes all you need is just one simple location to do the job. I think that's more out of habit: you work with what you have to work with.
Approximately 400 cuts - that would make 25 percent of the total - use CGI.
I worked on the Steamboy's animation production based on the usual handwriting method. Digital animation is just supplementary. I didn't do anything surprising, because the idea is to overcome the limitation of expressions done by handwriting with the help of CGI.
The industry in Japan moving toward CGI is not as severe and extreme as in the U.S. The animation industry in the U.S. is firing 2D animators and closing those studios, but I think it's possibly because the national traits of the U.S. prefer super-realism. Since Japan is a country that prefers plane vision, I don't think we will leave 2D and substitute hand-drawing with CGI entirely.
With all the hype that computer graphics has been getting, everybody thinks there's nothing better than CGI, but I do get a lot of fan mail saying they prefer our films to anything with CGI in it. I'm grateful for that, and we made them on tight budgets, so they were considered B-pictures because of that. And, now here we are, and they've outlasted many so-called A-pictures.
I love a chance to shoot real locations, because in films in the earlier days before people traveled as much, it was exotic to see a film set in Switzerland, and that area has been taken over by CGI, mostly, and fantasy landscapes. It's unusual to see this much landscape, people say it's old fashioned. So what you're referring to is there was that period in the '50s and '60s when there were epics and you saw landscape.
If you can make a good picture that actually has some substance, that's doubly good nowadays 'cause most everybody else is trying to address how many CGI plates we're gonna do, what little being is gonna come in from another asteroid.