I think I finally figured something out, why I am so unimpressed with CG in movies, and why I'm mystified when people reviewing a film comment on the "mind-blowing special effects".

I think it's like a magic trick. An audience's attention is captured by a magician's trick. They don't know how it was done, but it looked impressive, and perhaps even in the back of an adult's mind "could it be real" or at least along the lines of the imagination trying to come up with a really impressive way that the trick was done (probably a lot more impressive than what actually took place).

Now insert CG into a magician's trick. The screen comes down, showing a magician exploding into a million pieces and comes back together again. It would have been impressive if it wasn't obviously fake. I'm sure it took a lot of time to design, but it didn't require any physical feat or an inventive mind to stage.

I guess this is why I'm so unimpressed when action films like say Iron Man / 2 do a scene with two robotic/superhuman characters having a fight, and it "has" to be done in CG nowadays. Even if the CG was perfected and it looked perfectly realistic, you know it wasn't. But why does that detract from the tonnes of man-hours required to design the 3D scene?

My train of thought when pondering this question initially went straight to art, and I think it hits the nail on the head eventually. I wondered whether it was my own personal taste in art, that perhaps I'm less interested these days with a realistic depiction of a scene than an artistic perception of a scene, however I know that I'm still thoroughly impressed with a very realistic depiction because when an artist produces a work of art by hand, there's an element of risk (making a mistake that can't be undone, and it's more difficult to go a few steps back and take your work in a different direction than you originally intended), there's more invention of technique (what you do with a paint brush, for example, or instead of a paint brush), whereas with CG the invention is largely in the hands of whoever developed the 3D rendering software. If the artwork is to be used professionally (like say for a film), when it's digital it's a lot easier to make alterations to cater for the film maker's preferences, it can be reproduced with no effort whatsoever.

_________________
My PC spec

I'm on the fence with CG effects. I'm a fan of the physical model, sets, effects, etc. Something about seeing something that is really THERE just lends more weight to the scene. I think actors act differently when there is something physical in the room vs. having to pretend there is something in the room.
I will always be more impressed with physical make-up than I will with the "painted on" digital effects of Avatar for example.

That being said I do recognize that there is quickly becoming a need for the CGI. There are many effects, explosions, monsters, etc. that you just can't create in the physical world.

I do think thought that I'd be happier with more down to Earth movies and less CG as whole.

_________________
"Too Soon from the Cave, Too Far from the Stars"

I have to agree with Timelord. As an actor, it's easier to act with something that's actually "there", instead of being told, "there's going to be something big and scary here... now react to it!" IMHO, practical effects will always have a place in film-making. I am the most impressed when the transition from "real" to CG is handled seamlessly (as it was in the original Jurassic Park with the combination of animatronics and CG) so that you have the reality of the scene reinforced by effects and not overwhelmed by them.

Ironically, I just watched Iron Man 2 on Netflix last night. And like mikeymike, the drone fight left me feeling empty. Maybe it was the clutter and noise of too much going on at one time, but I just didn't feel as engaged as I was for the first Iron Man. I also have to say that Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer character was played too much as a buffoon for my taste. I kept wondering, if this man is so incompetent, how did he make as much money as he did? Maybe it was a dig at government contractors and the procurement process, but I just didn't buy it.

Ultimately, there has to be a compelling story to pull me in. All the snazzy effects in the toolbox can't make up for it.

I pretty much agree with all the responses. I also wonder if some cinematography / camera work skill is going to be lost with the rise of CG.

Re: Justin Hammer - completely agree. Stark could just sit back and wait for the inevitable backfiring of Hammer's plans.

_________________
My PC spec

It's definitely a transition. I think we're losing something with the rise and prominence of CG. Movies of the past had achieved greatness by not what was seen but what wasn't. Jaws is a great example of that. I don't think a remake of Jaws would be anything nearly as good as the original. That being said I think we're also gaining something too so don't get me wrong. A lot of the comic book or graphic novel movies coming out wouldn't be nearly as good without the CG. Avatar and Tron Legacy were awesome uses of CG to make fantastic films.

_________________
AKA Adam on 3dgpu

Gotta agree with you on the super hero movies. I've seen the attempts at these things in the 70's & 80's using practical effects and camera tricks. Not good.

I think it really only annoys me when it is obvious that the film was made for the purpose of using a lot of CG rather than trying to tell any kind of story. These are the films that feel more like 2 hour commercials.

_________________
"Too Soon from the Cave, Too Far from the Stars"

The biggest problem I've seen with CGI is that it has allowed for some really bad films to be made. It seems that anyone with a little artistic talent and a bit of money can make a movie using GCI and it's usually bad. I do like it, however, when CGI is used and you don't even realize it. A couple of examples come into mind. The crane truck crash in Terminator 3. Until I watched the extras on the DVD, I had no idea that was CGI. That was incredible! Another subtle one is from The Mummy Returns. When Alex shoots the bad guy in the butt with the sling shot rock, the rock you see hitting him is CGI. Once again, I had no idea until I watch the DVD extras.

I consider model work to be a true special effects art form. While they can do amazing things with CGI the true talent, as already mentioned, is with the software engineers who make the modeling programs.

You make a good point. The use of CG is more widespread than many realize. Even in television. More than a few programs and movies are filmed hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from the city in which they are set, but watching them you wouldn't know it. CG is used to place the proper backdrops and cityscape into the shots.
Those instances are when CG is used as a tool rather then a style if that makes sense.

_________________
"Too Soon from the Cave, Too Far from the Stars"

Case-in-point was this demo reel I posted last February. I'm actually more impressed by this than the obviously-CG'd stuff.

That video was great! The best special effect is when the audience doesn't realize it's a special effect.

Yup.. I think it was this video that I had in mind! It is an awesome example of GOOD CGI being used as it should be. Not as the film itself. Like say for example, oh I don't know.... Transformers maybe?

_________________
"Too Soon from the Cave, Too Far from the Stars"

That YouTube clip was impressive but depressed me at the same time. I realise it's for a series so I can forgive it for having less of a budget, but it makes me think that even for big-budget films, where there used to be an expensive scene (a massive explosion for example), CG involves less effort so film-makers will probably go for that instead in future.

Superman Returns has a scene that's obviously CG but still impressive IMO, when the plane is diving and he flies through the broken-off wing like it is paper.

On the other hand, Iron Man 2, Natasha's fight scenes. I think they tried to make it look realistic by skipping frames or something. It didn't work, IMO. That was something about the Spiderman 2 trailer that turned me off seeing it altogether, was a snippet of the fight scene on a train. Don't do fight scenes entirely in CG, it makes me feel like I should get two action figure toys out and make them wrestle each other while providing sound effects.

I think the limitations of filming a fight scene (not being able to do a zoomed-out view showing both characters completely, at a level angle because it probably is more difficult to act like you've been hit) made film-makers concentrate on providing other elements (e.g. close-ups, unusual angles) to make it seem more realistic.

_________________
My PC spec