I absolutely despise when I see a movie that uses computer generated images to the extent where you could just almost imagine the actors in front of a green screen for the entirety of the movie. I felt this way when I first saw the trailer for “Independence Day: Resurgence” a couple of months ago. To make things worse, it was followed by the trailer for the then-upcoming “Warcraft” movie which, albeit, did have a slightly different demographic. But by that time, I had completely given up on all that is good in this world. I was then reduced to committing one of the greatest movie theatre sins of all time: texting.
There seems to be an increasing amount of CGI-based films over the past few years. When I say CGI-based, I mean a film which is shot mainly in front of a green screen, probably proliferated by the success of films like James Cameron’s “Avatar.” I am not going to mince my words here: I personally blame “Avatar” for the increasing use of CGI in movies, especially in cases where they appear overwhelming or unnecessary.
I think what puts me off the most about computer imagery-heavy films is the fact that, especially in cases where something is so obviously computer generated, I can only imagine the actors having to work on an almost empty set with nothing except for the green screens behind them.
The shot just feels dead to me, and I think about how Ian McKellen felt during the filming of “The Hobbit,” which drove him to question his acting career. It just made me feel sad, in general, as it doesn’t appear as if the actors are enjoying it either. Yet some directors still choose computers over personality.
However, there is such a thing as good CGI, as Freddie Wong states in “Why CGI sucks (Except It Doesn’t).”
“We only see bad CGI,” Wong said.
When more actors are replaced with computers and stunt doubles, questions are raised regarding the integrity in the profession. Wong, in the aforementioned video, used the film “Gravity” as an example of “good” CGI and talked about how Sandra Bullock wasn’t even present in some of the shots shown in the film. As such, I find it hard to comprehend how she managed to be nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress where so much of her acting was replaced by digital effects.
This isn’t an anti-CGI piece, although it may sound like it at times. If anything, it’s more of an open letter to the directors and proliferators of CGI in film. To what extent are we willing to replace the contents of a film with computers, and how far are we willing to go as the technology gets more powerful and advanced? Are actors still going to accept the rewards in their place, or are we just going to get rid of the actors and the sets themselves?
However, I kind of get it. The other alternative for highly ambitious films like “Gravity” was to have it actually filmed in space. Which is expensive, obviously. But why not?
