Why do people complain so much about CG usage in movies?

I think they just have nothing else to complain about.

Personally, I don’t like it when CG is overused to the point of looking too unreal. The zombies in “I Am Legend,” for example, were a bit overdone. CG has its uses, but if the movie relies too heavily on impressive effects while sacrificing good acting, writing, and story, the movie will be ruined.

I also don’t like action sequences where there is so much happening so fast that you can’t even enjoy it. All that speed and crazy explosions—sometimes simple is better. I like action movies, but some of the things coming out today (Star Trek, GI Joe, Transformers) seem like nothing more than excuses to outdo other action flicks and sell merchandise. It makes me nostalgic for Lethal Weapon and Indiana Jones. And not the most recent sucky imitation of Indiana Jones. That one doesn’t count.

Because novelty wares off – the cool kids aren’t so cool anymore a couple of years down the line when everyone else has their life together and they’re still concerned with being cool.

Same story with movies – if you milk and kill the piss out of what was once “cool” – suddenly it’s not as cool or extraordinaire as it once was.

I’m in the middle – lately I’ve been LOVING the effects in modern movies but I definitely notice when the line is crossed and will then usually utter something like “so cliche” (which in most cases, it’s the actual storyline or plot of the movie that I’m not impressed with).

Because there are better ways to present a movie without the need of unnecessary and over the top eye candy special effects. Like maybe the PLOT.

Computer graphics are over done and all have the same “fake” look to them. It doesn’t take a trained eye to easily spot computer graphics in films.

Models are best for special effects because those things exist in real space, not virtual space.
A physical object is subject to the laws of physics whereas CG physics are not even close to believable.

Because most of the time they are used in place of a good story. You know, plot structure, character development, etc.

Because they look freaky, especially people. I can handle cgi fantasy creature and lands, but when cgi tries to copy real life, it’s ersatz is so obvious.

They complain when they can see them.

Silent movies were terrific, then they brought in sound, and for a few years the movies really focused on the talk, and forgot the other things that silent film had going for it.
Same thing with color. When color movies began, they did what they could to show these very colorful landscapes, and ignored the storytelling.
CG is the same thing. We will have a few years of crap, and they will eventually figure out how and when to use it, and remember what was so good about NOT seeing things (think Jaws).

What? They showed the shark in Jaws

Very sparingly. Speilberg had to do it that way because the robot shark kept malfunctioning. Think about how different it would be if they had CG.

Ah I got you, I thought you meant like Rosemary’s Baby

@PretentiousArtist Welcome to Fluther. Lurve.

@filmfann I agree about silent films. How many years of ‘crap’ do we have to endure? Also, can you give an example of a movie that has a great balance of CG/story?

CG is a great tool for film makers to tell their story, but the level of ‘being abused’ is in opinion.

It seems to me that they haven’t gotten the lighting right yet. The lighting on the real people and objects is the same, but the one CGI thing in the shot seems to have the wrong lighting. It jumps out at me almost every time: the vampires in I Am Legend, the Hulk, etc.

With rubber suits and animatronics, the objects are physically on the same set, so they’re getting the same lighting and look more realistic.

On occasion, the CGI in a movie has been done so meticulously that I couldn’t spot it. I remember being quite surprised when I learned that the Clonetroopers in Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones were CGI. I would never have guessed that it was not real people in plastic suits.

@drdoombot Star Wars is a great example. People constantly bash the recent trilogy for being just a ‘CGI fest’ but many things Lucas wanted to portray to the audience would not be possible if not for CGI effects. And now that the technolgy can provide that, people bash the films for using it too much.

How much CG is too much CG? Is there a scale somewhere to measure this statement by? Let’s go back to the times when there wasn’t any CG so that films won’t look as good and be as enjoyable as they are nowadays. One step up and two steps back – bad.