Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
I don't have anything against CGI.
The vast majority of the CGI budget is labor.
In 'Lion King,' the music is brilliant. The CGI is amazing.
Critics in particular treat CGI as a virus that's infecting film.
There's a reason people use CGI: it's cheaper and faster. I hate that.
I love CGI if it's invisible. I don't like it when it's there and obvious.
I could never see myself playing a goblin or gnome, without some serious CGI at least!
I don't think you can beat a costumed monster. It's brilliant. I'll take that over CGI any day.
The quality of CGI, audiences are now so used to it. They don't know what is CGI and what is real.
For all the spectacle of CGI, there's something alien and unreal about that domain, like a videogame.
I think CGI is interesting, but it's too expensive and limiting in terms of what you can do shot-by-shot.
Maybe I'm a product of my era, but I just enjoy the practical effects of 'The Thing' more than CGI aliens.
On 'Death In Paradise,' I had a CGI pet lizard and had to react to nothing, which was hideously embarrassing.
It's always fun when you're doing the CGI stuff, to actually get to work with someone who is real, who's there.
I'm not a big fan of CGI. I'm not a fan at all, unless they use it in a way that doesn't call attention to itself.
There's no proof of the Earth's curvature and this fake space agency Nasa use CGI images and every one is different.
Working with CGI is more like doing theater where your sort of imagining things. I didn't experience it as restrictive.
I think that if Shakespeare had had access to CGI, he would have used it. Imagine Lear conjuring the storm and the lightning.
I think sometimes big budget means explosions! CGI! CGI, the possibilities are so limitless that it begins to be impractical.
Unless you're making Marvel movies, I think CGI usually suffers, especially in mid-budget-range horror movies where you see CGI.
I'd rather have Ben Affleck feeling something than twenty minutes of punching CGI Zod. You want moments that resonate with your audience.
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.
'Nightmare on Elm Street' really lends itself to using new technologies. CGI would be a great way to exploit and embrace the dream sequences.
The best part about doing 'Wuthering Heights' was you were completely in that world. It could not have been done with CGI. You had to be there.
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.
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.
There's a depth to the look that you get with models that you just can't get with CGI. It's about the detail that you just wouldn't think to put in.
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.
The combination of the CGI, 3-D, and sound effects, it's just impossible to separate them. It gives you a more immersive experience, and I prefer that.
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.
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.
People regard CGI as a gimmick; they almost blame CGI for a bad story or a bad script. They talk about CGI as if it's responsible for a drop in standards.
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 wanted to make '13 Assassins' in the old manner, to use old techniques and not to rely on modern-day ones such as CGI, or editing that changes the speed.
I think a lot of times, in a lot of modern-day movies, a lot of things are CGI, but so much of the stuff in 'Star Wars' is built and created by these artists.
The CGI landscape is another world. It has its own physical laws; it can defy gravity. But surely the wonder of cinematic space is that it is wedded to reality?
If you are not moved by the character, no amount of CGI will give you a performance that is emotionally engaging or devastating - what a live-action performance does.
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.
We will work on ways to digitally enhance Everest, matching it with Dolomites and Everest, but I'll do everything physically first. If there's no other way, then I'll go to CGI.
CGI is done after the film is done. It's through the computer. Most of the film is not computer-generated special effects. Most of it is that creature that is in the room with you.
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.
I don't know, I'm still a little bit like, when you blend CGI well with real life, it's impressive, but if you remove real life completely, I still get pulled out of the movie a bit.
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.
Why has Scandinavia been producing such good thrillers? Maybe because their filmmakers can't afford millions for CGI and must rely on cheaper elements like, you know, stories and characters.
In 'Crazy Rich Asians,' Singapore will be seen as it should be seen, without CGI, without the altering of the images to be more Chinese - a representation of Singapore as we know it and love it.
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.
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.
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.
I don't direct so that I can have an identity and so I can go on to CGI movies. I had a big identity as an actor, and that's not what I'm looking for from directing. Directing is a whole different goal.
I'm not a big fan of CGI. When I look at it, I go: 'Wait a minute. That's not possible.' And I think other people see the same thing. The movies I worked on, we did stunts for real. And I think it shows.