Has CGI ruined film ?

[Bobby Bob]

I just hate it, I hate how it looks mostly, and I hate the idea behind it. That its like cheating, like even if they do cool things nowadays, like those sony bravia commercials with the rabbits and bouncyballs, people say; its CGI..... Its kind of ruined the whole idea behind filmmaking hasnt it ?

[MOSS]

I hate badly done CGI, but then again if it's well done you probably won't know it is CGI.

As for ruining cinema, I disagree.

Used properly it can help tell stories that would have looked terrible otherwise.

[Scott]

I agree. It takes away from the realism of things - ok if you're making a film like Transformers but it is not necessary in everyday films. It won't change - it's a business - all about making money, not doing what is right.

[Simon]

I disagree. You are just being a luddite.

[whycantigetagoodnickname]

There has been a bad patch where graphics got in the way of the story - people were going to see the pictures rather than the story. However now that everyone has computer effects in their films the good ones of the future are going to have to tell us something apart from "Hey we can get a computer to do this, isn't that cool" - cool but to be honest not that entertaining for 2 1/2 hours.

The best films though at the moment will always use real camera, real props and real actors and actresses

[James]

In many ways, yes, in many ways, no. It's a tough question to answer, since when CGI was first mastered, many people were mind-blown and shocked at how realistic elements, such as Animals and Sci-Fi creatures were brought to life, it was at the time, amazing. But after almost 20 years of films being made with CGI effects, it has become a stereotype and has been used and used so much, it has become tiring. Many people now aren't surprised as much with CGI, since it has become a usual thing, and some people now wish film makers stopped using CGI and made films the way they used to be made like.

[Herve]

I don't hate it, but to make it work you have to invest serious amounts of money and uses alot of computer power to render shades, textures and lighting successfully.

If filmmakers don't have the money and still use CGI, it looks far worse than if they'd used foam rubber, prosthetics and modelling, because you can light and interact with physical things easily.
A lot of modern cheap scifi/horrors have no appeal because of the CGI, whereas in the 50's -80's, it was all stop-motion animation and solid, physical stuff the actors could see and interact with, and they had quite a fanbase, because a lot of care was put in for little money, and the final product looked good enough to suspend some disbelief. When things aren't rendered well, they look like 2-D patterns interacting with 3-d naturally lit and textured actors and sets. Another thing with CGI is eyelines - Even in Phantom Menace, when Obi wan and Qui gon land on Nabbo and meet Ja Jar, look at where Ewan Mcgregor's eyes are looking -about 3 inches above Jar Jar's head.
Had that been an actor in a latex mask, the eyeline would be correct, because Ewan would see him. Liam Neeson threatened to never work in films again after the Phantom Menace.

That's why I like The Expendables. Very little CGI was used.

[Hatters]

well, yes because it has replaced the 'realism' in films and no because it has replaced the 'realism' in films!! think about the epic fantasy films and how good they look. Lazy CGI is bad, though.