CGI's Hyper-Realism: Practical or Not?

Computers have been quickly changing the world as we see it - music has been electrified, life has been streamlined into the internet for all to see, and product shopping takes only but a few clicks. But more importantly, computers have been helping filmmakers change the movie experience.

Technology allows the artist to push the limits of experience set for the audience - splashes of blood-like solvent become gashes of digital human plasma, plumes of gasoline-fed flames become dramatically fiery explosions, and so on. This is not a question of aiming for reality - it is a question of transcending reality. Offering a great movie experience is offering an experience real enough for someone to sink their attention to, but not so absurd that it clearly belongs in another universe. And like anything else, the comfortable balance between the real and the simulated varies from viewer to viewer.

But what of the other side of the screen? What do the filmmaker, the special effects studios, and the animatronics professionals see? This video is what inspired me to furrow my brow a little:

In short, Alec Gillis (right in the video), says CGI "is not a cheaper way to go, but it's a safer way to go." CGI is safer by virtue of creating a photo-realistic experience that can be edited at any time post-production, and is cheaper in both time and resources. Hiring both practical artists and digital artists turns out to be a waste of time, since studios will tend to favor the digital artist.

CGI, being much quicker and more monetarily reliable, has effectively cut pre-production time in movies. This applies to the entire industry, pressuring animatronics producers to work with less time, and causing everyone in all fields to have less time in planning and verifying a film's integrity.

I feel the more heavily involved technology is in the creation process, the less of a human condition the final piece contains. Simply put, it is harder for an actor to indulge in their acting when the movie universe is almost completely CGI. There is no guarantee that the actor's actions or decisions will appear in the final cut. Additionally, when a movie is almost entirely green-screen (*Star Wars*), or actors must wear suits that have nearly nothing to do with the character they are emulating sans a name tag (*Adventures of Tintin*), it is difficult for an actor to envision the universe they are entering.

For instance, Ian McKellen (*X-Men*, *Lord of the Rings*) expressed heavy disdain for the difficulty he faced in acting for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: For filming, he was placed in a greenscreen set to act on his own so they could later superimpose the content and create the height difference between him and the other characters. He preferred against this and questioned quitting movie acting altogether. His experience with greenscreen may or may not be reflected by other actors who, too, began their movie careers in the '70s and have seen the transition into CGI. Research for another time.

The CGI simulation of universes creates the risk of exposing the artificial nature of CGI - how is the audience supposed to feel a true experience if the actor cannot? In the end, technology pushes an agenda for movies to be both futuristic and realistic, but it also rushes necessary production time. The visual beauty of the final products are quite a sight to behold, but for me they lack the unique appreciation for the art provided by human interaction. CGI (in film) is practical in an economic sense and nothing more.

As far as scientific realism goes, that's a can of spam for another day.

-- Andrew