In Defence of CGI...

Let’s get the following statements out of the way now:

CGI, or computer-generated imagery, is a tool to tell a story. Like every storytelling tool, it’s best used as a prop in service of it, not directly opposed to it. There are good uses of it, and bad uses of it, and both appear frequently. Sometimes you won’t even know that TV or film has used it, as it’s so ubiquitous with both formats. CGI isn’t good or bad, but a neutral force that goes either way.

Conversely, CGI is incredibly hard to do well. We routinely criticize bad effects, but even bad CGI takes lots of time and effort. I’m no designer, but I can imagine the time and dedication it takes to make even the most-basic CGI. That’s also why, despite not all of it looking good, CGI redesigns are so laborious and time-consuming. If you’ve already dedicated time to a bad effect, why put in the extra hours for a better one?

I’ve recently noticed a trend in pop-culture. It might’ve already existed, but in recent years it’s picked up steam. It seems like CGI effects are being run through the wringer for looking bad, all-the-while obnoxious think-pieces circulate on how bad these effects are. I don’t think the studios are guiltless for rushing out half-baked effects, but it’s also not as simple as calling them “lazy” for not meeting a certain threshold.

Let’s back up: CGI has been an integral part of the film industry for decades. One of its earliest uses was in Star Wars: Ep. IV: A New Hope, where it was shown in a visual demonstrating how the rebels could blow up The Death Star. It’s surprising when you contrast that with how far we’ve come, but CGI was so primitive for the longest time that any uses of it, however small, were considered ground-breaking achievements. It was only in the 90’s, with the advancements in technology, that CGI began to kick-off, and, like anything new and exciting, it was abused for some time.

However, like with any tool, the more that was understood, the less-abused it became. These days, CGI is everywhere, but even the “bad” is lightyears beyond what we originally put up with. That’s because there are teams dedicated to doing it well. So even when it’s subpar, you can still see effort put into it.

Which leads me back to the complaint about CGI looking “bad”. As I said, CGI is really hard to do well. So much time and effort goes into every frame that, often, mistakes creep in. Especially under the hellish timetables that animators deal with.

I’d hate being an animator in Hollywood. Not only do you animate effects, you also have to animate backdrops and character models. And, sometimes, you even have to match your character models to the performances of actors. It’s tiring, tedious and incredibly expensive. It’s not unreasonable for tentpole releases to cost tens of millions of dollars, and CGI is a big part of why. If you don’t believe me, stay through the credits and skim the VFX section. Chances are that section alone will list half of the people who worked on the film.

Essentially, CGI isn’t easy or cheap. Which is why the claims of “bad CGI” feel naïve or misguided. It’s especially bad when those spouting the claims don’t work in Hollywood, and, therefore, don’t appreciate what goes into making these effects. Simply saying “it looks fake” isn’t enough when you don’t understand what went into making it. And constantly demanding that VFX artists “do better” is insulting when the complainers can’t do better themselves.

It also reeks of entitlement to claim that a CGI animation team “didn’t care”, which is something I’ve also heard a lot of. VFX people work exceptionally hard. They care a great deal about what they do, even if it’s not obvious. And given the constant reports of exhaustion and overwork that’ve surfaced, many of them probably care too much. All you need to do is read about the complications surrounding Sausage Party and Life of Pi.

I’m not saying bad CGI can’t exist. I see a lot of it. But that’s less the fault of animators and more the fault of studio executives forcing unrealistic expectations. Because that’s usually how bad CGI comes about. And when it does come about, that’s usually who isn’t blamed for it happening.

I’m also not saying CGI can’t date itself. It can, especially when it takes risks. But even when it does date itself, that can be overlooked if the story is engaging. Filmmaking’s made up of multiple components and isn’t an exact science. If we can still enjoy the train fight in Spider-Man 2 despite its video game-esque CGI, then who’s to say we can’t enjoy bad CGI?

But even with the aforementioned, constantly complaining about bad CGI is the wrong route to take. Instead of cherry-picking the bad examples, we should be praising the good ones. We should be lauding Avatar for innovating motion-capture (regardless of how good or bad its writing is), and we should be praising Star Wars: Rogue One for its facial “skin grafting” (even if it doesn’t entirely work). Those techniques actually advance CGI, flaws and all.

We also should count our blessings that so much CGI these days is seamlessly constructed, to the point of being near-invisible. So much of what we watch is CGI, but we don’t notice because it’s so well-integrated. It’s only once we stop and pay attention that the cracks in the illusion start forming, and even then not all of them are noticeable. Because for every example of “bad” CGI, there’s always an example or two of “great CGI” that’s never discussed. And I think that’s more important and praiseworthy than the cherry-picked examples online think-pieces like deconstructing.

Ultimately, we need to stop complaining about laziness whenever a bad effect is shown. If you don’t like people shamelessly ripping apart something you slaved over, then you should offer that same level of respect to animators.