CGI Isn't "Bad"

6 years ago, I wrote about CGI in filmmaking. Specifically, I mentioned this:

“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.”

I went on to discuss how people don’t give CGI enough respect, even listing examples where it excelled. However, that was 6 years ago. Some people haven’t received the memo, like Nerdstalgic. He even uploaded a video discussing his gripes with CGI, suggesting it was “killing practical effects”. And so I figured I’d respond to his “old man yells at cloud” arguments. Brace yourselves.

I’ll begin with his selection of movies. Specifically, Nerdstalgic uses the opening of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness to discuss being pulled from the experience. I like that movie, flaws aside, and I doubt that CGI’s one of its problems. If anything, not using CGI would’ve made the opening not work, as Doctor Strange and America Chavez are fleeing from an inter-dimensional monster. We’re supposed to feel disoriented because they feel disoriented.

This highlights the issue with Nerdstalgic’s choice of movies: he’s cherry-picking. It’s one issue to complain about bad CGI. It’s another to complain about an over-reliance on CGI, only to use an example of where it was necessary. That’s dishonest criticism, completely missing the forest for the trees. It’s something 5 minutes of research would mark as a red flag.

Another problem I have is his pining for practical effects, saying that they “add to the immersion” more than CGI. I don’t know if I agree. For one, practical effects can also be done badly. I immediately think of 1987’s Robocop, specifically when Alex Murphy shoots the movie’s big baddie and sends him plummeting out a window. The death uses stop-motion animation, and it looks awful. I know there were production complications surrounding this moment, but still. Bad practical effects exist.

And two, practical effects, save being costly and difficult to execute, are often dangerous. We can admire the truck flipping in The Dark Knight, but a stuntman died. CGI not only does the work faster and cheaper, but also safer. Perhaps that truck flip wouldn’t have been as impressive with computers, but I’ll suspend my disbelief knowing no one was injured. Isn’t that what matters?

By pining for practical effects for immersion, Nerdstalgic, again, misses the forest for the trees. It’s true that practical effects tend to be more immersive because they’re tangible, but CGI can be equally impressive. No one complains that Gravity was directed on a soundstage because it looks so convincing, never mind that filming in space is nigh-impossible. Additionally, Pandora in the Avatar franchise still looks stunning, only becoming more-so with each new entry. This is despite almost none of it being practical.

There’s also Nerdstalgic’s complaint about overlaying CGI with practical effects, as if the audience can’t handle real locations. He points to the cliff jump in the most-recent Mission Impossible movie, which was initially shot on a ramp. I don’t get the issue: isn’t the jump what matters? Tom Cruise drove a motorcycle off a chasm and onto a train, and you’re worried about a ramp? Really?!

Immersion isn’t solely about “looking real”. Something can “look real” and not be immersive, especially when done with artificial intelligence. What matters is “feeling real”, and CGI can accomplish that. I’d list examples, but there are too many. Even movies that use plenty of practical effects, like Mad Max: Fury Road, anchor them with CGI in places where practical work is impossible (such as the tornado storm). That matters more than how it was made.

Tangibility also isn’t exclusive to practical effects. Nor is an artist’s vision. Nerdstalgic points to how older movies feel more timeless because the artist had complete control, as opposed to modern movies having studio executives scribbling notes. There are so many issues there, particularly how that’s not about CGI, but the big one is that “true auteurs” still exist. And even with older auteurs, they had input from other people. This despite CGI being the norm now.

I can continue deconstructing Nerdstalgic’s video, which I thought was ignorant. But it’d be futile. I understand that CGI feels overused to many, and I get it. I also get that there are plenty of instances of badly-incorporated CGI. But that doesn’t mean it’s all bad, or that practical effects are inherently better. Sure, we should strive for a healthy balance, but that’s the key: a balance. One isn’t inherently better than the other.

One last point is that good CGI’s usually invisible. Did you know Armie Hammer’s face and body were duplicated to play the Winklevoss brothers in The Social Network? Or that the airport fight in Captain America: Civil War was staged? Of course not, and that’s intentional. These sorts of effects are designed to go unnoticed, and that’s good. It means we’ve come a long way from the 60s and 70s. Isn’t that what we want?

So yeah, Nerdstalgic was being unfair in his critiques. Which’d be a problem itself…assuming it was an isolated incident. Bashing CGI’s a time-honoured tradition going back many years, with people who claim to be “experts” making ignoramuses of themselves. Remember, CGI’s a tool. And like all tools, the key is knowing how to use it. When even the worst CGI today looks passable, I think we’re in good hands. I wish people like Nerdstalgic understood that, instead of complaining.