CGI vs. Make-up artist

[Shadow_Dragon]

Note: If this is in the wrong section, please feel free to movie it. As I felt this was the best section since it pertains more to the subject.

Process has been ever decreasing in the big films as of recent, especially in the transformations side of it. And the rise of CGI is ever increasing. And with that comes it's pros and cons.

Pros including the fact that CGI permits much more detailed psuedo-realistic process. Also not to forget that it could allow for much smoother transitions unlike the choppy, spontaneous, stage-by-stage frame methods of earlier films (which despite this I'm sure most of you still appreciate). Then the cons, CGI, of course is cheaper than make-up, so does this mean that if there is process, will it be very short-lived? We can also include that unlike older films, the presence of CGI wouldn't seem as pertinent as the old make-up films did. Probably more notable to the older tf/process fans, the movie would seem more like a high-stance visual display rather than the classy generalization of a different universe with an odd, yet, unique side effect for lack of better terms.

So what are your thoughts? Is CGI an unending serpentine road that will lead us to the fall of process?

Or will it open a new perspective?

[blackshirtboy]

I'm against CGI in general. More specifically relating to processes though, CGI feels far too clean, far too sterile no matter how smooth a transformation it may be. The older practical effects just made everything seem more visceral.
What really should be done is practical effects assisted by CGI, like the TF in District 9, no that was a brilliant example of process.

[Anahki]

CGI may be helpful, as you said, to create smooth transitions and other things impossible to achieve with classical FX. But save for the most expensive ones, CGI still look extremely fake. They don't blend in the surround, nor transmit a sensation for "reality".
As I said, digital FX are good for Avatar, Transformers and so on. For your average-horror-movie... no, thank you.

[lonewarrior]

i think a good way to compare both types would be the american werewolf in london/paris movies.

[mercury01]

A big drawback of CGI is that no matter how advanced computer imaging software gets, the CGI will eventually look dated. CGI shelf life is maybe a decade for big budget stuff like LOTR or the Star Wars prequels.

[Xanderfox]

the real problem is when CGI becomes a crutch, such as film makers that turn to CGI when a make-up, animatronic or similar effect would look better and produce a better performance out of the actors. CGI is great for creatures and effects that would other wise be too expensive, dangerous or just too complicated to create using other techniques. But thanks to Avatar, now Hollywood is leaning going to lean more and more on CGI and 3-D.

I also am sad that not only is CGI being used by many as a crutch it even causes audiences and critics to become jaded and not recognize non-cg effects then they see them. Underworld comes to mind, a film that like it or hate it is sighted as being full of CGI effects when in fact is uses them sparingly. FX shots using costumes, wires and high speed cameras are dismissed as CG. When truly impressive costume and make-up effects get dismissed for being CGed into scenes their is a real problem folks.