1. says

    It’s always the subtle stuff that amazes me the most. Removing the crew member from the shot, the patch from floor. All the stuff you don’t expect to be visual CGI effects, but really are. Just amazing work.

  2. Hilmer says

    Wasn’t a tear added to the face of Jennifer Connelly a few years back in Blood Diamond? That doesn’t seem to be a good development. I’d like to be able to know what is CGI or not, especially when it comes to acting. CGI indistinguishable from the real thing can cloud your judgment of a movie I think.

  3. gr8guyca says

    What’s odd is that when one now watches old movies with amazing visual moments, we assume they are CGI special effects. The chariot race in Ben-Hur or the battles in Spartacus actually had real people doing real things. Some of those shots we now take for granted and think, “Oh, that’s just CGI.”

  4. says

    Over-rated. One spectacular shot, granted, but everything else had me thinking been there, done that in terms of fx. Camera reflection paint outs? Adding a tattoo to someone’s back? Tracking in a rash effect? zzzzzzz

  5. peepee says

    I don’t get it. The guy says Portman does 99 percent of the work yet every dancing scene requires a head replacement. So her actual dancing didn’t make it into the movie?

  6. PDQ says

    This is one of the reasons I don’t go to see many movies anymore nor go to concerts. They seem to be mostly CGI, animation, voice-overs, etc.

    Dedication to your craft? Nahhh! Singers no longer have to be able to actually sing and actors no longer have to be able to act. We have electronic gizmos to correct for that. So long as the celebrity is physically attractive and their handlers can create a storyline about their personal lives that will keep them in the tabloids (ala Lindsay Lohan), we’re good to go – right?

    The entertainment industry is pulling the wool over our eyes. They’ve done it for years, but not to the degree that they do today.

Leave A Reply