Creating CGI for moviesdoes involve some level of work, but generally it is less work than using more classic methods of special effects creation. It doesn't take as much time to make a 3D model on the computer as it does to create a real miniature, model, armature, or puppet and then film/animate them. Case in point: look at the animation for the tower collapsing the the end of the Lord of the Rings. The model and animation for that sequence were created entirely by one man in a weekend. Now that isn't a particularly easy shot to create in CGI, but I'd be willing to bet if they had used models, it would have taken longer and required more manpower and resources.
Now, I wouldn't argue that CGI makes Hollywood lazy, but it definitely is easier and cheaper for them, even when done well. Plus, things like motion capture make CGI even easier. I can't help but think that some movies would benefit from actually having animators move the models instead of actors.
NO, 3D isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a walk in the park, its time consuming as well as is a miniature model, while sometimes its easyer to build a miniature than a 3D model. In the LOTR (as in most cases) you cant control how a building is going to colapse, if it fails they have to do the models again, if it fails again, they have to make another one… while in 3D you have huge control over the effect, if you dont like something you adjust the settings and do a new simulation. Its not about lazyness, its about better use of resources.
For the people who thinks 3D characters are so easy to build, well, to build a character for animation you have to spend lots of time getting the model right, then create the UV maps, then paint each texture, then build the proper shader for each texture, then model each morph (mouth, eyes, other deformations), then you have to rigg, adjust weights and create each control for the animator (and im not saying many other things added to it like furr, hair, cloth, etc), then needs to be animated, then lighted then rendered and composed.
a prop model/scene goes trough a similar procedure.
It's easy to rant and rave about things you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really know about.
As for the original poster, where do you see bad cgi??? you ranted about it but didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t give any examples of what you found to be bad, actually cg has improved dramatically over the years.. SO ill give you good examples of great cgi.
(Oh by the way, for the one making the comparison of toy story to Tarzan, well, toy story was the very first 3D animated movie, yet its still very high quality to this day, and Tarzan wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t 100% hand drawn you know, all the action scenes in the jungle couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be done in 2D, so they had to make them in 3D ;) )
300, Pirates of the Caribbean threelogy, golden compass, avp2, tmnt, final fantasy 7, transformers, everything pixar, underworld, futurama, spyderman threelogy, meet the Robinsons, apleseed, treasure planet, etc.
Now, a bad movie will be bad no matter how good the cgi or 2D art might be, but you cant say the cgi was bad because the movie was bad or because you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like the movie.
If we are going to praise 2D movies because its hand drawn and we have a misinformed tendency to feel bad for them, then i can say there are really bad movies done in 2D as well. A resent example would be Highlander the animated movie, or ghost in the shell 2, you can watch little mermaid or beauty and the beast and see how the characters look different on each scene (thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s really bad), the new transformers series is really badly animated (every transformation is just a blur or a one frame transformation), the movie of lady death was very badly animated, and many others i dont have time to name.
I want to finish my long post with a great reference of great use of all 3 media put together in one film (2D, 3D and miniature models) and is the movie Wonderfull Days
, I personally think that movie is a masterpiece.
In the end either 2D cells, 2D cg, 3D, maquettes and stop motion, they are all tools and ranting against each is just pointless and stupid.