[quote=“Bone Daddy”]
In the 50’s, there was 3D, a gimmick that usually gave you a headache after enough exposure. In the 60’s there was Cinerama, a visual effect suitable for birds and other animals with unsychronized vision. William Castle filled any gaps with gimmicks like wire theatre seats, to give viewers a jolt in The Tingler. CGI (computer generated images) is the new cinematic pet rock. In place of any intelligent plot or dialogue, objects are thrown or exploded in your face every 5 minutes. It was originally used to great effect in small doses (Terminator II, Gary Sinese’s legs in Forrest Gump, etc.) but then along came Jurassic Park, and now, every big movie is drenched in the effect. Is there an end in sight? Will filmmaking return to plot and character driven form that gave birth to directors like Tarantino? Or is this the end of the artform known as cinema, and the birth of large screen video games?
[/quote]
Some one posted a response to this topic that was spot on! Use of CGI or lack there of does not have anything to do with movie plot, story line or subtext.
Its is absurd for one to make an argument that cgi is replacing solit plots. The two are parallel aspects of one medium and you did not answer DEXpacs question about the fact that removal of cgi froma movie does not automatically strengthen the plot or the story line.
dont confuse visual effects with the script.