Cgi Quotes

Cgi Quote of the day

Obviously, CGI in the last ten years has gone through such leaps and bounds that today, people are looking for these kinds of movies to wow audiences with technology.

CGI has a lot of backlash now. I think it's just because there are so many people doing it. It's a tool and it's only as good as the people behind it.

Actually I think CGI has the potential to equal or even surpass what the human hand can do.

When I first read Lord of the Rings I wanted to see a film of it. But at that time the technology wasn't there, there was no such thing as CGI.

If you take my performance or my understanding of the role and my appreciation for story and then dress it in CGI, that I guess becomes an action film.

You can't just do cheap CGI and think that's going to work. It doesn't.

I'm a big believer in just using CGI to polish what you get on camera.

I think audiences have hit the wall with CGI and special effects. They have seen so many over-the-top events that they can't suspend disbelief.

Why has Scandinavia been producing such good thrillers? Maybe because their filmmakers can't afford millions for CGI and must rely on cheaper elements like, you know, stories and characters.

The vast majority of the CGI budget is labor.

I think sometimes big budget means explosions! CGI! CGI, the possibilities are so limitless that it begins to be impractical.

It's always fun when you're doing the CGI stuff, to actually get to work with someone who is real, who's there.

I once said that CGI makes you less inventive. At the time I was bemoaning the loss of the practical stunt. If a stunt can be done practically and safely, I'd rather do it old-style.

With some CGI, I think the brain slightly perceives that things aren't real. There's no gravity, the light's not quite real, the shadows aren't quite real.

Large-budget movies start to lose focus on the story and the actors, and it becomes purely about the visual, or CGI, or framing with the cranes, or whatever it may be.

I love scuba diving. I'm an avid diver. And, there's this beautiful world that's more incredible than any CGI film we could ever make, that we're destroying, for what? It's heartbreaking to me.

On MTV, the dialogue can be a little darker, more interesting and edgy... the animation is just phenomenal. It's a CGI program that's doing all the animation.

Because I'm CGI, [John Swartz] gave me a role of an Imperial pilot in one scene, so I had a day where I was on camera dressed as a black suit and a little cap that they wear.

The nature of the movies is different than it was five years ago, and they're all driven by the possibilities of CGI, which means you can make anything happen on screen that you can possibly desire.

I think CGI is interesting but it's too expensive and limiting in terms of what you can do shot-by-shot.

I love CGI if it's invisible. I don't like it when it's there and obvious.

I'm not a big fan of CGI. I'm not a fan at all, unless they use it in a way that doesn't call attention to itself.

CGI is to me like watching a cartoon. It can be effective, if it's done well. A lot of times you don't feel any real risk. You're watching a bunch of computer-generated graphics.

The quality of CGI, audiences are now so used to it. They don't know what is CGI and what is real.

Working with CGI is more like doing theater where your sort of imagining things. I didn't experience it as restrictive.

It's been about 15 years, and I've never really worked seriously in CGI and I thought that here was an opportunity to do the kinds of things that I was not able to do on Ghostbusters.

There's a reason people use CGI: it's cheaper and faster. I hate that.

Every time you see an interior, where somebody has a cockpit, is the real existing thing. Every time you see the exterior zooming by, it's completely CGI.

I think you should be prepared for a green-screen CGI at all times.

If you always want to look relevant, just be CGI-prepared.