CGI has become wearingly dull and clichéd, argues British film critic Jonathan Romney. Not only are film spectacles more visually formulaic, but the absence of scenes depending on the exceptional skills of real human beings diminishes the "how-did-they-do-that?" factor, since we assume it was all done with a keyboard.

Advertisement

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

Meander-061
Meander061

CGI has become wearingly dull and clichéd, argues British film critic Jonathan Romney.

One douchebag or another has been arguing that very same point since the first time CGI was used in a movie. The answer is still sthe same - it's NOT the CGI that's the problem - it's the filmmakers. If they don't have a vision, if they don't have a story to tell, then all of the CGI (or expensive actors, or craft services) won't make the least bit of difference.

Movies have had special effects since the days of the Lumiere brothers. That's how you do the fantastic and the fabulous. Don't blame the effects if the showman can't sell it.