I don't understand why people are getting so argumentative about this, it's not that hard to avoid spoilers, you know, as long as you don't live on the internet. Any time I see "game of.." I just stop reading. For some things I don't mind spoilers cause they're not that important to me. But I avoided all spoilers for…

manscaping

don't forget smurfs and Alvin and the chipmunks!

there's always the decade old rumor of the sequel

*Like clones who have a high midichlorian count

uhhhhh... no. AT AT's are insanely slow, and their four legs didn't do anything to help them cross the flat battlefield of Hoth. As a transport vehicle, ammo drop, mobile stronghold, sure. But as a weapon, nuh uhh

I wasn't backtracking any of my statements, so I don't know why you made a point of saying I was. I never came into this saying the Star Wars prequels were bad, just that the cg was bad. I went on to say that they're not good movies, and yes, that is an opinion. As far as the cg not being implemented well, that's…

cause time travel, bro

I had mentioned Golum in a different thread on here, Treebeard was another character that couldn't have been what he was without cg too. But maybe we differ over the definition of a crutch. The way you described Lucas's approach to cg is how I'd define it, but the way you describe Jackson's use of it is more like a…

ooh, someone's defensive of his pet. They weren't good movies, the cg wasn't convincing, and they DID use a lot of green screen, I assume you've watched the special features on the DVDs/Blu Rays. Or for that any making of for the Rings trilogy. There's a huge difference in how the two directors approached their films.

LOTR also used a lot of practical effects though, camera depth tricks and cut and paste compositing, it didn't use CG as a crutch like the Star Wars prequels did. Golum was the only fully cg character in the whole trilogy, the rest was beasts and monsters. They were implemented better than the prequels, but that was…

I'd love to see a resurgence of practical effects that would lead to some sense of harmony between the two methods. Certain things pay off more when they're real physical sets and props and explosions and certain things are impossible to make impressive any other way than CG. They're both tools, and as directors and…

I think most of the other super heroes you mentioned have their fair share of haters too, J.J. Jameson for instance has a prejudice against Spider-man, well anyone who hides behind a mask. It's just that the mutant gene is a wide spread global thing, so they've sewed racism into the fabric of the mythos. Compared to…

Jurassic Parked used full sized animatronic with great success, but they were limited in how they used them, so yeah, CGI is the way to go on a dragon. That orc in Hobbit really bothered me too. I mean, it looked and moved amazing, but it always stood out as CG. Uncanny valley and all that. And while I agree that the…

I think Fox is worse at it than Sony, but I agree, and I liked Amazing Spider-Man too. As a long time fan of the comics there are things about it that just really bothered me, in a 'what the hell were they thinking, did they even read a Spider-man comic before they wrote that?' sort of way, but it was leaps and bounds…

That's just silly. CGI is used in literally every movie you've ever seen in the last two decades. You may be thinking of CG characters?

eh, maybe the design is 'worse', but they look better than a big rubber suit where the mouth can make 2.5 shapes and that's it.

Shot composition I have to disagree with, because it has nothing to do with CG and more to do with the skills of the storyboarders, director and director of photography.

There's nothing more distracting than when you can feel the wires pulling live actors around except when a shot is so big or fast that you know it's a cg body double. The first Hobbit overused that, especially when they were running around the goblin cave. The second Hobbit I didn't notice it as much though. And CG…

Using the prequels as a base for CGI is a bad example though, those films are like a decade old when bad CG was super common and used as a crutch rather than a tool.The inclusion of added CG elements in the original "special" editions was a gross distraction because it looked so bad. Honestly though, even if it was…