I do like CGI in films, but only mildly, a lot of your films contain to much CG and not enough animation, now I don't mind effects like greenscreening  to be overused, and I'm sorry, but you do go overboard. Now I don't mind tiny things ling the far edge of a city where no real detail can be seen, but still. I'm partially with LegoDudez and partially with Zwan. Sorry

Who is this "we" you speak of? Because it doesn't include me.

Adding CGI is a skill that not everyone can do. If someone has it, they cant use it? I very much like CGI.

"actuallly this involves spiderman too, not batman. but im also taking a new approach, more comedy, less action. i dont see to many movies like that with more comedy than action" --SteveStarfyTV on an Indiana Jones meets Star Wars idea.

LEGO Universe? You realize that whole game is CG.

But not all brickfilms are comical. Some are serious, such as Unrenewable, Grace, etc...

"actuallly this involves spiderman too, not batman. but im also taking a new approach, more comedy, less action. i dont see to many movies like that with more comedy than action" --SteveStarfyTV on an Indiana Jones meets Star Wars idea.

A little clarification here. I'm not looking for what you guys like or don't like. I already know that a lot of you dislike CGI. What I want to know is why. Why do a lot of computer generated effects degrade a film in your eyes? If they were indistinguishable from reality, would you still care?

CG? Serious? Do you realize that 90% of all CG films made today are cartoons made for children? Most of those are comedies. Saying that a medium is too "serious" is illogical. It would be like saying that stop-motion is too serious or that live-action is too serious. The medium is neutral. You can make comedies or romances or horror films with just about any medium.

Again, if CGI effects in a film were indistinguishable from the real LEGO bricks that you see almost every day, would you care?

- Leo

You do realize that CG models have to be animated as well, right?

Leo, I think these purists don't like is that they feel it's cheating to not use real LEGO bricks. The feel that all bricks found in a brickfilm should be real bricks. It's not what is done with the CGI models that's the issue, it's the tactile reality of the models themselves. I see their point, and to each his own... but I think that some ideas just can't realistically be done without CGI.

Personally, I think CG can be abused, and poorly done CG can be extremely distracting, but in some cases there's no other way. Aside from buying several thousand dollars worth of bricks and spending several hundred hours to put them together and animate on them.

How do some of the peoples here survive watching Pixar movies?

meme

You do realize that Leo still has to do the tedious walking animation, setbuilding, he just covers it up with CGI to make it look better.

"actuallly this involves spiderman too, not batman. but im also taking a new approach, more comedy, less action. i dont see to many movies like that with more comedy than action" --SteveStarfyTV on an Indiana Jones meets Star Wars idea.

i dont have anything wrong with it as long as it doesnt look to crazy and stuff.if it kinda blends in, its great.the movie imworking on now i did a short scene that used alittle CG stuff, but it didnt look to good so i got rid of it.

I can understand where Moo is coming from.

Say you were buying a camera. One is a nice Canon powershot. The other looks similar, and runs exactly the same. Same firmware and all. You can buy the powershot, for $300, or the off brand for $50. Great deal for pretty much the same item, but you want the real deal. The actual brand.

"actuallly this involves spiderman too, not batman. but im also taking a new approach, more comedy, less action. i dont see to many movies like that with more comedy than action" --SteveStarfyTV on an Indiana Jones meets Star Wars idea.