Computer graphics in movies - Your take.

[Neil Dnuma]

3. Gravity. In Starwars II...young Anakin is standing on some sort of monster...on its side? Completely imbalanced. Same with Legolas in Lord of the rings, he rides all sorts of trolls and monsters, but he appears to be glued to their backs. If you stand on top of a large body that moves very quickly, you don't move with them, you fall off. Basic physics.

Nothing breaks immersion so much as when stuff don't make sense.

Yup. I'm also fascinated by the feeling that most CGI-creatures seem weightless somehow.

I think CGI have come to stay for both economical and practical reasons. This "revolution" has also removed all remaining borders of what can possibly happen in the movies. Hollywood seem to have become obsessed with these endless possibilities, and the overall quality of the output has declined in favor of gigantic skyscrapers swallowed by flying purple pigs and other such scenarios. Hopefully the novelty will wear off, and they can again put the emphasis on solid storytelling - it is what made Hollywood so successful in the first place.

[Domino]

I just saw The Mist. I know it probably contains tons of CGI, but i didn't see anything that looked fake.

That was one great movie. WOW!!

[TwinMoon]

I think the most disappointing cinematic experience for me was watching Spider-man 1. The webslinger slinging through all those computergenerated skyscrapers... horrible.

On the other hand, nothing cheers me up like a little bit of trivia: I watched the Making of Charlie and the Chocolat Factory, and you might remember the chipmunks squirrels opening nuts?
Tim Burton requested specially trained chipmunks squirrels, while he could have used CGI.
Maybe you'd never noticed CGI, but it just makes me value a movie more when I know a filmmaker's put effort into details like that.

[Domino]

They were squirrels, and also there was only one oompa-loompa that was played by one guy, even though it looked like there was about 20 of them.

[Angel Dust]

I agree with the people who have said CGI is nothing more than a tool. In the right hands it's fantastic and can show you things that would not be possible otherwise and then you have the flip side of that. While 'I Am Legend' has admittidly absolutely terrible CGI for the monsters it is interesting to note that it had some very good CGI in it too, the additions to the city itself. The weeds, some billboards, the quarantine covers on the buildings, the broken bridge etc were all CGI and a really good use of it too.
And there is no way that the animatronics in Jurassic Park were better than the CG. Any full-body shot of the T-Rex is CG and those are some of the most impressive, especially when it steps out of its enclosure or chases the jeep. What about that last shot of the T-Rex? Couldn't do it without CG. The animatronics for the film were very limited because they are so heavy and broke down alot in the rain scenes. It was, and probably still is, impossible to build a full-size walking T-Rex so they had to build pieces which means most of the impressive stuff in Jurassic Park couldn't have been pulled off without CG.

Some other great examples of CG.

Terminator 2: sure it might not look perfect today, I still think it holds up real well, but it is a fine example of how CGI can add so much to a film. The villian would not have been any where near as affective with any other effect approach.

Minority Report: apart from the silly car chase part this film has plenty of great CGI moments. The interface Cruise's character uses, the spidery bots that are tracking him, the intrusive advertising etc.

War of the Worlds: not a big fan of the film but the CG was very well integrated into the live action stuff. Speilberg is easily the best special-effects director in the world today.