If you are not moved by the character, no amount of CGI will give you a performance that is emotionally engaging or devastating - what a live-action performance does.
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.
We will work on ways to digitally enhance Everest, matching it with Dolomites and Everest, but I'll do everything physically first. If there's no other way, then I'll go to CGI.
On 'Death In Paradise,' I had a CGI pet lizard and had to react to nothing, which was hideously embarrassing.
Every film that comes out that incorporates CGI or performance capture is a little bit ahead of the last film that came out. You're on the cutting edge for a certain amount of time, and then the new technology comes out.
I think CGI is interesting, but it's too expensive and limiting in terms of what you can do shot-by-shot.
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.
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 think sometimes big budget means explosions! CGI! CGI, the possibilities are so limitless that it begins to be impractical.
I'd rather have Ben Affleck feeling something than twenty minutes of punching CGI Zod. You want moments that resonate with your audience.
