Comment by peacebeard
8 days ago
This comment doesn't respond to what I actually said. I said that heavy-handed CGI tends to read as CGI. You responded by "informing" me that more nuanced CGI is commonplace. Everybody knows that.
8 days ago
This comment doesn't respond to what I actually said. I said that heavy-handed CGI tends to read as CGI. You responded by "informing" me that more nuanced CGI is commonplace. Everybody knows that.
That's not at all what you said in your first comment, this is a total back pedal.
Let's forget for a second that "heavy handed cgi" is tautological because it wouldn't look "heavy handed" if it looked real, and forgetting that some things like energy beams have no analogue in real life so are obviously effects.
You said "digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do" and the truth is this isn't true at all, you just don't know that you're seeing digital effects and you think you're looking at photography or something practical.
Not sure if you're misreading what I wrote or arguing in bad faith, but either way I'm done here.
What you said is very clear, no one is misreading it, it just isn't true and you tried to change what you said in your reply.
You can throw your hands up, but I think if you could explain why what I'm saying isn't true you would have done that instead.