42 replies to this topic

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Is CGI ruining modern-day cinema? I think it is. Forty years ago, movies were about feats of physical achievement with regards to action set-pieces and settings, but nowadays it seems EVERYTHING is based upon CGI. I for one am glad to see the Bond franchise returning to its roots and moving away from CGI, but I can't seem to enjoy films as much these days if CGI is overused. Lord Of The Rings was on TV tonight (a film anyway, but nothing decent was on!) but I was disgusted at the overzealous use of CGI (some of it was poor anyway). Many good films have been ruined by this e.g. Troy, Star Wars Attack Of The Clones and Revenge Of The Sith, Goal II etc. Would like to know if any fellow CBN members share my views.

[Johnboy007]

No. There is a lot of fantastic work out there that simply cannot be done with models or filmed in camera. It all depends on who's doing it.

I prefer real stunts, but they can only do so much.

[Mister E]

CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !

[sharpshooter]

In action films I prefer things to be done for real, and if CGI is an absolute necessity, use it only for minor touch up jobs. It should not be visible.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

CGI can't ruin films. It is just another tool in the modern film making toolset. It is how film makers use it that counts.

[TheSaint]

CGI has its uses but I think there are times that the filmmakers get a little lazy. There are a few times in the Spider-Man films where a stunt man could do some of the work yet they rely on CGI.

[Professor Dent]

CGI has made it possible to tell stories that would otherwise go untold. It is just one tool that filmmakers can use to tell their story. Well done CGI can absolutely help to enhance a story. Unfortunately, there are too many examples of poor CGI out there. Casino Royale is a great example of a movie that used CGI to enhance the story. I don't think CGI is ruining films. It's just the next evolutionary step in movie making. I view it as a pendulum. Early on, the pendulum was way over to the side of everything digital. It has more recently been moving to more of a balanced use - depending on your movie, of course.

[Dell Deaton]

These last three Posts sum it up for me.

It's a tool. And let's not kid ourselves about "stunts." Or are we going to pretend there were no wires removed from the final shots (read, "CGI")? Or, for that matter, that doing some "physical" version of what the action is supposed to be suggesting per the plot is more honorable? More pure? If so, more that what, exactly?

There is a lot of great stuff that could not have been done before CGI. There is also a lot of CGI that's obvious and bad, and that spoils it for me now that the bar has been raised. I'm content w/ the special effects in Star Trek episodes from the 1960s, but the new Star Trek will have to meet a higher standard.

I don't think we're talking either or here; rather, it's a matter of fit.

Edited by Dell Deaton, 14 September 2008 - 02:12 AM.

[00Twelve]

LOTR couldn't have been realized without CGI. Not without looking like Clash of the Titans.

No, CGI is not ruining modern cinema.

[Mister E]

To address live action, it's being used as a poor man's alternative to stunt men, models, animatronics, etc. You really can't use alot of CGI, it just looks fake. CGI should only be used as a polishing tool.

[Righty007]

No, CGI isn't ruining modern cinema.

CGI is great when used to enhance a film. It only "ruins" things when used poorly. Example: The glacier surfing scene in Die Another Day*.

* I think I was the first person to mention Die Another Day. Wow.

[[dark]]

CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !

I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.

Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.

[quantumofsolace]

LOTR couldn't have been realized without CGI. Not without looking like Clash of the Titans.

No, CGI is not ruining modern cinema.

I prefer the Ray Harryhausen FX. At least they look solid. The creatures in LOTR look like they belong in a Pixar movie.
You could argue that the Harryhausen FX look like they belong in A Nightmare Before Christmas , but I still think they look better. I also prefer The original King Kong FX compared to those in the the Jackson remake. The stop-motion creatures look like they have depth to them. You feel you could touch them and I don't think thats the case with computer graphics.
But I don't think it's ruining modern-day cinema if it's used wisely. e.g. the collapsing building in Casino Royale.

Edited by quantumofsolace, 14 September 2008 - 06:19 AM.

[Safari Suit]

Yes, CGI is a tool. And like many tools such as the Patriot Act (ooh, political) it is often overused and mishandled. It's amazing how a film like Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park features more aesthetically pleasing CGI and utilises it better than many of the films that have come our way this decade.

I would certainly rather see something stylised from a genius like Harryhausen than some dodgy pixels by a techie hack.

[Blonde Bond]

Everything has already been said. It's a tool.

Other movies don't need it. Some do. Bond is a movie series, that I only want to see utilizing CGI for polishing the scenes aka removing wires and such.

I don't mind CGI used in Science Fiction. But like mentioned earlier, it doesn't seem like many 'Science Fiction Directors' know how to utilize CGI correctly. Cameron did it right, Spielberg did it right. But that was in the early 90's.

Lucas has overused CGI and I can't believe his firm made the special effects for Cameron's 'The Abyss', 'T2 : Judgment Day' and Spielberg's 'Jurassic Park'...

The all CGI 'TMNT' movie was okay. But I'd like to see a fourth 'Live-action TurtleFlick' with only CGI used to polish the movie. If done right, a live action 'TMNT' movie would look even better than the early 90's Turtles movies, that used guys in costumes and doing the stunts for real.

[Gabriel]

No CGI is not ruining modern cinema. Bad CGI is though. There are many films that use CGI where you wouldn't even be aware that it was being used (there's a lot of it in The Others, for example, but it isn't obvious!) but, equally, spendthrift studios not wanting to pay huge insurance premiums on stuntmen use excessive CGI and, obviously, they assume they can get away with not using stop-motion models and animatronics at times.

Lord of the Rings is an example of where they had to use CGI (it was either that or hire a 200,000 extras. Gollum (and Dobby, the House Elf in Harry Potter) are examples of CGI working pretty darn well. But LotR also used vast amounts of animatronics and physical effects.

End of the day, though, as has been stated here already, CGI is one of a number of tools, along with animatronics, glass painting and stop-motion that make films look great. Reliance on CGI alone is effectively the tail wagging the dog!

It also has to be borne in mind that there's a generational issue at play here. A lot of us remember the pre-CGI period and are used to physical and stop-motion FX. I still prefer them, with CGI being used to improve the compositing of the images. Kids now have grown up with CGI. To them, it's normal (poor deluded things!)

Edited by Gabriel, 14 September 2008 - 10:58 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

I don't think CGI is ruining modern day cinema at all, it's not the CGI that's a problem, it's how people use it. For example, Indiana Jones 4 was not ruined by CGI, infact I thought it was brilliant, especially the money shot of the spaceship. What ruined the movie for me was the poor script. The worst example of CGI I have ever seen is in Die Another Day or XX2 - CGI at its worst.

[Dell Deaton]

... What ruined the movie for me was the poor script....

• Misapplication of the technology
• Lazy use of the technology
• Use of technology to cover for a bad script

Amen. There's my list.

Otherwise, we're simply talking about "too many chase scenes on horses." Fine if you're making Westerns; okay in context for a movie like True Lies. But the question has always got to come down to "does it fit?"

[Professor Dent]

CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !

I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.

Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.

I agree with you on WALL-E. That movie just impressed the hell out of me. These scenes of WALL-E on earth just going about his business are some of the best CGI to date. The backgrounds are the most photorealistic I have seen. The fact the animators gave the characters emotions without giving them over the top obvious human traits (eyes, ears, noses, mouths, eyebrows, etc.) is really impressive.

[stamper]

It's not CGI, it's like saying Microsoft Word ruined movie and book writing. It's not the software, it's the hacks using it who ruins it.

[[dark]]

CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !

I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.

Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.

I agree with you on WALL-E. That movie just impressed the hell out of me. These scenes of WALL-E on earth just going about his business are some of the best CGI to date. The backgrounds are the most photorealistic I have seen. The fact the animators gave the characters emotions without giving them over the top obvious human traits (eyes, ears, noses, mouths, eyebrows, etc.) is really impressive.

Absolutely. I could have watched WALL·E and EVE's interactions for the whole running time. The movie lost a bit of steam once they introduced humans, but those dialogue-free opening 45 minutes are simply phenomenal - and the reason it's so brilliant is entirely due to the gorgeous CGI animation.

[Mister E]

CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !

I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.

Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.

WALL-E is just a damn special effects film with characters that have no personalities. I don't under stand how people are being suckered into actually thinking that film is anymore then dreck. Soupy Sales had better puppetry on his show. Wall-E was just some little big eyed moving trash can and Eve was egg shaped, flying trash can. They don't do anything other then make little movements for the audience to say "Aw, that's cute". Findind Nemo ? What does that have ? Realistic water ? I'll turn on my faucet and stare in awe. The Incredibles ? That was among Pixar's best but hardly phenomenial. Ratatouille ? Bland characters that are little more then standard Disney roles and Paris seems to resemble Southern California. You want to see good puppetry ? Watch an episode of Soupy Sales. Billions of dollars and CGI computers and can't even imitate one iota of feeling from Pookie the Lion.

[[dark]]

CGI animation films is a travesty. YES I HAVE SEEN PIXAR FILMS !

I know we've discussed this elsewhere, but I still can't grasp the disdain you have for Pixar's films. WALL·E is a borderline masterpiece - the two robots in that film show more life, emotion and heart than any characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are similarly phenomenal movies.

Like so many other cinematic tools, CGI can fall totally flat when poorly executed, but succeed beyond imagination when used well.

WALL-E is just a damn special effects film with characters that have no personalities. I don't under stand how people are being suckered into actually thinking that film is anymore then dreck. Soupy Sales had better puppetry on his show. Wall-E was just some little big eyed moving trash can and Eve was egg shaped, flying trash can. They don't do anything other then make little movements for the audience to say "Aw, that's cute". Findind Nemo ? What does that have ? Realistic water ? I'll turn on my faucet and stare in awe. The Incredibles ? That was among Pixar's best but hardly phenomenial. Ratatouille ? Bland characters that are little more then standard Disney roles and Paris seems to resemble Southern California. You want to see good puppetry ? Watch an episode of Soupy Sales. Billions of dollars and CGI computers and can't even imitate one iota of feeling from Pookie the Lion.

Like I said, I still can't grasp this argument. I think you're missing the point of Pixar's films. They aren't about "puppetry". Nor are they attempts to create photo-realistic environments that seem to never quite cut it (phenomenally close, though they may be). Opting to turn on your faucet and watch real water over the impressive, but synthetic likes of that in Finding Nemo is not a valid argument, as all film is ultimately synthetic, anyway.

Take WALL·E: arguably the most well-drawn character I've seen in a movie in some time. Yes, he's cute (so are dozens of - pardon the pun - well-drawn animated characters), but it's obvious that an incredible amount of detail and thought went into the design and execution of the character. And it's all there on the screen - it's impossible not to be moved when you're watching his various tics and traits.

WALL·E oozes personality. He emotes like countless "real" actors never could - all while uttering little more than his name. The very fact that WALL·E delivers a stunning, almost dialogue-free, opening 45 minutes is testimony to the potential of CGI animation (like any form of animation) to deliver film experiences equal to - and possibly even beyond - those offered by live-action.

[Mister E]

Like I said, I still can't grasp this argument. I think you're missing the point of Pixar's films. They aren't about "puppetry".

CGI is just fancy puppetry. I have heard testimonies from animators that the CGI programs they recieved are not meant to do animation at all. The technology is dozens up years behind hand drawn animation. I can make a flip book animating more specfic expressions registered then any multi-million CGI piece of crap.

Nor are they attempts to create photo-realistic environments that seem to never quite cut it (phenomenally close, though they may be). Opting to turn on your faucet and watch real water over the impressive, but synthetic likes of that in Finding Nemo is not a valid argument, as all film is ultimately synthetic, anyway.

There is nothing in Finding Nemo that has never been seen in any disney animted film in the past few decades. I speak in terms of character and story. One dimensonal, CGI suits that taken up by over paid actors. The only thing that has been improved in Pixar films over the years is the textures, not acting, not character, and not story.

Take WALL·E: arguably the most well-drawn character I've seen in a movie in some time. Yes, he's cute (so are dozens of - pardon the pun - well-drawn animated characters), but it's obvious that an incredible amount of detail and thought went into the design and execution of the character.

WTF ? He's a box that just has alot of detail. That isn't well drawn and that isn't animation friendly either.

And it's all there on the screen - it's impossible not to be moved when you're watching his various tics and traits.

Jesus, are you serious ? I am sorry but it must take very little to entertain you. Look at this acting in Tortise Wins By a Hare:

http://www.dailymoti...-wins-by-a-hare

You can feel that emotion. You can freeze frame every single expression and feel the power of Bugs on screen. WALL-E is one boring motion after another, you get nothing out of that.

WALL·E oozes personality. He emotes like countless "real" actors never could - all while uttering little more than his name. The very fact that WALL·E delivers a stunning, almost dialogue-free, opening 45 minutes is testimony to the potential of CGI animation (like any form of animation) to deliver film experiences equal to - and possibly even beyond - those offered by live-action.

Alright then tell me what personality does he have ? All he does is utter his name and make some little robotic movements. All Wall-E proved is that you can make a big, souless, special effects film and make alot of money at the box office. Also it proved how boring human animation can be. What were those things in the film talking ? Those weren't human. Hell, they weren't even organic. They were just big, rubber, beachballs. Of course if it's small and has big eyes, audiences will fall head over heals for it.

[freemo]

Is CGI ruining modern-day cinema?

Yes.

[Judo chop]

As a very general rule of thumb, I grow wary when it's used to create main characters/creatures.

The only exception I can think of is the battle on Gondor in LOTR: ROTK. The oliphants are absolutely amazing. Still flawless to my eyes after 10 or so viewings.

But no. It's not ruining movies. There are more than a few lazy and abusive directors out there, but there are good ones too. Stick to them.

Incidentally, I can't wait to see the animatronics in the new Hobbit film!!

[[dark]]

I think it's clear we're not going to agree, Mister E, but to answer your points...

CGI is just fancy puppetry. I have heard testimonies from animators that the CGI programs they recieved are not meant to do animation at all. The technology is dozens up years behind hand drawn animation. I can make a flip book animating more specfic expressions registered then any multi-million CGI piece of crap.

I adore hand-drawn animation, and believe there will always be a market for it, but "testimonies" that CGI animation technology is "dozens of years behind hand-drawn animation" simply don't make sense. What are these technologies supposedly working towards? Completely photo-realistic animation (which would be pointless)? In what sense are they "behind"?

In any case, why can't the two co-exist? In my view, they aren't even comparable. Apples and oranges; both fruit, but that's where the similarities end. Ditto CGI and hand-drawn animation.

Nor are they attempts to create photo-realistic environments that seem to never quite cut it (phenomenally close, though they may be). Opting to turn on your faucet and watch real water over the impressive, but synthetic likes of that in Finding Nemo is not a valid argument, as all film is ultimately synthetic, anyway.

There is nothing in Finding Nemo that has never been seen in any disney animted film in the past few decades. I speak in terms of character and story. One dimensonal, CGI suits that taken up by over paid actors. The only thing that has been improved in Pixar films over the years is the textures, not acting, not character, and not story.

I do feel Finding Nemo is overrated, but it's still a gorgeous film.

Take WALL·E: arguably the most well-drawn character I've seen in a movie in some time. Yes, he's cute (so are dozens of - pardon the pun - well-drawn animated characters), but it's obvious that an incredible amount of detail and thought went into the design and execution of the character.

WTF ? He's a box that just has alot of detail. That isn't well drawn and that isn't animation friendly either.

Precisely - a lot of detail. From something broad, like his charming morning rituals, to tiny nuances, like the manner in which he tilts one of his eyes, WALL·E is all about "a lot of detail". In fact, "a lot of detail" is exactly what makes WALL·E such a captivating character.

And it's all there on the screen - it's impossible not to be moved when you're watching his various tics and traits.

Jesus, are you serious ? I am sorry but it must take very little to entertain you. Look at this acting in Tortise Wins By a Hare:

http://www.dailymoti...-wins-by-a-hare

You can feel that emotion. You can freeze frame every single expression and feel the power of Bugs on screen. WALL-E is one boring motion after another, you get nothing out of that.

Like I said, I love hand-drawn animation (and adore Looney Tunes), and I totally agree with you on clips such as that - it's superb. But WALL·E's appeal lies in the subtleties. It doesn't have to be a barrage of expressions and gestures. Indeed, the movie's appeal lies in just how low-key the whole affair is - at the very least, in its Earth-bound scenes. It's a slowburn movie and it requires patience for - and an appreciation of - those subtleties.

In any event, Pixar isn't in the business of killing off hand-drawn animation. As others have said within this thread, CGI is just another tool and one that, in my opinion, is just as effective as hand-drawn animation.

WALL·E oozes personality. He emotes like countless "real" actors never could - all while uttering little more than his name. The very fact that WALL·E delivers a stunning, almost dialogue-free, opening 45 minutes is testimony to the potential of CGI animation (like any form of animation) to deliver film experiences equal to - and possibly even beyond - those offered by live-action.

Alright then tell me what personality does he have ? All he does is utter his name and make some little robotic movements. All Wall-E proved is that you can make a big, souless, special effects film and make alot of money at the box office. Also it proved how boring human animation can be. What were those things in the film talking ? Those weren't human. Hell, they weren't even organic. They were just big, rubber, beachballs. Of course if it's small and has big eyes, audiences will fall head over heals for it.

Audiences and critics. Plenty of critics, actually. No, the critics' word is not gospel, but that is a near-universal consensus on the film's merits - both technical and dramatic.

Like I said, the film lost some of its charm once the focus turned to the human characters (who were in no way as fleshed-out as WALL·E - and that was probably the point), but the film's strong point lies in its robot characters, who were, amazingly, its most human characters. WALL·E was a loner, but a trooper. He had a job to do, aimless though it seemed, and he persisted. He took joys in the small, seemingly inconsequential things in life, and made the most of it from what he had. And when a life-changing event occurred - the arrival of EVE - WALL·E transformed. He had a raison d'être.

Empire sums up the character's appeal wonderfully...

WALL•E scoots happily around the dilapidated planet to the musical stylings of Michael Crawford in the aforementioned Hello, Dolly!, crushing the detritus of humanity into little cubes. He does his job quietly and diligently and, once the work is done, indulges his obsession with man’s trash: one man’s garbage is another robot’s treasure. Wall•E is a character of genius, as pure and wondrous an example of the possibilities of animation as you will ever see. He’s an encapsulation of all the medium’s ability to give anything personality. He has no eyebrows, mouth, language, thumbs, or any of the humanistic elements that a cartoon generally requires to mimic emotion. Yet everything this little fella feels is perfectly palpable and genuine.

I could understand an indifference to CGI, or even a slight aversion, but an outright disdain and failure to appreciate it's possibilities, especially when exhibited as marvellously as they are here, is beyond me.

[Mister E]

Audiences and critics. Plenty of critics, actually. No, the critics' word is not gospel, but that is a near-universal consensus on the film's merits - both technical and dramatic.

Critics and audiences praise alot of so I don't care. I care what artists have to say and people who can apperciate the artform.

but the film's strong point lies in its robot characters, who were, amazingly, its most human characters. WALL·E was a loner, but a trooper. He had a job to do, aimless though it seemed, and he persisted. He took joys in the small, seemingly inconsequential things in life, and made the most of it from what he had. And when a life-changing event occurred - the arrival of EVE - WALL·E transformed. He had a raison d'être.

All you said he's alone and he's likes somethings, that isn't character. When EVE arrives he's just as boring but now he as an equally bland love interest.

Empire sums up the character's appeal wonderfully...

WALL•E scoots happily around the dilapidated planet to the musical stylings of Michael Crawford in the aforementioned Hello, Dolly!, crushing the detritus of humanity into little cubes. He does his job quietly and diligently and, once the work is done, indulges his obsession with man’s trash: one man’s garbage is another robot’s treasure. Wall•E is a character of genius, as pure and wondrous an example of the possibilities of animation as you will ever see. He’s an encapsulation of all the medium’s ability to give anything personality. He has no eyebrows, mouth, language, thumbs, or any of the humanistic elements that a cartoon generally requires to mimic emotion. Yet everything this little fella feels is perfectly palpable and genuine.

I could understand an indifference to CGI, or even a slight aversion, but an outright disdain and failure to appreciate it's possibilities, especially when exhibited as marvellously as they are here, is beyond me.

Here is a review from someone who actually knows animation:

http://thadkomorowski.com/walle/

At no point in the eco-friendly storyline (Moral: don’t buy aimlessly, kids, unless it’s WALL·E merchandise!) was I drawn in to care about any of these machines. Neither of the two main characters, WALL·E and EVE, are engaging, and they have no hope to be if they’re cold CGI robots. (The animation of the morbidly obese humans is quite bland as well.) There’s something warm and inviting about most animation in just about any classic Disney animated feature, and computers are just never going to pull it off. And from what the obnoxious trailer for the upcoming “Bolt” feature from Disney (which I have no desire to see whatsoever) shows, other studios are catching up in making the coldness look more polished.

The film’s integrity is also castrated using the tried and true animated feature formulaic ending. I never think critiquing how you’d change the movie’s story is very useful (particularly when it’s as bad of a story as “WALL·E”’s), but if this film wanted to redeem itself, it would have been a groundbreaking twist had WALL·E’s memory been fried, forgetting all it (robots don’t have sexes and can’t procreate, geniuses) had done. Naturally, though, we get the usual “Everything worked out great!” ending we’ve seen far too many times.

[Mister E]

I adore hand-drawn animation, and believe there will always be a market for it, but "testimonies" that CGI animation technology is "dozens of years behind hand-drawn animation" simply don't make sense. What are these technologies supposedly working towards? Completely photo-realistic animation (which would be pointless)? In what sense are they "behind"?

Nothing in CGI looks organic, nothing. Not any sort of movement or facial expression. The animation of a character in CGI depends on rigid templates that you can do little with. You don't have this limitation with hand drawn animation. I have seen far more complex character acting in Felix the Cat cartoons in the 20's then in computer animation.

In any case, why can't the two co-exist? In my view, they aren't even comparable. Apples and oranges; both fruit, but that's where the similarities end. Ditto CGI and hand-drawn animation

Yes they are because they are both after the same goal, animating. CGI can only do that primitively.

Precisely - a lot of detail. From something broad, like his charming morning rituals, to tiny nuances, like the manner in which he tilts one of his eyes, WALL·E is all about "a lot of detail". In fact, "a lot of detail" is exactly what makes WALL·E such a captivating character.

That dosen't make any sense at all. I could put alot a detail on a lamp and animate it, would love it ? Good design isn't detail.

Like I said, I love hand-drawn animation (and adore Looney Tunes), and I totally agree with you on clips such as that - it's superb. But WALL·E's appeal lies in the subtleties. It doesn't have to be a barrage of expressions and gestures. Indeed, the movie's appeal lies in just how low-key the whole affair is - at the very least, in its Earth-bound scenes. It's a slowburn movie and it requires patience for - and an appreciation of - those subtleties.

Wall-E's expressions aren't subtle, they are not existent. You can't register any emotion in little robotic movements and you certaintly can't in reflective, telescopic eyes. LOL ! I loved how the camera focused on the little trash can's eyes. I am suppose to feel emotion ?

In any event, Pixar isn't in the business of killing off hand-drawn animation. As others have said within this thread, CGI is just another tool and one that, in my opinion, is just as effective as hand-drawn animation.

No Pixar isn't trying to kill off hand drawn animation. Most of them started in it. They are capable of doing better but they want to stick to cliches. As for CGI, sorry it's not even as close to being effective as hand drawn. CGI will always remain puppetry done by computers.

[Harmsway]

You can't register any emotion in little robotic movements and you certaintly can't in reflective, telescopic eyes. LOL ! I loved how the camera focused on the little trash can's eyes. I am suppose to feel emotion ?

You are. I did. So did most folks who saw the film, I wager.