Anteeru

I somehow disliked the use of CGI in the Lord of the Rings trilogy on some occasions. The use of them was quite cheesy (as for example when Denethor makes himself an end and the camera drives back from his body falling quite big in frame to the whole Minas Tirith model). As mentioned above, no viewer can say: they made that in live action. I appreciate the way Spielberg or Zemeckis use effects as coherent part of a shot, well done in Minority Report, What Lies Beneath, Contact or War of the Worlds. Quite the opposite are the (very expensive!) Spiderman-films. They lack attention to detail especially when it comes to animation of human beeings (such as Spiderman, the Goblin or Dock Ock) or the animation of natural phenomena (such as dust, smoke or fire). Although part two showed quite an improvement in visual effects, there were still some shots where you really start to believe that these ones were done lately in the process with quite a lack of time. On the other hand there are also a lot of satisfying shots. I think visual effects business' philosophy shouldn't be "What haven't we done yet?" but "Which of the things we have already done can be done better now?". I saw no improvement between the animation of water in Perfect Storm and the Genosis scenes in Attack of the Clones. War of the worlds on the other hand showed some nice improvements in the animation of dust and smoke when compared with Pearl Habor. And the better scenes of Lord of the Rings show: The best effect shots are those, who are based on a live action shot. Some model work in the trilogy was really amazing and it's always a god advice: What you do is what you get. Greetings, Matthias