CGI just adds way too much. Now that it's so (relatively) inexpensive for even modest productions, films can rely on spectacle to cater to the lowest common de

CGI just adds way too much. Now that it's so (relatively) inexpensive for even modest productions, films can rely on spectacle to cater to the lowest common denominator, which is apparently far more lucrative than making actual art. As a side note, I'm partly ruined by having a father who has worked in VFX and CGI animation and dabbling in those fields myself. While CGI has improved in my lifetime, I can't help but see areas where big budget FX are obviously flawed and find it very distracting. As an example for some reason, studios believe that fully CGI animals must be animated with exaggerated motion and gestures that most animals aren't making at any given time; this leads to CGI creatures that, to me, are not believable. Animal animation also tends to be overly smooth and floaty. Of course these are often true for animated humanoids as well, but animals should be easier. I sucked ass at character animation, but my less-bad animations were the ones involving animals. Animals tend to only be doing one thing at a time, so it's really not that hard to work off reference material. This also isn't to say that animals should be portrayed 100% realistically in film; my point is that the physicality of CGI animals has barely improved, and it ruins the experience. But maybe I'm the only one? Sometimes CGI animals in films are so badly animated that it's hard for me to believe that even the average person doesn't lose some of their immersion when watching a movie. Now that I think of it, perhaps animals aren't used as extensively with mo-cap because of animal rights issues? I dunno... whatever the cause, there's something that I don't think is being done right most of the time.