So... when did photo-realistic CGI animation start being called live action?

Yeah, there's a really solid reason for that.

I personally like the visuals of the CGI characters. It's a hell of a lot better than I'd assumed a live action incarnation of Pokemon would look, so perhaps my opinion is colored by having had very low expectations in advance.

say what you want about the design of the Overwatch characters (and I have... they're derivative and cliched)....

but their CGI animation department are killing it.

I might have been partaking just a bit, but I had one hell of a time deciding how much of the video was CGI, or how much was camera tricks. There's obviously -some- quantity of effects, if for no reason other than the duplication of the drones. OTOH, the landscape looks perfectly real, as did the ripples on the water.

To be perfectly honest, I don't even remember now what I decided...but I remember arguing with myself for almost the entire video.

Seems like there is a little too much impossible camera work going on. I suppose you could argue that's an artistic choice, and maybe the nature of trailers exaggerates it, but I definitely agree with the impression that it's got that video-gamy, early 2000's CGI vibe to it.

And bug eyes is definitely just creepy. The anime thing doesn't work on this side of the uncanny valley.

All the same... big-budget action, sci-fi kung-fu fighting future-cyborgs... meh, I'll see it more or less by default.

The whole thing has that "bad cgi" vibe where everything feels weightless.

Not for me.

If there is one thing I have learned from cinematography, NEVER believe the lighting condition! it is insane how many night scenes are shot in the day and color corrected to night in the final.

I think the cgi-ness is our brains trying to associate what we see with what we have seen in the past. This vehical seems to be;

a) Super light weight hollow body
b) DC motor driven
c) all electric

It is literally a big boy version of modern RC helicopters which also exhibit weird looking physics because the motor totally overpowers the mass of the body.

Obviously most of the footage is of the only way this vehicle can hover, on its back. Being all electric and light, the flight time is likely only minutes.

We have seen many vehicles like this, the only puzzle piece no one is solving is a sustained source of power.

Is it just me or did some of the shots look CGI?

Something seems off about this video. At 0:29 the guy goes from just in front of the SUV with his door open to perfectly seated in the car at 0:31 with the door closed right as the SUV hits his car. How did he even get the door closed in time (as the SUV was right there). Doesn't look CGIed but seems off.

Sorry, but this argument is nonsense.
CGI, colour grading and digital cameras aren't "ruining movies". All those tools can be used well.

What's ruining movies is dumb scripts and bad filmmaking.

pretty much everything he said about CGI are wrong. like saying it's called "special effects". it's called "visual effects". "special effects" are practical effects.

Is it just me or does the CGI look really bad for 2017?

Also... I'm willing to bet all your houses that this is a YA adaption.

/googles

yep

That's CGI, right?