Christopher Nolan Quotes

We have grown up in an age where there is nothing that cannot now, courtesy of computer-generated imagery, be convincingly rendered in the visual field.

Clearly, if we'd had the kind of computer graphics capability then that we have now, the Star Gate sequence would be much more complex than flat planes of light and color.

One thing I was thinking about the other day was you can't even conceive of the kinds of things you can do in movies today. The idea that you could draw, in a computer, dinosaurs and have them running around was totally impossible.

ILM was the first company that I had worked at that had a computer-graphics division.

We can do things that we never could before. Stop-motion lets you build tiny little worlds, and computers make that world even more believable.

My particular aesthetic of light and color and design wouldn't change as a result of working with computer graphics rather than with slit scan or miniatures.

I don't have anything against CGI.

It's been about 15 years, and I've never really worked seriously in CGI and I thought that here was an opportunity to do the kinds of things that I was not able to do on Ghostbusters.

What's happened with computer technology is perfectly timed for someone with my set of skills. I tell stories with pictures. What I love about CGI is that if I can think it, it can be put on the screen.

I remember when I first came around, the computer-generated stuff was pretty wicked. I was like, 'Wow!' but I feel like then for the longest time, we saw so much of it, after a while, you might as well just be watching an animated movie.

I wouldn't want to do a whole movie with effects.

Special effects are characters. Special effects are essential elements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

I did what we call dry for wet effects, some of the miniatures work and two animation sequences.

Unless you're making Marvel movies, I think CGI usually suffers, especially in mid-budget-range horror movies where you see CGI.

When I was younger, I was hopefully going to do animation and special effects.

The nature of motion capture is only going to work for certain films. It's not going to put any other type of movies out of business.

I'm not a big fan of visual effects.

The days when you needed amazing Silicon Graphics machines to run animation software are gone now.

Obviously, CGI in the last ten years has gone through such leaps and bounds that today, people are looking for these kinds of movies to wow audiences with technology.

Polar Express is not an attempt to do animation. It is a technology-based film.

I think the CG is an instrument to create reality. I don't think it's an instrument to create a heightened reality.

Computers don't create computer animation any more than a pencil creates pencil animation. What creates computer animation is the artist.

I grew up watching movies and being amazed at the animatronics you'd see in stuff like 'The Dark Crystal,' and all those kinds of movies. So, I'm always enthralled with how they can make it all work, behind the scenes, with the visual effects.

I'm not a big fan of CGI. I'm not a fan at all, unless they use it in a way that doesn't call attention to itself.

If you take a regular animated film, that's being done by animators on computers, so the filmmaking is a fairly technical process.