Quote

The point is technology and innovation have advanced far past what DCGS is capable of doing. It's not an agile enough tool to be able to incorporate and integrate the most advanced technology that is on the shelf today that can be bought by our forces that frankly our war-fighting units want.

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

At DC Comics, it has been a top priority that DC forges a meaningful, forward-looking digital strategy.

You look at CG sometimes and its terrible. You look at CG sometimes and its great.

I love CG - it's a great tool. I just don't think you should use it to replace reality; you should use it to augment and enhance. Do matte paintings, do composites, do replications, stuff like that, but you're taking something real and working with that as opposed to trying to fake it from scratch. The human brain can tell the difference.

I see the tool set being the same and maybe doing virtual movies and that's fine for some stories but not for others. And maybe make all CG movies but they are already doing it.

CG can do anything, but it can't do everything well. What it naturally can do is special effects. But using stop-motion comes from our desire to do handmade stuff. There are always going to be kids who get out whatever it might be - clay, bits of wire, Barbie dolls, Legos. They want to tell little stories.

It's interesting now that basically a CG set is the same cost as a real set. So like if you're going to build a CG house in the suburbs, it costs you $200,000. And if you were going to build it in a computer, it'll cost you $200,000. It's the same... the relationship is exactly the same.

I've had the luxury of working on a lot of our great brands here at Warner Brothers, including a lot of the DC ones. I've also worked on a lot of great brands that were not DC.