currently: not doing much
Something's been bothering me for a long time, and after reading some of the comments on an article from Cracked.com (protip: don't do this), I feel like someone needs to at least offer a counter-point to a very common criticism.
Modern CG does not suck. Anyone who says it does has no clue how much work goes into it.
People are always quick to say that the CG in movies like Rogue One, Wonder Woman, Batman v Superman, and Suicide Squad was bad and sooooo obviously fake. I'll admit that the lasso effects in Wonder Woman did look a little artificial to me, but as someone who has worked with computer graphics - admittedly on a much more amateurish level - I understand how difficult it is to create absolutely realistic eye-fooling content from nothing.
Many seem to think that you just drop an object into a movie fully textured and realistically illuminated. We don't even do that in Poser and DAZ Studio. Having expensive software doesn't make it any easier, in fact it makes shaders and texturing even more complicated. Hair, water, and realistic human expressions are some of the most difficult things to replicate in 3D, sometimes requiring separate software to handle the more complex calculations. Placing an artificial object or character in a real scene requires precise and extremely accurate lighting and shading in order for it to look like it belongs there. You don't just apply a wood texture to something to make it look like wood, you choose from a thousand wood textures before ensuring that the UVs are properly aligned, and the bump, displacements, and normals are all set to real-world values. Then you do that for EVERY material on EVERY object in your scene. As cringe-worthy as the Transformers movies were, can you imagine having to model and texture every tiny mechanical bit on every robot? Having to deal with things that never cross the minds of your viewers, like Fresnel values on reflections and the caustic values of fluids? Or attempting to create a completely artificial lifelike living character; the greatest challenge of all. I happen to be one who would like to see actors, with their or their estate's permission, accurately replicated with CG in the future so we can continue to enjoy them once they have passed. We'd always be able to enjoy a young Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis in exciting action movies and we could watch concerts with Michael Jackson and Elvis forever in their prime. It wouldn't be freaky, it would be a show of respect to entertainers that we wish were still with us. I'd like to see that as the eventual end goal of CG: to believably create absolutely anything we can imagine without being held back by cost, resources, or human limitations.
I don't want to hear people who make memes with one font and draw in MS Paint, or those my age who think that stop-motion and puppets are superior to modern effects talking about how there's "too much bad CG" in movies today. Birdemic had bad CG. Today's modern big-budget movies do not. We wouldn't have half of the movies we do and they wouldn't be half as believable without CG. It's the greatest innovation in movies since color, and not only should we be thankful for it, we should appreciate those who put in more work than you know to create it.