<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Surprising light on the CGI]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>andy-g85</strong> — <em>10 years ago(February 12, 2016 03:42 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Especially for the estimated $200m budget, the CGI is sparingly used. I noted far more large scale sets, location shots and practical effects. How refreshing</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/248616/surprising-light-on-the-cgi</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 03:00:38 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/248616.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 17:50:07 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Surprising light on the CGI on Tue, 05 May 2026 17:50:08 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>rye9969</strong> — <em>9 years ago(April 27, 2016 04:40 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I loved this outing of the pirate franchise underrated by many.<br />
Sure it wasn't COTBP, but it was refreshing after the overly long AWE.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2092392</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2092392</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 17:50:08 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>