>"the CGI is bad so the movie is bad"
>>64187024
depends on the movie if this complaint is valid.
For example if Star wars had shitty CGI it would be awful because set pieces and everything looking cool is 99% of the movie. If say for some reason the Thing was made with shitty CGI yeah it would look stupid but the tone of the film doesnt really change but retards on this board would hate it
>>64187088
The thing had a shitty prequel in 2000 something with awful CGI and terrible direction
>>64187152
The CGI in it is not awful
Some movies are nothing more than showcases for CGI, so, yeah, if the CGI is bad the movie failed its primary objective.
>>64187024
Name a great film with bad cgi for its time.
>>64187152
The Thing prequel was above average for CGI, but still incredibly beneath practical effects.
Wild Tales had pretty shitty CGI, but the movie was pretty cool
>200 million in 2013
>>64187234
This.
The CGI in Spider-man (the web slinging through the city) was pretty bad even at the time but it's still a great movie.
Mocap CGI is actually awful and immersion breaking
Serkis is a slimy little Jew raking in the shekels for this crap. He was the worst thing about the new Star Wars even considering it's flaws, Snoke's movements were more unnatural than JarJar and that was done merely by reference only
Fuck mocap
>>64187257
Lord of the rings
>fight me
>>64187257
>for its time
People still complain about it being dated even if it's good for its time
>>64187024
It isn't the cgi that makes the prequels bad, autismo. Time for bed, saganfan1983.
>>64187024
>people talked for more than 6 seconds and they were sitting still and not running, so it was boring
>>64188334
Fuck off elsewhere if you want to discuss star wars, there are a hundred threads up about it right now
