Lets be real, movies have become shit. I'm not going to say EVERY movie is shit, but great ones are becoming increasingly rare.
I partly attribute this to CGI. There is no effort there. What would have been blood, sweat, and tears is replaced by some geek behind a computer screen. What you save in time and money you lose in everything else.
Imagine a modern day Apocalypse Now. Computer generated helicopters would fly in over a computer generated sunrise, with computer generated explosion... you get the picture.
And yeah, CGI can be used well and subtly, but most directors these days have no sense for it (hello Zack Snyder).
What do we do about the CGI menace?
Just watch lower budget indie films, I guess. You won't stop the CGI menace, nor will it be stopped.
>>67554508
That's depressing to think about... And even indie films fall for the CGI meme.
>>67554984
What about Anderson? He uses CGI?
>I was born in le wrong generation meme
>>67554984
CGI is good in small amounts and when it's hidden well, so that it looks like it's an extension of practical effects. Jurassic Park, for example. The problem is that CGI is too heavily relied upon, and the problem therein is explained in the OP post.
>>67553951
Weirdly, I think it happens from the other perspective. CGI doesn't suck because directors can do anything with it, it sucks because audiences have seen everything.
Big CGI creatures and explosion-laden fight scenes don't mean anything now that every young adult novel adaptation is contractually obliged to contain a repeat of the battle from the end of Return of the King
>>67555319
>I'm 12 and what are practical effects
>>67555319
>media quality is constant forever meme
CGI has tons of practical uses you don't even notice. Like creating cityscapes and crowds that would have needed an entire set and 100 extras for an establishing shots, changing the weather outside a window so you don't have to wait out a rainy week, all sorts of little details. Problems come with bigger things and still aren't inherently bad
Best use of CGI in recent years
>>67555548
I don't disagree with you.
Zodiac and Wolf of Wall Street are good examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2xhBSfFps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5VqFsbRfKY
But lets be real. Subtle CGI like this is few and far between. Studios can't even be bothered blowing up cars for real anymore, or flying real choppers. Every is replaced by CGI.
>>67555612
Stylistic CGI is fine. When it's a substitute for reality is when it's a problem.
Nightbreed had great practical effects and was still a shitty movie. The script makes the movie. As much as I hate the overuse of cgi, it has nothing to do with movies being shit
>>67555548
I guess you'd need it for shots where the camera weaves between buildings in the city but for establishing shots I wish they'd go back to matte paintings. Almost 40 years later and the ones used in Star Wars still look good.
>>67553951
Stop watching american movies
>>67553951
Take any decade.
Name more than 15 great movies.
Protip: you can't.
>>67553951
Yeah mate, same way stop motion and models killed cinema.
Oh wait.
>>67555738
if they could master the antman tech it could be very interesting
bringing back people that have been dead for decades or just eliminate the need for age makeup
>>67555846
Using dead actors/famous people would be cool for historical dramas or biographies but Hollywood wouldn't leave it at that. If it existed last decade I could have seen WB using a CGI Heat Legend for Dark Knight 2 and hiring an impersonator to do the voice. I'd feel weird watching a dead 'actor' on screen knowing that they're dead and this is like a robot wearing their skin.
>>67555803
Too lazy to think of that many off the top of my head. So here's the IMDB Top 250
1960: 19 films
1970: 20 films
1980; 30 films
1990: 41 films
Argument destroyed. Even if you dismiss half of them you argument is still in the toilet.
>>67555846
Is that CGI? I thought it was make-up. It looks way better than Tron Legacy's creepy young Jeff Bridges.
>>67555494
>muh practical effects
is literally the most 12 year old thing you can say
>>67556284
2000: 53 films
>>67556746
I never said their weren't great movies in the 00's and 10's. IMDB is also biased to recent releases for obvious reasons. I was just using it to disprove the notion that there weren't more than 15 great movies in a single decade, which is a silly argument.
>tfw you can't like a special effect you enjoyed because you found out it was CGI
>>67553951
This is exactly why the Ben Hur remake will be shit.
