Hey /tv/. Do you think that CGI is killing cinema?
>>71567751
I liked Doomsday's CGI, especially the birth scene, so no.
yep, i bet they have 0 practical effects for the new jurassic park flicks
the only one from jw was just made for the sake of heyy we got praktiulls too guise XD
LIKE THE ORIGINAL!
>>71567801
>I have shitty taste and thus my opinion on special effects doesn't matter
Fixed.
>>71567751
All movies are filled with CGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
>>71567751
I think CG is the least of modern cinema's problems. No one blames bad plays on their props
yes, ic ant watch a movie without thinking that the actor is eitehr talking to nothing or someone wearing some sort of suit. i watched independence day resurgence and realised that the school bus was being chased by nothing. watched chamber of secrets and harry was talking to nothing in his bedroom.
>>71567751
CGI + practicals = perfection. Which is basically the gist of this video
>>71567872
Just CGI with no practicals = 100% unrealistic.
/thread
Generally? No.
But it sucks when the movie almost completely relies on it which is the case most of the time these days. lack of good characters and plots is killing cinema too
It can certainly take you out of the scene once you notice it, but it can make some amazing effects, like Warcraft.
It's all these basic formula capeshit movies that are killing cinema.
>>71567979
>>Just CGI with no practicals = 100% unrealistic
retard
it looks fake and it will never look realistic
but no, it's not killing cinema as cinema seldom uses CG animation
>>71567751
MUH PRACTICALS
>>71568057
It's true. In that shitty video you posted, it's pretty much all from movies where I realized a lot of the machinery and objects were not practical while watching it.
Good cinema will continue to exist and the good use of CGI can be very helpful in conveying a good movie, see Birdman.
Practical effects are just like CGI, if there is time, effort, and money put into them, then they'll look good, if not, they wont.
>>71568057
Why did Deadpool look so good? Because his costume was practical whilst his eyes were CG
>Bloody hell i had no idea his eyes were CGI until I read it online after seeing the movie
If you make something 100% CGI then it is going to look 100% shit and out of place but if it is half practical and half CG then it works well if done properly
>>71567872
This video is really well made and has great points.
>>71568057
Guess what: this unrealistic, half rendered beast was approved by Cameron for his Avatar movie.
Re-watching Avatar the other day: I had to immediately pause the movie with frustration of "WHY" would he allow something so fake looking to be included in this movie?
>"I thought Avatar had amazing visual effects?"
This movie seriously shows its age with stuff like this.
Good CGI/Good practicals=Great
Bad CGI/Bad practicals=Bad
There is your answer.
>>71568493
>2001 CGI
?
>>71568569
Avatar literally always looked like shit. It was groupthink that let you think otherwise. Lotr and Matrix and even Episode 1 looked good at release but show their age now. Avatar always looked like dogshit.
>>71568248
>In that shitty video you posted
>in that shitty video
Don't try too hard to fit in, you risk passing for a retard
CGI isn't killing cinema, it's just making it look really sterile and boring, and putting a lot of talented puppeteers, costumers, effects makeup artists, model builders, and set designers out of business.
>>71568646
Phantom Menace did though have some practical miniatures such as pic related
>>71568785
yeah but the other stuff hasn't aged well.
Filmmakers should strive to make films that look good on release and also stand the test of time.
Yes, though it's been a slow burn rather than something that can be identified as starting at a single point
It has nothing to do with the quality of the cgi itself or the reliance of movies that were built to be cgi spectaculars on cgi, but rather the enabling of the trend of just making a movie because of cgi
CGI made real filmmaking so unprofitable that it's hard to find in anything but shitty art house films nowadays
It ruined the middle ground between spectacle shlock and arthouse highbrow. There aren't any just good solid fun films anymore.
>>71568759
Also: everytime I see something 100% CGI I KNOW it is fake! When I used to go into the cinema and be entirely lost in a movie's world.. well those days are long gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
This video makes me so fucking pissed with all the dedication and work that people put into to make these practicals and they all became fake looking CG
If you seriously support The Thing 2011's CGI over the practicals: something is seriously wrong with you
>>71568867
>Filmmakers should strive to make films that look good on release
This is something that I don't get. I have watched many movies where I have to shake my head and think "Why did someone agree this looked good?"
Batman V Superman's Doomsday is a great example of why would the studio believe this looks good to release to the audience? At least put more spikes on him or something.
Independance Day 2's Aliens looked fake too - they could have easily made it half practical with practical heads and body and then make the moving legs CG or the moving tail CG if they really had to.
THEN it would have looked way more realistic instead of full computer generated video game quality.
>>71568982
Because BvS is not a real movie, it's a 3 hour trailer for Justice League
The Babadook is a great lesson for all filmmakers: how to make a perfect horror film without showing too much of your monster, not making it a goofy CG thing and sticking to practicals.
>>71568683
Why did you quote him twice, are you retarded?
>>71568683
It's a shitty video. The narrator actually thinks the audience is retarded enough to think that New York in the Avengers was practical.
You probably made it since you're getting so defensive.
Yes, CGI has ruined the film industry.
Lazy fucks don't even try anymore.
The golden age of film is over.
>>71568493
What Sega CD game is this from?
>>71568916
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1iVJExd5vA
Yeah, I can watch old films with practical effects and still be amazed and ask "how did they do that?"
Like this scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ley9k94GoZU
That's clearly not the real hedge maze, it must be a matte painting or a model because it's so god damn huge. But you can see Danny and Wendy walking around in it. I can't tell how they did it, and it makes the scene that much more surreal.
>>71567751
Of course not, executive meddling and bad story telling kills cinema. Like Lucas said, technology is just a means to tell a story. If you rely strictly on it instead of telling the story, it fails.
>>71568867
Do you know the AAT tanks and Battle Droids were miniatures? Also this was ground breaking at it's release. but of course technology ages. Jurassic park has aged even the beloved OT of star Wars has aged. It's obvious rubber masks and matte paintings. The AT-AT movement is jerky and not fluid, its very clear its stop motion. Just like the Rancor scene. The scene is badly aged between Mark Hamill and the stop motion creature
>>71569390
The Original Trilogy and Jurassic Park look miles better than the prequels.
It's just a matter of ease.
Cheap, quickly made CGI is so much easier to whip up and try to get away with than most practical effects.
If you're going to spend countless hours on a real costume, or carefully choreographed vehicle chase, or other practical effect, then you're probably going to take the relatively small extra time it takes to take those effects to a convincing level.
Outsourcing the effects to some animation studio, giving them a strict schedules, and then accepting it as soon as it's remotely passable is too simple. It's too easy to draw a line at "good enough" or more likely "spent enough money on this".
There's nothing inherently wrong with CGI though. It's a tool like any other. You can use it good or poorly. It's just easier for studios to force filmmakers to use it poorly.
>>71569257
Videodrome is one of those old films that make you go "How the fuck did they make that!" And it leaves you spellbound with how realistic the practical effects looked.
>>71569308
Seriously you watch this scene and tell me CGI is better than practicals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abFI9YTIW1U
>>71568916
its getting pretty gud tho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkNArCG80Bg
Snyder handled CGI and CGI action really well in BvS. Looks energetic and operatic in motion
>>71569805
eh that Batmobile chase could have used some tiny polishes for the added CG
Otherwise the Superman planet spaceship thing looked amazing in the city and the city destruction was great
>>71569864
I loved the Doomsday fight, start to finish, myself.
>>71567801
The nuke part was GOAT
>>71569907
Doomsday looked great when he had the red eyes and when Superman was going head on with him.
I would have liked some more spikes on him but was cool to see him changing halfway thru the fight
>>71569907
>>71569864
>>71569805
My godness, the CGI was shit, they try to make the CGI better just filming it in the night, lazy as fuck
>>71569967
This shit is going to look so gorgeous in 4K or 3D. Can't wait to see it.
>>71569987
Is it weird to say that I wanted some more city destruction in this movie?
I find it funny that Snyder got them to end up on an Island in between Gotham and Metropolis
>"You see fans? No one is gonna get hurt now"
>>71569967
So does Superman have laser eyes or particle beam eyes? Lasers would go straight through each other and particle beams would have as much knockback as they have energy pushing forwards/against the other particle beam.
>IT'S OK Wonder Woman these docks are abandoned except for homeless people and they don't count
What did Batman mean by this?
It's hardly filmmaking at this point. 99.99% of that piece of shit was CG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta9To-tNEPo
>>71570170
>>71570170
>even Superman's cape is CG
I fucking hate Zack Snyder
>>71569967
Thats a picture from the new UNJUSTICE game you retard
>>71570434
you must be trolling... that is right from the movie. Here is the webm
>>71570586
I knew anon, but I still think that a ps4 game looks better
This guy's CGI still makes me cry
>>71570796
that looks good tho
>>71570816
cry tears of joy
>>71567828
>I have no argument so I am just going to strawman you and belittle your opinion instead of making a valid point
Fixed it for you
>>71568916
Animation and how the CG assets interact with what is 'real' is the main killer. Everybody glorifies the original Carpenter Thing as the absolute peak of practical effect film-making (and they bloody well should), but a competantly-designed and developed CG Thing probably would've turned out looking okay.
The problem with the remake is, like you pointed out, the practical effects being scrapped by suits, and replaced with CG beasties put together in a basement by a team working as quickly as they could. It comes off as flighty and toy-like, and the skin and flesh the monsters are made out of looked like rubber.
>>71568982
>Batman V Superman's Doomsday is a great example of why would the studio believe this looks good to release to the audience? At least put more spikes on him or something.
This. CGI is one thing, but computer images or not, if your design is shit, the final product will come out shit. I would argue that lazy design is more of a problem for movies than bad CGI. I've seen the same basic bipedal ogre monster more times than I care to count.
>>71567751
No. Only bad CGI.
>>71570586
that looks really beautiful. there were only a few times i thought the CG in BvS looked fucking shit and they were usually for a few seconds
>>71571442
Disney clearly cares more.
WB doesn't.
>>71570890
That wasn't a strawman. I was using the fact that you like Unreal tournament tier CGI against you.
You must like Jar Jar Binks too, right? I mean since you're fine with awful texture work, clipping and a generally weightless look to special effects.
>>71571514
They sat on BvS for a year too, so they had enough time to tweak the CG and make it look really fantastic since it wasn't being finished under a few months like most movies.
>>71568982
>>71571377
>At least put more spikes on him or something
They fucking did
>>71568916
The design of the UFO alien is one of the greatest monster designs I've ever seen. That it was fully practical and articulate is amazing. The real crime of this movie is that it was never seen, CGI or not.
>>71571442
good
>Star wars
>bear
>doomsday
bad
>everything else
>>71571661
this
>>71571661
How was Rocket Raccoon bad?
>>71571624
No, they gave him little bony protrusions to supplement his stocky frame. His hand gets cut off by WW and he grows a single large spike.
Compare that to the original design, which is characterised by its bones and spikes from the very beginning.
Whether you loved or hated the Death of Superman, his design was meant to embody absolute hostility. Even touching him would have hurt - even for the Man of Steel.
>>71571442
>not posting Warcraft's CGI
![dbz1010[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/25EuaP3.gif "dbz1010[1].gif")
>>71570122
shut the fuck up nerd
appreciate the kino
>>71571640
That picture triggers me, plz delete
>>71571661
>doomsday
lol
>>71571777
That's Universal, dumbass.
>>71571717
its shit lmao the entire film looks like shit and is infact shit
>>71571610
And the editing was still fucking horrible.
>>71571897
We are having a CGI discussion dumbass hence I said post the CGI to show how it is against Disney and WB.
>>71567751
In a way, yes. I think that it has become a way to stop attempting to reinvent the wheel, and instead has become a stagnant go-to for anything visual.
Exhibit A: LOTR vs. The Hobbit
>>71568331
Thanks
>>71570586
This shit pretty much sums up why I refuse to watch capeshit
>CGI EVERYWHERE! WOW! LOOK AT THAT EXPLOSION!
You'd need two pairs of eyes to follow these messes.
>>71572603
it looks much better on a theater screen to be frank with you
>>71572744
I saw it on Imax and it still looked like shit.
>>71569600
This is an opinion not a fact.
>>71567751
>Do you think that CGI is killing cinema?
I don't know about cinema, but it sure killed Superman.
>>71567872
>benjamin button was good skin cg
top kek
CGI is needed, but I don't like it.
>>71568493
holy shit
i never watched star wars, that's is from that 3d show, right? it can't be from the movie
>>71569083
too bad the movie was shit
>>71571640
RIP
I don't understand why cinema is trying to do what has always been the job of Animation.
Cinema should have never moved away from theater.
>>71571545
Not that anon kid, and you weren't using anything against anyone, you just said he had shit taste which isn't an argument
There's clearly a difference between doomsday and jar jar binks, beyond their visuals they also represent different things to the story. That fact you're keen to compare the two basically supports my argument that you have no argument other than "your taste in cgi sucks mine is better!" Which I expect no less from quipcucks.
Now if you had actually made a point such as "practical effects are better than special effects" then we would be in complete agreement.
>>71576930
>and you weren't using anything against anyone, you just said he had shit taste which isn't an argument
It's pretty clear when seeing Doomsday slide off a building and skate across rubble that he's not a good visual effect. Thus, he (You) have shitty taste. There's nothing to debate here.
>There's clearly a difference between doomsday and jar jar binks
Both look shitty, both were over-hyped by their director, and both are ultimately useless to the story.
>Which I expect no less from quipcucks.
Heh, nothing personal kid. *tips fedora and steps into the shadows*
>>71577688
Holy shit you're a try hard
"Look Doomsday slide off a building, soon unrealistic"
Not n argument, it's a fucking superhero movie and simply claiming it looks like shit isn't enougj. How about providing a picture with the two side by side genius?
>neither adds to the story
Actually Doomsday would have tried to destroy Metropolis, and even the world. Jar Jar literally was pointless.
Oh man your tossing fedora memes faster than I can catch them. do you use your parents computer, or your friends kid?
Why does doomsday look like a poor mans ninja turtle?
>>71578524
Poor man's doomsday is a step up from that
>>71567751
Poor use of CG is. CG should be used for what cannot be done through practical effects, whereas modern filmmaking has us using CG and live action for what cannot be done with CG.
>>71567751
Good CGI: static images, replacing matte paintings, and add ons to practical effects
Bad CGI: fur/feathers, fully CGI characters/sets, and using CGI because it's cheaper
Guess which one Hollywood likes the most?
>>71568569
Looked great to me, if you look carefully too its been designed specifically to the environment as other creatures plus its fantasy it works
>>71567872
>benjamin button was good cgi
hahaha wtf
most other things in the video were shit too like the docks scene from wolf of wallstreet and the old timey times square
cgi meme needs to die
Davey Jones from POTC 2 still looks great, and that's CGI from 10 years ago.
CGI makes things much easier for filmmakers. Movies today start shooting without a finished script, adjustments are made constantly during the shoot, then there's reshoots.
CGI allows the filmmakers to adjust to these conditions quickly.
With practical effects, if something goes wrong you have to build everything from scratch.
>>71567801
I like how he crawled his skin out and grow the spikes, it's disgusting.
But the area entertain blast is seriously over killed it
>>71576930
>Which I expect no less from quipcucks.
>someone DARES to say mean things about my precious DC? Must be my boogeymen!
>>71567751
>>71567751
lack of black men in media is killing cinema
>>71571640
Is that the brain-piercing alien from Starship Troopers?
>>71567751
No, bad CGI is killing cinema
>>71569732
i really hope this movie goes down as a classic.
everything about it is so unsettling, but ever better is the social commentary which turned out to be 100% correct
>>71581715
they can never get this right, and it pisses me off
>>71568493
Not that bad considering it's from 2002. Star wars isn't supposed to look super realistic
>>71567751
The fight against this thing was the only good thing about this movie.
>>71584007
>not listing all the Affleck and Godat scenes as GOAT
>>71582966
I was pissed that the guy's head inside the suit was photoshopped in.. dude wasnt even wearing any suit! How lazy
>>71584131
>>71567751
>They have a cave troll!
>>71581250
I don't care if you say mean things, but when you say something that's not true I'm going to call you out on it
I'm sorry you mouseketeers are being taken to task on the bullshit you say
>>71567751
CGI would be a smaller problem if the script wasn't shitty more than half of the time.
>>71584007
Didn't you like the fact that it was the only time Hollywood got Bruce Wayne's character right?
>>71584720
I have never read a superman comic in my life so I don't know what he is like.
The overuse of CGI is just a symptom of a disease known as greed. Normies love dumb spectacles -> big fat producers insist on using CGI (the only tool that can create even bigger and dumber spectacles) -> directors employ CGI companies -> movies have shit CGI plastered all over them
Practical effects will always have a place in my heart. Sure, when you watch The Thing you clearly see that it's prosthetic whatnot, but the fact that it's REAL doesn't make my brain go doubt.jpg and I can suspend my disbelief and really get into what's happening and the horror of the monster.
When there's a giant CGI beast the size of Manhattan, smashing a CGI city to bits and pieces, and most everything was generated at the computer by some very talented nerds, and the explosions are super awesome and grandiose and gigantic, but everything is just a collection of pixels that was drawn on the original image (unless the scene was pure CGI), my brain goes numb.
CGI is perfect for scene-fills, and subtlety. Look at Titanic's CGI, that shit's incredible. Enhanced the entire film, and none of you even knew it was there. Rarely, full CGI works. It worked with the Ents in LotR (except for Treebeard who was actually an animatronic enhanced with CGI later), worked somewhat less with the oliphants in LotR, and of course was employed to spectacular effect for Gollum. But mostly CGI is used too loosely, too much, too often, and it's numbing.
Of course, there are movies that are entirely CGI, and I feel a certain degree of creative bankruptcy in that genre too compared to the late 90's - early 00's, but they are a different topic.
>>71584720
Batman and Batman Returns did
>>71567751
bad animation always shits me.
i kinda liked the way cgi looks these days its just how it moves or works within a scene that annoys me.
>>71570170
my problem wasnt with BvS visuals i thought they where quite good i didnt know what was cg and what wasnt except for obvious stuff like massive destruction doomsday etc.
some scenes where painfully bad though mainly the doomsday fight
>>71580937
because weta used to put effort into what they did.
now they just shit out sub par crap since its what they did with avaturd.
ilm and all the smaller studio's do much better work
>>71578153
>"Look Doomsday slide off a building, soon unrealistic"
Yeah, the physics look like shit. I'm not at all convinced that he's there, just like all of the cartoon characters in the Star Wars prequels.
> it's a fucking superhero movie and simply claiming it looks like shit isn't enough
What, do you want a fucking essay? I already mentioned clipping, rushed texture and lighting, no weight on Doomsday thus he slides everywhere, etc.
He looks like crap AT NIGHT, that's a testament to how little they gave a shit rendering his animation.
>Actually Doomsday would have tried to destroy Metropolis, and even the world.
He's a plot convenience for Superman's death. Always has been actually, but in this movie he has literally no reason to show up other than that and doesn't fit into Lex's weapon plot or anything else.
>H-heh, nothing personal k-kid
