Hey Sup Forums. Do you think that CGI is killing cinema?

Hey Sup Forums. Do you think that CGI is killing cinema?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
youtube.com/watch?v=G1iVJExd5vA
youtube.com/watch?v=Ley9k94GoZU
youtube.com/watch?v=abFI9YTIW1U
youtube.com/watch?v=vkNArCG80Bg
youtube.com/watch?v=ta9To-tNEPo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

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!

>I have shitty taste and thus my opinion on special effects doesn't matter
Fixed.

All movies are filled with CGI

youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

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.

CGI + practicals = perfection. Which is basically the gist of this video
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.

>>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

MUH PRACTICALS

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.

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

This video is really well made and has great points.

...

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.

>2001 CGI
?

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.

>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.

Phantom Menace did though have some practical miniatures such as pic related

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.

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.

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

>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.

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.

Why did you quote him twice, are you retarded?

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.

What Sega CD game is this from?

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:
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Seriously you watch this scene and tell me CGI is better than practicals
youtube.com/watch?v=abFI9YTIW1U

its getting pretty gud tho
youtube.com/watch?v=vkNArCG80Bg

Snyder handled CGI and CGI action really well in BvS. Looks energetic and operatic in motion

...

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

I loved the Doomsday fight, start to finish, myself.

The nuke part was GOAT

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

My godness, the CGI was shit, they try to make the CGI better just filming it in the night, lazy as fuck

This shit is going to look so gorgeous in 4K or 3D. Can't wait to see it.

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"

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.
youtube.com/watch?v=ta9To-tNEPo

...

>even Superman's cape is CG
I fucking hate Zack Snyder

Thats a picture from the new UNJUSTICE game you retard

you must be trolling... that is right from the movie. Here is the webm

I knew user, but I still think that a ps4 game looks better

This guy's CGI still makes me cry

that looks good tho

cry tears of joy

>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

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.

>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.

No. Only bad CGI.

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

Disney clearly cares more.

WB doesn't.

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.

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.

>At least put more spikes on him or something
They fucking did

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.

good
>Star wars
>bear
>doomsday
bad
>everything else

this

How was Rocket Raccoon bad?

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.

>not posting Warcraft's CGI

shut the fuck up nerd

appreciate the kino

That picture triggers me, plz delete

>doomsday
lol

That's Universal, dumbass.

its shit lmao the entire film looks like shit and is infact shit

And the editing was still fucking horrible.

We are having a CGI discussion dumbass hence I said post the CGI to show how it is against Disney and WB.

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

Thanks

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.

it looks much better on a theater screen to be frank with you

I saw it on Imax and it still looked like shit.

This is an opinion not a fact.

>Do you think that CGI is killing cinema?
I don't know about cinema, but it sure killed Superman.

>benjamin button was good skin cg
top kek

CGI is needed, but I don't like it.

holy shit
i never watched star wars, that's is from that 3d show, right? it can't be from the movie

too bad the movie was shit

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.

Not that user 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.

>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*

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?