Why do movie-makers continue to use full CGI, which always looks shitty and dated a month later...

Why do movie-makers continue to use full CGI, which always looks shitty and dated a month later, when they already achieved the best results using real, physical effects back in the 90s, which still hold up today?

Because autists arent the target demographic.

CGI is cheaper & easier and it's not really up to the director.

This is such a meme opinion. Practical effects can look shitty too.

It isn't ALWAYS cheaper to use CGI but it has the benefit of being much more easier to control. That is what producers love. Lots of these huge movies, if you do something practically and it fails, that means the production is most likely gonna start losing money because there's a risk running over budget. Practical effects, depending obviously on what kind of practical effect you're doing, demand time and personnel on set. If the weather sucks, that stops shooting. If the mechanical robot or something has a technical problem, again, production halts and it's money down the drain.

Even though the results of practical effects are still better in most cases, CGI is just financially the more viable option and saves time (=saves money).

it's cheaper

just leave a computer compiling for a few weeks vs destroying million dollar sets several times

>le CGI boogeyman meme

CGI itself is not bad, it's bad when it's used out of laziness and lack of ideas.

Even other recent movies praised for their practical effects like Fury Road and Interstellar have a shitload of CGI in them too, but it's used as a tool to touch up and improve the already set ideas and set pieces.

Full CGI sequences work only if the director knows exactly what he wants (Avatar, Gravity), but in most cases the director just hires an army of CGI rendering slaves from a visual effects company and tells them only general guidelines of how he wants something to look, leaving the company to be the actual creative part which is an impossible task because it's a whole army of people trying to form a singular piece.

Most David Fincher films have a lot of CGI scenes, but most viewers don't even notice it.
CGI is just a tool like any other, you just need to know how and when to use it.

THEY SHOULD BRING BACK MATRIX 1 AND PUT IT ON IMAX

Can being operative here.

A shitty practical effect is still real.

A shitty CGI effect looks both shitty AND you know it's not real.

They may look shitty, but they'll always look real.

Yes it is, if you don't like how the movie is done just don't do it easy as that.
It's because people put up with this shit that we get nothing but shit every year.

Yeah Ewoks look real as fuck. lmao

>tfw dad thinks CGI is completely done by computers
>as in, they just type in code on a black and green screen and voila, CGI everywhere

Please tell me mine's not the only one.

Uh, yeah? They may be little guys in suits, but at least they're physically there, interacting with the actors.

I always thought that scene was CGI?

Them being physically there does not make them look good or real at all which is the point.

but user, that's exactly what they do.

Bad practical effects look better than bad CGI.

Yes, the ape costumes look cheesy in 2001, but it would look even worse with time if it was done in CGI.

because its cheaper, more reliable, and less prone to monstrous fuckups than practical effects.

Also the more you order the less it costs per frame/minute.

I'd rather have a real, shitty costume, than fake, shitty, CGI.

Sorry, but im not autistic enough to agree with you.

Do you think that Fury Road had 0% CGI?

Grow the fuck up please. CGI isnt just "virtual characters" or crazy explosions. Its also landscapes, removing telephone lines/houses etc.

How do you expect a film production to rent an aircraft carrier?

I never said I am fully against CGI. I am against using only CGI solely because it's easier to give all the work to the render slaves.

CGI is a great tool if you have a somewhat decent practical base, all animators will agree with that.
Fury Road has a fuckload of CGI and compositing yes, but it's all done on a decent practical base because George Miller knew exactly what he was doing and what needs to be done in which stage of the production.

Are you saying Fury Road couldn't have achieved the same thing without CGI landscapes?

>How do you expect a film production to rent an aircraft carrier?
Are you saying jews are too poor too afford that?

>OP specifically says full CGI
>retards arguing about enhancement effects like composite shots and digital color correction

Hey idiots he's talking about constructing entire scenes and characters from CGI, not using computers to combine or alter shots

>CGI is cheaper
Good one is not

It doesen't waste space.

CGI and practicals are tools like paint brushes and pens

They both can be used to great effect but it's not up to the tool
It's up to how they're implemented
There are movies where sets and practical effects look absolute garboo and movies that use CGI to great effect. A combination of the two used well together is the ideal, as there are things that are impossible to do with either on their own right now, but that's more or less a fantasy. Don't blame a fucking crayon for the drawing looking like shit.

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with you. CGI firearm effects are killing action movies. Wick is unwatchable thanks to it. Not to mention Man of Steel and Marvel flicks, but my primary grip is against CGI gunfights.

More versatile

Your pic has a lot of CGI in it too

Practical effects require talent

your dad is right, you're retard

This thread would be better with greenmen