How come with technology this advanced, CGI in movies look worse each year?

How come with technology this advanced, CGI in movies look worse each year?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VEXe8G_CIKc
youtu.be/aKb61j8P4fU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Did you even see young Kurt Russel in Guardians of the Galaxy 2?

'Cause they farm it all out to China to maximize profits. Also 0 taste.

Yes but other than that the movie looked like shit.

is that will farrell

Because they rely too much on it. A movie should still have solid makeup, costumes and so on.

Comparison : Uruk Hai in LOTR movies and Azog in Hobbit.

CGI looks better today than it did a decade or two ago.

They don't pay CG artists enough.

Wrong.

Starship Troopers has better CGI than most shit that comes out today.

Here's some 1990's CGI. It was really groundbreaking at the time, but it looks subpar compared to today's standards. If you saw something like this in a movie today, you'd be pissed.

I completely forgot there was a green lantern movie. Was it shit?

That was practical

Not every movie had CGI on par with Starship Troopers back then. Get a grip.

>How come with technology this advanced, CGI in movies look worse each year?
CGI is an art. Therefore it is only as good as the artist creating it. Just because you have a team of accountants doing your CGI, doesn't mean it's going to be good.

He said in multiple interviews that was mostly done using makeup

Because CGI is a tool, not a guarantee of good results. And you're focusing only in noticeable (bad) cases.

Super Mario 64?

Yep fucking trash, all they needed to do was make Lethal Weapon in space and they botched it.

I remember being bored and found a DVD from a friend of it.
Popped it in, he's a pilot and there's some woman.
I was interested in the story as it goes on.
Then eventually Ryan Reynolds is in an alley, finds a ring, and throws a big green fist at everyone.
I forgot it was a superhero movie.
I was actually more interested in the pilot and planes plot.
So I turned it off and lever finished it.

Hollywood is jewing the animators and most of them have to close shop. Look up what happened to the company that did Life of Pi.

Starship Troopers has a lot of great practical effects in it. It pretty uses CGI really sparingly, and doesn't attempt to create anything remotely humanoid with its CGI, and there's very few close-ups on the CGI, and a lot of the scenes are dark. You can also really easily tell when they change from animatronics to CGI and back. And there's also instances of really bad CGI in that movie.

I hate to rag on Starship Troopers. It's a really great movie and the hokey nature of some of the special effects lends a certain charm to the film. However, it's pretty foolish to pretend that it had better CGI than your average movie today. If it were released today, you'd be ragging on Starship Troopers and their "bad CGI" while waxing nostalgic over some other movie from your childhood (or from before you were born).

No because I'm not a redditor

And here's an example of some bad CGI in Starship Troopers.

youtube.com/watch?v=VEXe8G_CIKc

>How come with technology this advanced, CGI in movies look worse each year?

This is retarded logic. That's like asking 'It's 2017 and this kid has the worst painting ever. Why is all painting today so terrible compared to what was done in the past?'. Hollywood movies aren't art user, they are business projects that make money. Rushed production, poor management, low budget, shitty animators blah blah affect how the CGI is done, and the final result reflects that. CGI is like a paintbrush, just a tool. Some shitty movie with shitty CGI doesn't equal all the CGI in the world. With infinite budget and infinite time, someone could come up with amazing CGI with todays technology, but money talks and is therefore 'good enough' takes a higher priority than talent.

>bad CGI

sure thing bud

That CGI is on par with Jack the Giant Slayer. The best CGI of the 1990's is on par with the worst CGI of the 2010's.

The premise of a normal guy into a deep space exploring setting setting just doesnt work
look at the first 2 thor movies

I dont think you can count Guardians of the galaxy since hardly any earth stuff there

As videogames come closer and closer in quality to movies sfx, our eyes become better trained at detecting CGI (and it's flaws) and more sensitive to the uncanny valley effect.

Faster render times and larger animation teams also mean less quality control. We get rushed products with more bureaucracy. The singular vision is dying as committees dictate what shows up on screen and change their minds constantly. Instead of a handful of shots worked on for almost a year to painstaking detail, we get hundreds of shots that get finished in a couple of weeks before being redone from scratch months before the premier.

>The best CGI of the 1990's is on par with the worst CGI of the 2010's.

Here's 1993

Can someone explain to me how this was one of the first times they used cgi in a movie and it managed to look better than most modern movies?
youtu.be/aKb61j8P4fU

Playing devil's advocate here, but that scene in Young Sherlock plays to CGI's strengths - it's a dimly-lit scene to hide imperfections, the CG character is 2D so it's easier to hide it's not occupying the same space, the real actor doesn't physically interact with it...

CG now is prolific and abundant across all scenes in a film - it's harder to hide what's wrong with it when it appears in every scene.

That said there's a huge amount that people don't notice. Audiences don't hate MODERN CG. They hate BAD CG because they pick up on it.

Are you for real? That looks like shit. It's not even comparable because it's an inanimate object.