CGI from 2006 still looks better than CGI from 2017

>CGI from 2006 still looks better than CGI from 2017

Why is this allowed?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bY2YRESf9eQ
youtube.com/watch?v=gx9eDoS76LM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_&_Magic#Filmography
youtu.be/xW2xhBSfFps
youtube.com/watch?v=QChWIFi8fOY
youtube.com/watch?v=xGNvDVKOxCk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Good cgi always looks good

>practicals from any year still look better than CGI from 2017

Why is this allowed?

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you can make CGI look good if you put in the time and effort.

The guys at ILM are the best at what they do.

Effort and outsourcing. All the higherups just want more money and decided to give jobs to Pajeets, who don't work as hard because they just want to live.

In order from worst to best looking:
>bad CGI
>bad practicals
>good CGI
>good practicals
>great practicals
>great CGI

Great CGI is so good you don't even know it's fake.

this unfortunately

any cgi > poo cgi

People don't even notice half the shit that is cgi now because it is just that good

Nah. Practicals shit all over CGI and CGI Practicals shit all over either separately.

>2002

I think it depends more on what exactly the effect is. Some things you should really just go to the effort of practical effects for instead of being lazy and outsourcing to some fresh out of uni plebs.

Wait...that isn't a mask?

...

Practical is always better for explosions or car chases though

...

Which Disney intern fucked this one up?

the Kaminoans looked really good, indeed.

CGI can easily be superior to practical but it's expensive and animation studios are always offering the cheapest contracts to undercut competitors

...

>step two
>just fucking animate davy jones

Here's what I see
>stronger cheekbones
>shorter philtrum
>smoother jawline
>glossy eyes
>more eyeliner
>straighter teeth

youtube.com/watch?v=bY2YRESf9eQ

CGI is always shiny. I can't recall any cgi that looked good that wasn't shiny, and it's usually got a reason for it, like the orangutan in the apes movie. He was wet yet faggots always bring that up as great cgi, same as ops. He's wet.

Rule of thumb: CGI only when it physically cannot be done practically, and then it'd better be good.

And it still fails in comparison to the real deal.

that disney budget

well, yeah
its not real

>He's wet

Well yeah, he's a man-squid and spends most of his time underwater

great cgi only works when they use it to touch up one or two things not make entire shots out of it. If little shop of horrors was made into a movie know Audrey 2 would be a mess of cgi garbage and look dated in half a year.

Is it ever explained why Jones and his crew transformed into sea creatures but then turned back into human form when Will took over as captain of the Dutchman?

My pet occy wasn't wet and shiny for more than a minute when he was out of his tank.
We never see him completely dry, which would really give us a visual as to how well the cgi is. Making something look wet and slimy when it's meant to look wet and slimy, and would probably look wet and slimy even dry, isn't a feat

someone knew new cgi tricks, didn't tell anyone, and left the company.

It was the will of the Force

Wtf that CGI looks like PS2 era. can't they afford capable people to do this shit?

I hate how they turned him into a bitch in the 3rd movie

What's the best CGI ever aside from this and Jurassic Park?

The first potc movie.

This, they're also all borderline bankrupt. VFX is literally the nicolas cage of industries

>not showing your effects in environments and lighting that make them look shitty is a bad thing
You should go work at marvel

All money goes into the pockets of executives. You think they'll dump massive amounts of money when the normies only go to movie theaters to have another place to make out?

>giant corporate media advert

nahh fuck off netflix

He stopped doing his job so calypso cursed them. They got a fresh start with will

>CGI from a chocolate advert looks better than most movies with multi-million dollar budgets.

youtube.com/watch?v=gx9eDoS76LM

>gets in the back

fucking slut

this shit is just wrong

one of the most impressive explosions I've seen on film was entirely CGI (Avatar, tree destruction scene)
mostly because it wasn't just a stock explosive effect pasted onto a scene

>plebs don't realize all of the best CGI in movie history is done by the same people

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_&_Magic#Filmography

By the way, watch the film 'Rango' if you want to see some really good CGI.

Because computing power reached levels where photorealistic offline rendering become feasible.
Now it is more a matter of effort and money poured into creating the assets and animation than technological limits.

People also stopped being impressed by GCI since there was nothing to awe them anymore.

wew lad

...

Davy Jones was a fucking miracle.
Everybody always rave about Gollum, but i think DJ was the pinnacle of CGI creatures.
It's just perfect, and it never buried the actor's performance.

>the way all those animals look uniquely ugly
god that movie had fantastic visuals

The tentacles covering his face help since you aren't used to them so fakery is not so easily detected. You're also not used to looking at translucent squid skin.
ILM can't do a CGI human face that will fool people.
You look at human faces and skin in different lighting and in movement all the time.

It's like when the lead animators on Who Framed Roger Rabbit were asked why their work looked so much better than other live action hybrid movies, like Cool World. Their response was basically "because it's really hard work and other animators are just lazy".
That's the problem with good/bad CG. The good stuff takes a fuck-ton of time to create and most studios cut corners.

that's true for all aspects of movies though, but for some reason when CGI goes wrong people blame ALL CGI rather than just blaming that particular instance

oh shit, I guess Disney owns ILM now, huh? What a fucking deal they got from George Lucas - Bob Iger is a golden god when it comes to acquisitions.

For those interested in great CGI, watch Zodiac.

youtu.be/xW2xhBSfFps

the flashback marvel stuff has been pretty good. younger RDJ, kurt russell, michael douglas, hybrid blending of dominic cooper/john slattery as howard stark, hulk is pretty good too

contrast that with which is weaker

which makes no sense because peter cushing cgi looked better than leia cgi in the same movie

Douglas was spectacular, boy RDJ was meh, the rest was shit.
Hulk looks like ass.

tru f@m

I think so. It's funny how things work out. ILM are basically responsible for Pixar too, which was also acquired by Disney.

Tarkin had much lower lighting in his scenes than Leia's which helps, you can hide a lot of visual inaccuracies in the dark.

while hulk is never going to look real because he's a 8 foot tall monster, it does have ruffalos features and shit

russell looked legit, turns out they didn't cgi kurt a lot because he's based, and the makeup team was that good

> “Before we went in there we assumed that it was gonna be all CGI. And [makeup artist Dennis Liddiard] said to James [Gunn] and the cinematographer [Henry Braham], ‘Hey, I can young this guy down. I got some tricks in my bag. Would that be helpful?’ And they said, ‘Yeah, as much as you can. That would be great.’ I was speaking to the gal last night who does the CGI. She said, ‘What did you think of what we did?’ And I said, ‘I thought it was great. But I understand you didn’t do a whole lot?’ She said, ‘No we didn’t. We touched it up here and there.’ He did a fantastic job. He does have a lot of tricks, not just makeup. Cosmetics I should say.”

I always just assumed it was a lookalike

any Fincher movie, really

Dragon Tattoo, Social Network, and Gone Girl have the best CGI of any movies ever made

that is so much better than Tarkin or Leia, holy fucking shit

No.

CGI never.

amazing cgi

I love your comparison for reference, OP.

>240p

Man, i never knew there was so much CG work in that movie
It's practically a blockbuster, wtf

This was my favorite PotC movie I don't care what black pearl faggots say

And to think this came out like 4 years ago, damn.

Now THAT'S a good example of uncanny valley. Goddamn unnerving seeing her in the bus.

>He does have a lot of tricks, not just makeup.

Sinister.

My nigga.

Post occy pls

2>1>3>5>4

There's almost no uncanny valley, the only point at which it starts to break is when she blinks after getting in the car.

>i ha a vagina so i can steal some driver's hat and get into an strangers car without saying nothing for him to drive me around
i hate this fucking shit

There was CGI in that movie!?

Go ree ree somewhere else you whiny faggot.

this guy does a great break down of fincher
youtube.com/watch?v=QChWIFi8fOY

Haven't seen 5. But I agree with your list on everything else.

Most CGI bankrupts the company that does it because the Jews making the movie don't pay them very much for there work.

>blood is CG

god damn

Holy moly, that is some impressive shit to say the least

Obviously they just should've had Kirk Douglas as older Pym and Michael as younger.

Are people seriously saying this look realistic? Its a shade away from looking like the zootopia bunny.

youtube.com/watch?v=xGNvDVKOxCk
>this looks good

lmao

>those shit physics when the massive tree falls as if its made of styrofoam

not being able to separate CGI from real faces is a form of faceblindness, a symptom of autism

wrong

High-end CGI is amazing these days, but the decade the industry got poo-in-loo'd and riced hard. There are still a few studios in North American doing great work, but you don't notice it because it's usually just background stuff and atmosphere and de-aging Tom Cruise

this right here
THIS is the video that BTFOs practicalfags who think practical is the way to go 100 percent of the time. CGI can easily surpass practical, but like any tool it must be used effectively to illicit satisfying results

too bad his movies are shit

I actually thought they used a suit for Godzilla in Resurgance

lel

I always feel Nighy doesn't get enough credit for why it looks good.

His facial movements are so overexaggerated, it becomes a lot easier to map the movements. Treating the role like a cartoon character set on stage makes every single tendon and muscle so much clearer for the techs working on it.

Wait, Zodiac had cgi? Oh wow.

fincher films are full of CGI, the house in gone girl was surrounded by green screen for most of the shots inside the house