Why does a 2017 look so much worse than its 2004 predecessor? Is CGI tech regressing?

Why does a 2017 look so much worse than its 2004 predecessor? Is CGI tech regressing?

Other urls found in this thread:

s1.webmshare.com/OydBW.webm
youtu.be/J4w36xOgbUs
youtube.com/watch?v=OAGn3NCKE0g
s1.webmshare.com/qNqy7.webm
youtu.be/WfV-0Yv5vNY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Americans

...

>inb4 "b-but it's a cam rip"

Because Sam Raimi is an auteur with a unique visual style. Modern Disney films are made by hack studio directors who do as they're told.
He could make a better film with a pencil and paper than they could with 500 million.

>this looks so bad lol
>why
>b-b-because!
>because what?
>IT JUST LOOKS BAD OK FUCK OFF DISNEYSHILL!!!
This is your "life".

Agreed. A lot of shots from Raimi's movies look like they're straight out of a comic book.

>defending Disney's horseshit garbage
>calls others no-lifers

It's all about the preparation and knowing how to deal with CGI.
With today's capeshit no one gives a shit because they just throw millions to their rendering slave army and put all the work on them to figure it out, while David Fincher knows how to deal with CGI and because of his heavy OCD he continues to make CGI heavy films with literally no one ever noticing anything.

Because CG shit gets outsourced to stinking Indians.

Part of the budget goes online to propaganda campaign now. Thanks you Disney!

Is Gone Girl a good film?

Daily reminder

Actually looks worse than Game of Thrones CGI.

CGI is a time/money in-product out kind of situation, and despite what Reddit autists will tell you CGI can look as good as and better than good practical effects
The thing is around the late 90s when it was first becoming economical to do CGI blockbusters studios still weren't certain if audiences would tolerate mediocre CGI after 15 odd years of great practical effects work, so they actually gave the CGI guys time and money to do a good job which is why we got movies like Starship Troopers that even today look pretty good
Through 2000-2005 they realised that blockbusters with shitty CGI potentially sold as well as ones with great CGI, or more specifically that there was no correlation at all IE the majority of audiences don't give a shit about effects, the same way they don't give a shit about good scripts or acting and what mostly puts butts in seats is constant saturation advertising and media hype
Big capeshit movies have shitty CGI in 2017 that would have looked embarrassing in 1997 because they can afford to, it has nothing to do with technology

>everyone wearing mute plain clothes with dull colours
>superheroes wear bright 'stand-out' colours, highlighting their differentiation from normal people

Sublte touch, I like it

Yes. Good, not great.

Yes I enjoyed it immensely.

>Marvel

Marvel is embarrassing. The CGI is tv-show tier now. Hell their whole movies are basically TV episodes now with a villain of the week formula.

Raimi is the hero we need but don't deserve.

Yeah, and it looks great. What's you point?

While the Spiderman example is particularly clear, this concept is nearly always true. It's common for wardrobe to coordinate with background so that lead talent stand out. The one color you will almost never see on an extra is red because your eye follows it first.

I'm a film producer, so I see this kind of stuff all the time.

>I'm a film producer
How's the porno business going?

>What's your point?
I don't have one, I just like what Raimi did there.

Interesting, it makes total sense.

When first starting out, that thought crosses everyone's mind. I know several guys, mainly grip and electric, who still work on porn shoots to pay the bills when they're not on larger sets. Obviously, you don't link those credits to your IMDb.

>inb4 lasso webm

More industry stories?

Hollywood is dead all the talent went to videogames and streaming tv and big budget cable.

That and Disney evil obsession with cranking out generic shit at breakneck speeds.

I wonder how long it will take until the mcu flops

>muh cgi
Spodermeng Homecome was a much better movie than Raimi's shit. was ruined by the connections to other Marvel stuff though

Like what? Any questions?

More Raimi kino incoming.

s1.webmshare.com/OydBW.webm

I love the raimi movies

This however looks like generic shit some pajeet cranked out in a couple of weeks from the horrid lighting to stilted animation bad rigging and textures.

A fucking videogame looks better in the opening scene alone and it's all in real time youtu.be/J4w36xOgbUs

That looks like absolute shit and you are a shill for real though

rushed production schedules of most blockbusters.
yeah, they've got the money, but they still need to time for proper development.

Animation aged badly but yeah those models are amazing in the stills
To be fair all of the talent just went to other areas outside of movies.

Hollywood has hit 25+ year low for a reason it's because what they are making is shit.

CGI can be amazing when used properly. Mad Max Fury Road had best CGI i seen in any XXI movie so far.
youtube.com/watch?v=OAGn3NCKE0g
This year, best CGI I've seen was used either in War of Planet of Apes or The Mummy. Plot-wise they are meeh, but can't deny amazing CGI works. Pic related.

I honestly can't wrap my mind around how Homecoming is on par with Spider-Man 1 and 2 on RT.

s1.webmshare.com/qNqy7.webm

Something I really like with the Raimi films is how comic-book like they are. That's completely lost in the MCU where everything is shot in such a mundane and lazy manner. There are almost no interesting angles or camera tricks to emphasise the genre.

LMAO

In all seriousness, I'm annoyed that we never got good shots of spiderman swinging in New York like here.

youtu.be/WfV-0Yv5vNY

...

Which video game is that?

>which is why we got movies like Starship Troopers that even today look pretty good
People don't appreciate the amount of practical effects used in starship troopers. Most of it is practical, but they use digital compositing and little CGI flourishes to enhance miniatures and stop-motion animation.
Very little of the movie is fully rendered CG.

well it depends on who made the cgi, just like any work. If they have weak lighting effects in cgi, it will look like shit, if they have bad motion cgi, it will look like shit.
And this looks to be the case both motion and lighting looks terrible. Making the CGI look crappy.

Raimi is an artist and visionary. Whatever hack Disney got to make homecoming knew he would have a million capeshit hungry manchildren line up to watch it no matter how bad it is.

Did anyone else notice Tom Holland's Spider-Man didn't have spider senses?

There also wasn't a single scene of him swinging through New York. All the previous movies had a scene like that.

ASM2 had goat CGI.

You have to admit they absolutely nailed that part of the movie

They don't care anymore. They know that redditors and plebs will go see it regardless. Also the industry is filled with retarded millenials now, who are inexperienced despite being in their 30's now. A decade or two ago, you had people who actually studied animations, worked with practical effects and had experience.

>There also wasn't a single scene of him swinging through New York.
Jesus christ, really? I haven't seen this new one but isn't that like superman not flying?

Also: Is web slinging the coolest superhero mode of transport? I'd pay any kind of money to be able to rope swing through a major city like that. Just that kind of total nut-shrinking adrenaline rush.

That's literally how people dressed in 2001.

Wow, there's no sense of those legs applying force. I wonder what an old-school 2D animator would say about this.