Remember when we thought CGI would only get better with time?

Remember when we thought CGI would only get better with time?

is this real or some kind of workprint?

wow it's like I'm actually watching the movie burn and crash

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

To be fair, that looks more like the 2006 one-off reboot.

CGI is better but the talent of technicians hasn't changed
They need a change in philosophy

CGI has gotten a lot better, though. It's just that they keep hiring people who can't use it properly.

is that the weirdest forehead in hollywood?

It has.

Problem is it's being used for more ambitious things because directors think it's perfect.

In this, for example, you've got a bunch of smoke (particle physics for smoke still isn't 100% there) a plane made of fabric stretched over wood (cloth physics, also not there yet) all under very bright, in-focus conditions.

A few years ago directors would have known this would look shit, so they'd have had the plane further away, behind a bunch of mist and with more motion blur.

How the fuck did this get good reviews?

Outsourcing is the main problem with CGI nowadays. Studios think they can get away with a bunch of Pajeets doing the lions share of the effects and audiences wont be able to tell the difference.

Unfortunately, they would seem to be right.

Quantity over quality. It may look like shit but at least you get a lot of it.

More like they got lazier and/or the studios want it quicker and cheaper because it's easier to make

>blocks your post

hahaha wtf

>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 (Fury Road, Interstellar, BR2049) 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.

Every Fincher film has more CGI than a standard Hollywood blockbuster. Literally every interior scene is shot on a sound stage. Every time you see blood in a Fincher film you can be sure it's CGI. The Social Network has more VFX shots than the 2014 Godzilla. And no one ever notices a thing.

Full CGI sequences work only if the director knows exactly what he wants, 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.

CGI is just a tool like any other, you just need to know how and when to use it.

>he thinks the actual quality of the movie matters in todays review world

I don't get how planet of the apes manages to look almost indistinguishable from real life on a lower budget and this looks like ass.

>>le CGI boogeyman meme

I simply said we thought it would only get better but recently there's a lot of shit flicks taking a step back

Talent and care. BR 2049 looks fantastic and it came out this year because it had a longer production cycle and people actually caring. Compare it to say, Transformers on a similar kind of budget.

they don't have to shit out at least 4 planet of the apes movies every year and they care about the craft

A lot of Marvel flicks' budget goes to the cast now.

When it's blown up to a giant theater screen with motion blur, it looks better.

...There is nothing wrong with this

But it is getting drastically better, take a look at Rachel in the new Blade Runner. Just because a few capeshit flicks that are being shat out as soon as possible to make those shekels have some bad CGI doesn't mean the entirety of computer generated effects are getting worse.

Holy shit, that was old-school Kamen Rider tier.

you forgot to mention the 3D glasses and the loud speakers that makes your brain numb

You are a adolescent if you don't find anything wrong with this

>CGII boogeyman meme

I know you saw a seemingly insightful reddit video on redditwhich claimed everyone hated CGI, but it's not true, no one has ever said CGI is bad

literally Mirror's edge on adderall

>no one has ever said CGI is bad
Literally the entirety of the Internet casuals collectively yell "FUCK CGI, YES PRACTICAL EFFECTZ"

You can see it the most in Disneys marketing for TFA, literally catering to braindead fans even though the film almost doesn't have a single VFX free shot.

Right on que, Here comes DC damage control.

Are you fucking stupid?
How would you expect a super powerd person with Spiderman's powers to move?

It's a female led capeshit action movie. The media had to cling to it.

>Director can't even make Manhattan visually interesting
Jesus christ. The Spiderman IP is a license to shoot one of the most visually interesting cities on the planet in the most creative ways you can think of. There's no excuse for it looking so flat and bland.

I would expect that the laws of physics still apply to his jumps and lands and that he doesn't look like an unfinished textureless rendering model with the shadows off

>at 0:08
MY FUCKING SIDES

this user gets it
The truth of the matter is that when cg is really well executed, it becomes nearly invisible. And it happens more often than most people on Sup Forums imagine.

Aside from Riefenstahl and Bigelow, no woman should be allowed to direct anything that has movement in it. Only people.

Sixty million dollars alone probably went to RDJ and his stilts

people move

So you have real life proof of how a super-powered being would behave according to the laws of physics right?
You know that one of Spider-Man's things in the comic books is that he's super strong and has super strong legs allowing him to jump like that right?

Action user
Action
The movement of objects
This includes movement of bodies
But women should generally be restricted to directing people in rooms, not action movies. Aside from those two I mentioned they just can't do it.

CGI has kept getting better. The problem is that this means bargain basement CGI has also gotten better, to the point that studios think that saving a few million by using crap CGI won't really impact ticket sales.

>that tweet

Has anyone got the Wonder Woman On Ice webm handy?

But the whole final battle with the huge CGI mess

CGI could be better now than it ever has been in the past. The technology isn't the problem - the problem, as with everything in the film industry for the last 10 years, is with studios and financiers. They have figured out that their main audience simply does not care about quality effects, or "quality" in any other aspect of filmmaking.

They hire hack directors who overuse and misuse green-screen, they rush through photography so that "do it in post" is the on-set mantra, and then surprise surprise, they rush through post-production as well. They have created an environment where detailed, quality work is impossible, and apparently unnecessary, since these hack-job capeshit films shatter box-office records every year.

It looks like shit because nobody cares that it looks like shit. Not the critics, not the audience, nobody. In fact, if RottenTomatoes scores and box office numbers are any indication, normies really LIKE it when their movies look like shit.

Did some one say workprint?

...

*inhales*

I said *entirely*, you silly boys

That looks like the final scene in Alien 3. Alien 3 came out in 1992.

I remember the first time I seen this an user said it looked like a sabaton music video, toppest kek.

THE BACKGROUND MOVES FASTER THAN SHE DOES.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

haha, holy shit its true

what the fuck

Honestly, the first Jurassic Park looks better than all the CGI that came after it. But they recognized the limits and would use props when needed. Now they seem to know the limits and say "fuck it, we'll do it anyway".

What went wrong?

They figured out that their audience does not care either way. Why spend the extra money? Why waste time?

RDJ demanding bigger and bigger paychecks like the insecure midget that he is.

Why can't she throw a punch convincingly?

i cannot tell at this point anymore

the fourth picture cannot be real

...

And CGI removes the need to run this type of shit past human actors that could say "I wouldn't dance across buildings like a faggot". If the sword scene from Indiana Jones was shot today, it would have been a 'epic' kungfu whip and sword fest. Set at night to save money. Instead of a classic scene of all time because the actor had the shits and asked the director "why don't I just shoot him".

That is a Fokker Eindecker.

It had a top speed of 87 mph and could only fly for about an hour and a half.

so how did it end up in the Mediterranean sea near greecE?

RDJ going from a drug addict picking up scraps to a phoenix rising again from the coke ashes and going back to being a gaint diva.

He peaked with Tropic Thunder, after that it was all downhill in terms of quality/not phoning it in.

I can't believe some of Jurassic Park's CGI holds up really well today and that shit was made in 1993.

Not only is it real, it actually looks even worse in motion. One of the rare examples where you don't even need to cherry-pick the worst, because it's all hot garbage.

...

first two are RDJ in prop suits. the last two are pure cgi.

Really only the Rex escape holds up, but that is one of the best scenes from any moster movie ever.

I was really expected some top shelf CGI from star wars and instead they just drew in shit from the animated series.

>a concise, well-thought out post
>on fucking Sup Forums of all places

I-I didn't survive that car crash, did I?

Lucas vs Dustin

JP played to its strengths. Keep the dinosaurs wet or in the shadows. Use animatronics and models for closeups. Shoot on locations and sets. Prequel trilogy, Matrix series and LOTR killed CGI in films by developing technology to create entire scenes from "scratch" in the computer. Things slowly moved from "use CG for what you can't do in camera" to "Only shoot the scenes you can't do in the computer."

I don't care what anyone says, only the T-Rex and the Raptors look good in JP, everything else has aged like milk

Terminator 2 was '91, and it still looks great as well. When the director gives a fuck about quality, blocks his shots correctly, and takes the necessary time in post to actually make it look believable, it'll always hold up. Today's technology makes it faster and easier than ever, but nobody cares enough to do it right.

Audiences should be insulted and pissed-off when they spend money and see bad effects, because it IS an insult. Because every time, it's a room full of adults saying "eh, fuck it, good enough, they'll eat this shit up anyway."

Someone post that awful Fan4stic webm.

Which one?

Name a single fight sequence in the movie that didn't seem CGI/video game-esque

The one where the thing throws a tank turret and it blows up into nothing.

Everytime i see this, i am reminded of the side scroller fight sequence in kung fury.

So glad I skipped this one.

...

>implying you wouldn't

Is this the best sequel ever made?

...

>Fincher
his movies are awful

>every single clone trooper in Ep3 is cgi.
>they did not make a single clone armor costume.

postkino

*breathes in*

Aliens still exists, but close. Terminators problem was that you knew something was up with Arnold not killing the bikers. ruins the twist.

relatable, I'm breathing too

>Aliens

Some capeshit directors have even managed the ancient and hallowed art of managing to make a scene look completely laughable without any CGI

I never noticed the ears on the bottom right, what the fuck. What do they spend the budge on movies these days?

That's because they're at night and dark places mostly. Basically using cgi appropriately and trying to hide the fact.

...

>that run