Will CGI kill the entire industry...

Will CGI kill the entire industry? Or will the new generation of actors be selected among those who can talk to a tennis ball?

No but it will kill the sculpting industry.

>tfw you're a character sculptor

>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.

didn't lotr have a shit ton of cgi as well?

you say that like most hollywood ideas have a fucking clue about what they're doing when, by your metrics, they don't
look at how dogshit most modern CGI looks, it unironically looks worse than CGI from half a decade ago

Couldn't agree more, most CGI we see these days is 100% unnoticeable because it's used appropriately. Watch some visual effects breakdowns and well over half the shit in any given frame is either CGI or a green screen composite, nobody's the wiser.

Part of it is people wanting to feel superior for pointing out bad CGI, the other part of it is truly bad CGI that's churned out to meet deadlines set in advance well ahead of production schedules and catered to audiences that don't truly care one way or another.

Protip user: most movies from all eras are bad, you just remember the good ones like they all happened in a single year.

Fact is that CGI looks better with every passing year. Just look at Rachel in BR2049, that kind of extreme detail simply wasn't possible before.

I was torn by that effect, desu.

It looked superb, but there's something very unnatural about it. I haven't been able to pin down whether it's my internal knowledge that Sean Young is old, crazy, and looks like a sack of potatoes so there's no way that's her, or I actually saw some kind of telling flaw in the actual scene.

In either case, it beat the shit out of Tarkin and Leia from
Rogue One.

That's why the use of CGI is so great in that scene, the extremely slight uncanny "off" look here actually aids to the scene because she isn't the real Rachel and the entire scene is Deckard wrestling with the thought of a fake copy of Rachel being right infront of him, so having her in nearly perfect CGI only adds more impact to the scene.

I don't believe that was the technical intent, but as a side benefit to imperfect CGI recreations it's pretty impactful.

>those fucking paper faces

>Fact is that CGI looks better with every passing year.

Not very often. Sure, the potential certainly increases every year, but in practice most CGI looks like absolute shit. I'd even go as far as saying that many if not most films in the last couple years has had worse CGI than in previous years.

It's a balancing act, really.

>Do we use minimal CGI and really go for the best out there and push the limits?
>Do we use a fair bit of CGI and go for average because that's all we can really achieve with the time frames and budget we have?
>Do we churn out shit as quick as possible because they're going to buy tickets anyways, so who cares?

When CGI was a novelty I think there was a big push to outdo the other guy and wow audiences. Now it's so mainstream that nobody is going to be wowed by a CGI effect, the best compliment they could receive is that they didn't even know it was CGI.

It's just a tool now, rather than something to showcase.

To be fair most of Cyborg was reshot meaning they had a few months to fix it, some scenes the CGI looked really good, too bad there was almost none of his original stuff so the VFX teams had a reasonable amount of time to work on it

>CGI is now being used to simulate entire settings
>Production costs are just as high

Why though?

The thing is you're wrong but you just don't know it, which is a testament to how good the vast majority of modern CGI work actually is. There's so much CGI you saw and just had no idea it was CGI, because that's how good it was, leaving you to only notice the CGI that's the shitty exception.

I will concede that there has been some inexcusably bad CGI recently though, particularly the CGI used to create characters like in your pic, which is especially bad because it's being used as the focal point of so many scenes, right in your face. They either need to do that shit right, or don't do it at all, otherwise it ruins everything.

Because Hollywood is dumb and loves to waste money.

Because to buy space, paper mache, latex, artists, paint, and prosthetics are all still just as affordable as hiring a crew of graphic animators and location reference crews to spend 6 months crafting your shot.

Upside: With practical, you know from day one what you got.

Upside: With CGI... if you throw enough money at it they can literally fix any mistake you made.

If you think about it, it's like being a kid playing pretend where you and your friends are fighting invisible monsters only you could see and everyone goes along with it.

I've seen this post 3 times today and at least 50 other times, copy and pasted

>rehashing youtube video essays and passing them off as your own on an mongolian bee harvesting enthusiast imageboard

Yes user, it's called acting.

Tbh the technique that they used was actually pretty neat. The Hobbit and dwarf sized set was all real and normal human-sized and Gandalf's set was green screen and smaller.

This. It didn't look or feel overly digital or lacking in humanity and the practical and realistic aesthetic of the original trilogy was preserved perfectly.

>the practical and realistic aesthetic of the original trilogy was preserved perfectly.
No it wasnt you fucking pleb holy shit

learn maya

Someone post the gifs

Yeah, Gandalf was stuck on green screen because they couldn't use their forced perspective tricks from LOTR with the 3D cameras.

There is no CGI in that shot though. Inserting film from another shot into the background of a shot is not the same thing as CGI.

Working with meshes is ungodly and unnatural and so fucking annoying. It's the opposite of working with clay, where it's organic, you're interacting with the material, everything feels right.

If it really comes down to it I'll buy Zbrush but I have no intentions to until I start going hungry.

...

BASED Cameron knows how to use CGI

Nothing is wrong with CGI. If anything the pretentious fags like you will kill themselves and the world will be better for it.

so basically they needed to use stupid technology because of another stupid technology..