Has CGI ever looked good? What movies have convincing digital effects?

Has CGI ever looked good? What movies have convincing digital effects?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yITLqk7GL1I
youtube.com/watch?v=LDGqKyNV-HU&t
youtu.be/KsuvXHGCVXE
youtu.be/6Yj31YCa3Xw
youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
youtu.be/BC2dRkm8ATU
youtube.com/watch?v=5Yt_TNKjuMY
youtube.com/watch?v=6tQxjfTRB9I
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Almost every single new (past 10 years) movie. You never see most of it.

>no feather boys
Sad!

20 years from now, people will wonder why these guys looked like giant lizards

Ex Machina

I know there's a bunch of background and small scale work. But I'm talking about the major effects sequences like characters and destruction.

fuck off soyboy

The monkies in War for planet of the Apes looked great, especially the orangeutan

For it's budget, a mere $15 million, and short production, Shin Godzilla looked decent for the most part.

Davy Jones and Gollum

Fincher is always brought up as someone who uses CGI as tool and does it well. CGI you don't notice. If the point of the CGI is to be a spectacle just to delight your eyes then it's just empty. This for me exaggerates the fakeness

Planet of the Apes managed to pull it off it terms of having CGI that obviously there but feels real.

knife and blood are cg

The fact they decided to make it look like the rubber suits of old made it look much more "real", if you follow me. Most CG monsters look like CG monsters, and we got used to it. Shin Godzilla looked somewhat new and therefore more creepy

davy jones

I know metal is easier to CG but Chappie was very convincing.

Planet of the Apes moves are unquestionably the best example of new CGI for main effects. Fincher does amazing work but it is primarily background stuff.

...

Edit out the last shot of the close up of the knife and you got a deal.

>inb4 it gets cucked for best effects at the oscars again

The cgi is the reason I hate the movies. It's like a cartoon. None of it is close to looking real.

balrog looks kinda shit in some shots but for the most part the cg holds up. Mid 90s-early 2000s movies tried to hide cg looking like shit by making everything super dark

I think some movies today should consider doing that

>look much more "real"
I think it's the fact that it is actually physically a part of the world. Too much CGI makes me feel like I am watching Space Jam

>this was rendered on late 90s-early 00s technology
>modern capeshit somehow looks worse

>the Dwarves dug too greedily and too deep
>you know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad Dum
>Shadow, and flame...
Hnnnng

I agree. I was trying to separate Finchers' background CGI and using it as a tool....that can go unnoticed.

Against CGI characters where you already know before the film starts that it's not real.

Seriously, some parts look janky, but for a budget 15x smaller than a typical blockbuster it's amazing.

fug wrong Godzilla

second

kinda this. LotR is a good example of generally well done CGI. Lots of it you can't notice, like when it's applied over miniature shots. Looks 10/10. Gollum is obv a weak spot, tho it holds up reasonably well as in I can stomach it without being completely taken out of the movie, also considering that it's an instance where practical effects would have likely looked worse.

There's shit ton of CGI that you're not aware of at all in movies

youtube.com/watch?v=yITLqk7GL1I

You want to know why it looks so good? Because most of it is in the dark, seriously low lighting does wonder to hide bad CGI.

Yeah and now everything cgi is all lit up and looks like shit

It only looks good when doing something practical like removing wires or something.

You also have to keep in mind there wasn't supposed to be much CGI. Anno decided late into production to scrap the puppet and left the effects guys with a lot of work to do. So it would have looked better had they planned it that way from the start. The puppet looked great though. So emotive and fluid in motion. Just touch up with a little CGI in post.

That's called good filmmaking comma faggot.

such a waste.

at least it's immortalized on the poster.

Think of it this way. You can only think CGI is good if you know it's CGI. If CGI looks real enough to fool you, you won't know to be impressed.

if I recall, at the time there was no "precedent" for cgi flame so they pretty much had to create it themselves

youtube.com/watch?v=LDGqKyNV-HU&t

I think CGI is at the point where it can convincingly perform either the background, the removal of things, or in the enhancements of things. It should never be front and center.

>frog's DNA

>he doesn't appreciate Bayformers
reddit is that way

its ok
the later designs look like shit though

uhmmmmm no

what's Disney's excuse for this?

Fincher is a master at subtly using cgi, how it was intended to be used

youtu.be/KsuvXHGCVXE
youtu.be/6Yj31YCa3Xw

I recently watched Blade 1 and 2. Some of the CG in Blade is pretty bad but in 2 it's surprisingly good. I think it's all about mixing the practical with the CG, as obvious as that is. But it looked good never the less.

unironically looks miles better than rachel, at least on this pic

in the reflection it looked good, then they had to jump the shark and have a ton of close ups

can't believe how badly they fucked up with the cgi rexy in Jurassic World

>All your dead actors' image are belong to us

Does anyone else think that maybe the companies they employ, or the studios animation departments might just actually be shit?

Sometimes I wonder how marvel and DC movies can have such huge budgets and still have absolute shit cg. You would think that pumping millions of dollars into a well know studio would have better results, but I kind of just think it results in a bunch of incompetent workers working for longer.

that and the fact they most likely use the same software, stock fx, and micro rendering.

Jesus fucking Christ that is brutal, also why are they getting killed by the Alt-Right? Also why did they even use a CGI knife?

Good CG takes a lot of effort and time. I guess time constraints make studio outsource frequently and thus the result it not always good. As other anons said, CG also has limits and it is more efficient if the director knows how and when to use it

>can't believe how badly they fucked up with the cgi rexy in Jurassic World
i urge you to reconsider

I guess if you are already doing cg blood why not do the knife blade as well

But why even bother using CGI blood in the first place? Fake blood is super easy to use and it's really cheap

I think the reason why CG looks like shit in Marvel/DC films specifically is because they pay their actors so fucking much (RDJ) and they spread out post production work to so many comapnies in a short amount of time.

When you turn up the sharpness of the day shots from Jurassic Park they don't look very good but the Rexy pen scene still looks like a real living thing to this day. The mixture of practical and CGI was GOAT. Rexy's scene in Jurassic World was also at night but looked fake as fuck.

Bottom looks like a video game. JW is shit.

...

Fincher is famous for multiple takes and avoids using fake blood as much as he can in all his movies. Saves the time of having to redress the scene and change wardrobe between takes. its fine if you do 2-5 takes but not when doing 20 or more

>top looks like a low quality photo of an animal
>bottom looks like a hd capture of a vidya character

not presenting a good case there, breh

>24 year old movie
Yes, and?

Huh, well the multiple re-shoots worked, that scene is fucking brutal even though you don't really see anything.

You unironically can't find a single frame where the CGI Rachel doesn't look exactly the same as the real Rachel, the only noticeable difference is in motion in the micro movements around the lips, and most people didn't notice that even.
Before they began making the scene for BR2049 they first made the digital model for the original entirely, just so Villeneuve sees the results on that first.

>not one mention of the Pirates franchise

>when you turn up the sharpness

>cranks the sharpness and brightness up to 11
>"oh look I showed him how shit the CGI is lol owned"

When it's in motion and brightness and sharpness is the same as it was in the film, there's nothing wrong with the CGI in this scene. The fact you have to do that shows that it actually is good.

Fuck now I want to rewatch the whole trilogy, what the fuck happened to Jackson? Did he burn all his talent and vision on those 3 films?

This screenshot just made me realize why CGI is this nowadays.

The animators are going to far with the lighting, specular details. It makes all the subjects look wet or sweaty. The JP T-rex is lit well, and doesn't look shiny or wet.

The Hammerhead guy looks shitty but the rest, including Davy Jones, still look fucking great

heard the visual effects team had some difficulty doing the scene emotionally. At first they would be really happy about how it looked before they quickly remembered that this is actually how this woman died

Yeah honestly Ex Machina wasn't to bad now that I really think back and consider it. Kind of a shitty meme movie that still had its own charms. I would say I liked it.

Eeeh....I don't know, I think the knife goes into her too cleanly. I mean, sometimes it just hits her at an angle that you just know a knife wouldn't slide in that easily. It's utimately not the CGI's fault as a prop, because it's used quickly enough for me to believe it could be there, but it just slides in way to easily. You can see the actress folds her stomach as she screams, but then the actor "stabs" her there in that fold, and the blade just sinks in way easily. There's no "give". Still, the blood stains seem pretty genuine (minus the strange little splatters).

I also think the screaming from the actors could've matched with the impact of the blade more at first. They seem like they're experiencing the same amount of pain throughout, when really, they're getting stabbed in one place, then another. It's like getting a spanking as a child. You're scared about the first slap on one part of the cheek (or cheeks), and then it happens. However, when the skin is bruised and red and the parent doing the deed slaps on fresh skin somewhere else on the buttocks, it's almost like you'd prefer if they just kept hitting the same spot again and again.

Ultimately, I think this scene could've been improved. It's neat and promising, but should be much, much better. I would've used a prop so they could react to an actual object properly.

Still, not bad.

(checked)
The worst thing about this scene is their faces when they're getting killed, I'm glad that the webm has no sound.

agreed. Rexy in Jurassic World had much, much more detail applied, but looked fake as fuck. It looked like something from a PS4 game, not an actual animal.

she looked rather lousy in motion and the way she falls during her death scene is laughable

Honestly, the hammerhead guy looks much better in motion that on stills if you compare it to the rest of the crew, who do look better in stills.

yea her scream is pretty memorable

That's why I specifically said in a still frame. And I wouldn't say she looked "lousy" at all, most people didn't even notice that it was CGI at all

...

More importantly, will we ever cross the uncanny valley? Nothing has ever really "fooled" me like they say it should.

All blood in this sequence is entirely CGI. Al

blade runner 2049 would have been it for me if i didn't already know before hand she was CGI. I wonder how much is seeing its CGI and knowing its CGI.

In the following year already my man.

and I was just talking about that one Tarkin frame compared to Rachel.

look, I love BR2049, it's probably my favorite movie of the decade so far, and I agree she looked good. not perfect. we're not there yet.

digital double needs a shave

youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

youtu.be/BC2dRkm8ATU did it better desu

>That smoke at the end of the gun
The blood looked really good, but the smoke? Seemed pretty obvious to me. It seemed to bright, almost. Still cool, though.

In my experience with friends and family, it's mostly seeing. They go like "something's weird" and don't like it. Even if they don't know it's CGI, their suspense of disbelief is completely broken by the visuals, the physics, and so on. It's always noticeable in some way unless cleverly used. The problem, then, is how you make a monster look completely real without any suspension of disbelief. Usually they try to use motion capture for this to solve it, but really, it's just a cost-saving measure for complex animations (unless you need a character's face, like King Kong or Golum). This is why practical should be utilized for monster films in at least some important and major way.

Tarkin looks like a Playstation 3 cutscene character to me even in a still frame.

Did they forget to texture the ship?

Is it actually all CG? Doesn't look like it to me

Not the actress' face

The fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible did a pretty convincing job of cringing me the fuck out.

youtube.com/watch?v=5Yt_TNKjuMY

...

But the rest looks practical. In fact the only CG part is probably getting her face on there

here's the thing with that - cgi will look good, if it's done as good as possible for the time, because everything before it will look like shit in comparison. this is because we are still technologically advancing. every year, computers get smaller and more powerful, people become more skilled, and together, these things guarantee that we will have better cgi next year compared to this year.

to a point.

i'm sure there will come a point in time when we reach the theoretical and practical limit of what is possible with cgi (it's probably making it indistinguishable from real life). at that point, it won't improve anymore. but you also will not be able to tell the difference between what's cgi and what isn't, other than knowing, for example, that dinosaurs aren't real so the realistic looking dinosaurs have to be cgi.

but yes. for now, computers and this stuff is still in its infancy. give it time. it'll keep improving every year until we max out.

It's hard for us to be fooled by CGI because we immediately recognise anything fantastical in a movie as outside the realm of reality so we disconnect with what's being shown.

That's why films like the new Planet of the Apes or David Fincher's work have such believable CGI - it's because they're for the most part recreating things that already exist in our world.

What movie lol, also why we have a celtic cross, das raciss

youtube.com/watch?v=6tQxjfTRB9I