lmaoooooooooooooooooooooo bb are you actually crying??
(you)
chuds when someone blocks them on twitter >AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH MY FREE SPEECH
chuds when someone doesn't like the movie they like >WEST HAS FALLEN KILL THEM TORTURE THEM ON THE STREETS AND KILL THEM
chuds when someone blocks them on twitter >AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH MY FREE SPEECH
chuds when someone doesn't like the movie they like >WEST HAS FALLEN KILL THEM TORTURE THEM ON THE STREETS AND KILL THEM
Movies now are 10x as expensive as the practical era. And their profit margins are lower than ever. A movie can make $800,000,000 and be called a 'modest success' i.e. only a slight profit.
Rendering actually takes longer and costs more. The only benefit is that you can do it all in post instead of waiting for the prop crew to build things.
I feel like a mix of practical effects and CGI is best. That was what they used for LOTR, and it worked really well.
Or when they made the basilisk in Harry Potter, they had an actual snake head for Daniel Radcliffe to whack with the sword, but they used CGI for the faraway shots. It looked great.
Yeah there's really no debating on this one. Some effect needs practical, and then some needs cgi, like some food needs spoon and some needs forks. I despise the overreliance of cgi tho.
Lots of new shows and movies incorporate practical effects and still look like shit. It's not about the effect style, it's about how much effort you put in to it
Poor Things had a lot of practical sets
The right side makes 53579338834x the amount the left ever made at a fraction of the cost. Convince my wallet to finance the left.
Day of the rope is coming not only for israelites, Black folk and sodomites but also artless soitards. You better run.
>it's not art because you used le computer
>B-BECAUSE IT JUST ISN'T OKAY?!?!
Do you seethe about digital art too? lmao.
It’s shitty art, CGI can be good but they refuse to use it that way. Elementary school drawings are also art but they don’t belong in a museum
The issue is that it always looks like shit, not that it uses a computer.
(you)
(you)
(you)
Your days are numbered troony
lmaoooooooooooooooooooooo bb are you actually crying??
chuds when someone blocks them on twitter
>AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH MY FREE SPEECH
chuds when someone doesn't like the movie they like
>WEST HAS FALLEN KILL THEM TORTURE THEM ON THE STREETS AND KILL THEM
who r u quoting
>chuds
kys
chuds?
Movies now are 10x as expensive as the practical era. And their profit margins are lower than ever. A movie can make $800,000,000 and be called a 'modest success' i.e. only a slight profit.
Yeah they do CGI because it's easier, not because it costs less money. It's actually the reason so many budgets are bloated now.
It's also how 9/11 was possible; the CGI we see today was done in our own eyes in a "Real-life" Die Hard. Too bad people had to die.
Rendering actually takes longer and costs more. The only benefit is that you can do it all in post instead of waiting for the prop crew to build things.
Also allows you to remake the movie when test audiences inevitably hate it. The competence crisis makes reshoots pretty much mandatory at this point.
>The right side makes 53579338834x the amount the left ever made at a fraction of the cost.
Right looks like shit.
>fraction of the cost.
Not true actually. Current day blockbusters are way more expensive than ones from the 80s-10s even adjusted for inflation.
You have no taste and enjoy shitty inferior products.
Argylle reviews
>vfx_credits.jpg
No thanks
The advent of CGI is literally the worst thing to ever happen to film.
It's not. Bad writing and bad directors are. Also China.
There have always been bad writing and bad directors. There was never anything that damaged filmmaking this much before CGI was invented.
I feel like a mix of practical effects and CGI is best. That was what they used for LOTR, and it worked really well.
Or when they made the basilisk in Harry Potter, they had an actual snake head for Daniel Radcliffe to whack with the sword, but they used CGI for the faraway shots. It looked great.
Forgot pic.
All practical > mix of practical and CG > All CG
Yeah there's really no debating on this one. Some effect needs practical, and then some needs cgi, like some food needs spoon and some needs forks. I despise the overreliance of cgi tho.
The world needs more Rich Evans in ape suits.
Lots of new shows and movies incorporate practical effects and still look like shit. It's not about the effect style, it's about how much effort you put in to it
What is the highest effort pure green screen then?
Avatar?
Strong argument against CGI right there.
the cgi gunfire in beekeeper was appalling, how are people ok with this?
I unironically would rather have some puppet than soulless greenscreen
My brain just rejects cgi as engaging. I know they're literally interacting with a blank space.
Soul