VFX/CGI artists work 20 times harder than most practical effects artists and get 10% as much credit for it.
VFX/CGI artists work 20 times harder than most practical effects artists and get 10% as much credit for it.
VFX/CGI artists work 20 times harder than most practical effects artists and get 10% as much credit for it.
hello sir
Nah, it's clear CG "artists" half-ass everything they do. That's why it always looks so terrible, they don't even try.
It doesn’t always look terrible. It’s mostly the Marvel movies and even then, that shit’s selective. It’s like a blend of excellent and shitty VFX.
I don't give a shit if they work harder. It looks like shit. They can get fricked.
Absolutely VILE to be directing this at the artists and not the studios overworking and underpaying them.
Whatever they're being paid, they deserve less. The studios should stop working with them entirely and start trying to make good movies again.
Go frick yourself, genuinely.
They should go frick themselves for being so bad at they're jobs. "Bad CGI" has been a complaint thrown at nearly every single movie that's bombed the past few years.
You should be skinned alive for saying this shit about the only part of the film industry that's not unionized and I fricking mean that.
Verification not required.
I don't give a shit about unions, I care about the quality of the movies they're putting out. If they're putting out fricking garbage I'm going to complain and want changes.
>I don't give a shit about unions,
>I'm going to complain and want changes.
These two statements cannot co-exist without contradiction.
Nah they can
Nope
>You should be skinned alive for saying this shit about the only part of the film industry that's not unionized
who cares about? the end result is all that matters (and it's shite)
Fricking around in Blender isn’t “work”, Viraj.
SIRS, PLEASE WATCH THE MASTER OF THE AIR ON APPLE
Does it have have really bad cgi? I was looking forward to watching it, hoping for a bit of BoB/Pacific WW2 kino. Watched the recent Catch 22 and that was enjoyable
Sitting in front of a screen for 8 hours is not work.
>8 hours
LMAO
Yeah, I doubt they put that much time in. Doesn't take 8 hours to move a Blender model poorly.
>implying 19 hour workdays aren't the best case scenario for most VFX artists
LOL
LMAO even
how could they work so hard if it looks so shitty
They must be sleeping at their desks for most of that, because there's no evidence of 19 hour workdays in the finished product.
or they're just lying to embezzle more money
Any movie that is heavily postproduced isn't worth seeing and RAW footage equals Bollywood-tier slop.
Good.
Bait.
ITT: People proving my point
Explain why we should be praising 3rd world animators for ruining our film industry.
>ruining our film industry
>nooo, i actually LIKE every movie looking like a ps3 cutscene
>I only notice or care about CGI that looks below average, I refuse to acknowledge the clear confirmation bias of assuming I've "never" seen seamless CGI, because when it is seamless, I by definition don't know it's there without someone else telling me
The only CGI that's "seamless" is shit so minor that you don't notice it. Any attempt at using it to replace practical effects looks like shit, especially when it's done by morons as incompetent as the overseas studios Hollywood is hiring.
>THAT BLURRY CAR IN THE BACKGROUND IS ACTUALLY CGI GET OWNED CHUD!!
nobody gives a frick
they ruin everything else
>can't give a reason as to why we should support this
>sitting in front of a screen and clicking a mouse is 20 times harder than making practical effects
Then you must be exhausted from all your shitposting.
maybe but they're indians so frick em
Do NOT redeem the CGI, please saar!
>VFX/CGI artists work 20 times harder than most practical effects artists
You couldn't be more wrong.
And a McDonalds burgerflipper probably works longer, shittier hours than a chef at a high end resturant, doesnt change the fact that McDonalds tastes like wet cardboard
>wet cardboard
alright I know it ain't winning awards but they're successful because on an international scale they made cheap(obviously not anymore like everything) food that tastes consistently average, or not bad, which isn't a good standard to strive for but come on now
>but come on now
If you had someone spend 100 million dollars on something in any other business and the end result was just ok, heads would roll. So please, spare me.
>literally billions and ever growing in revenue
>THE PRODUCT SUCKS AND NO ONE LIKES IT BECAUSE I DON'T
You're a fricking moron
>VFX/CGI artists work 20 times harder than most practical effects artists
99.99999% of the industry isn't Takashi Yamazaki, you are a shitty blendergay making furry porn commissions, you are rigging a skeleton for a 3d logo in a commercial so it jiggles in the most cost bloated way possible, you overlaid 9 layers of textures and post processing over a CG effect in an already dark scene
You aren't talented, you aren't an artist, you are a fraud, you are a waste of space in an oversaturated industry of untalented fraudsters
I wish I could snap my fingers and make all vfx/cgi artists have terminal diarrhea.
I wish I could snap my fingers and make it so it becomes impossible to add CG to live action films. Would fix so many things.
Dude, CGI is necessary for a lot of shit. Jurassic Park used a blend of practical and digital effects, and that shit looks good TODAY. The first Bayformers looks real. The problem isn’t CGI itself, it’s the execution as it always is.
Jurassic park looked bad THEN.
You are on drugs.
The practical effects in it look good but the CG looks bad. If you watch it now on an HD tv you can tell.
Bayformers never looked good and neither did Megan Fox.
>CGI is necessary for a lot of shit.
They made movies for decades without CGI and the movies they made were better. I'd completely get rid of CGI if it meant they would start actually trying to do good effects work again.
>They made movies for decades without CGI
They would've been using as much as CGI in the 30s as they are now if the technology existed at the time and you know it.
And it would've been shit then too. Thank God they didn't have it.
Anyway, I'm off to watch a 60s kino where I won't have to witness any ugly CG.
Well they're all Indian so you don't even need to.
>VFX/CGI artists work 20 times harder than most practical effects artists
Is ILM still good?
so hard no one has ever been able to execute successfully
That is absolute bullshit. Do you even watch movies?
>VFX/CGI artists work 20 times harder than most practical effects artists and get 10% as much credit for it.
Well, their work only looks 10% as good as practical effects.
And it still looks like soulless cartoony shit in the end
Y’all don’t know shit about movies.
Thanos was right. Half ya'll motherfrickers need to go.
> Labor Theory of Value
YOUR MOM theory of FATASS
>20 times harder
Maybe 2 times harder at most. How about you stop being hyperbolic.
They work less hard, hence why it's able to be outsourced to Indians.
Idk dude if you watch behind the scenes of older movies, it's basically the engineers designing INSANE shit on the fly to make the movie effect work.
The creativity they had on how to get the desired effect was next level, from elaborate sets to mixing specific liquids/compounds to get the desired texture of an effect. It really is insane to watch.
Modern CG artists can definitely produce a wider scope of effects because the tools allow them too, but the guys back in the day had serious ingenuity.
>VFX/CGI
>artists
They all should be executed
they do not know how hard to live in bangladeesh
If you're un showbiz you don't even deserve civil rights.
>*sits on his phone for 4 hours while a scene (that looks like fricking shit) renders*
>4 hours to render an entire scene
It takes longer than that to render a single frame lmao.
no OP that starts his thread with the meme Norman Rockwell picture is going to have a good take
>frog poster
Opinion discarded