both of these look like they have better CGI then anything in the last decade. I am not sure how anyone could claim that the CGI in cape shit films today can even come close to what they were doing 20-30 years ago.
No they don't, the Titanic ship looked good for it's time but it's pretty obvious CG now, and way better renders are done all the time today even for commercials. For example plenty of commercials for new cars use CG renders because the real model is still under wraps, and you'd never know. But the actual answer is that they depict real, plausible scenes while capeshit insists on doing ridiculous zip-zooming around with flames and shockwaves and plasma bolts and magic vortexes that don't look real because they don't exist and wouldn't look or behave like that even if they did.
>e plenty of commercials for new cars use CG renders
this shit should be illegal
10 months ago
Anonymous
Why? Often it's done for perfectly sensible reasons, which is that they simply don't have a final, fully-functional model yet. In those cases shots of the interior or close-ups of details are usually real, using an empty "shell" of a car, while any shots where the car is driving are CGI.
10 months ago
Anonymous
It just screams false advertisement. Why not add "a 3d model not an actual car" oh right people will rightfully reee.
10 months ago
Anonymous
How is it false when it looks the same as the real thing would have? You can safely assume any promotional image of any product, that doesn't involve real people, is CGI these days. Virtually everything you see in the Ikea catalogue is CGI.
Why do old movie special effects look more believable than new ones?
i think its 1. not using practical effects and 2. the movie isnt filmed on cameras that actually have film. so they look flat and ugly. everything today looks disgusting and ugly because everyone wants things to look like real life.
>This. We can’t go to the moon anymore.
we could, we just don't want to pay for it, there's a fundamental difference in those two things. It's estimated at $257 billion in todays money. That and the republicans are thieving grifters who have not done any work in congress since W.
>This. We can’t go to the moon anymore.
we could, we just don't want to pay for it, there's a fundamental difference in those two things. It's estimated at $257 billion in todays money. That and the republicans are thieving grifters who have not done any work in congress since W.
>we just don't want to pay for it,
We literally orbited a crew-capable spacecraft around the moon, and returned it to Earth, like 7 months ago
>We literally orbited a crew-capable spacecraft around the moon, and returned it to Earth, like 7 months ago
Right, but that's the thing it's been like 50 years. Just now they're deciding to go back so we can start making progress in space exploration again. The fricking idiots just dumped all progress because it was costly, Obama was one of the worst presidents for cutting the nasa budget as well. Shit president for that alone.
to be fair the Shuttle program was so unbelievably stupid and expensive it crippled space exploration for two generations. But Obama's hostility to space was pretty weird
>to be fair the Shuttle program was so unbelievably stupid and expensive it crippled space exploration for two generations. But Obama's hostility to space was pretty weird
Yeah I don't exactly blame people for looking at the shuttle program askance but to give up entirely is a terrible crime.
10 months ago
Anonymous
I'm actually kind of surprised they went ahead with SLS at all, considering I'm pretty sure it'll be more expensive than SpaceX.
outsourcing 100% of cgi to india and malaysia, and quite frankly, a lack of care.
avengers 10 doesn't need good looking cgi to make big money. the brand is enough. villeneuve's flicks have good cgi because the chance of them bombing is very real, and probably also because he's passionate.
Are all movies meant to look like the whole camera lens was covered in urine while filming them these days? Is that it? When did all movies start having this piss filter all of a sudden? Somewhere during the 2010s? Most 2000s movies at least still feel like they are not covered in urine at least.
>when did all movies start having this piss filter all of a sudden?
It started with the first digitally color graded film, O Brother, Where Art Thou in 2000.
outsourcing 100% of cgi to india and malaysia, and quite frankly, a lack of care.
avengers 10 doesn't need good looking cgi to make big money. the brand is enough. villeneuve's flicks have good cgi because the chance of them bombing is very real, and probably also because he's passionate.
>They throw away trucks of money.
At the back end
At the front end I think they think it will be cheaper >Just use bombay CGI monkeys
Then they have to redo it fifty times because the streetshitters shit on the screen as well >screenshitters
This is what makes model and practical work fantastic, the distancing, perspective and lighting actually exist.and if you pair that up with real film that captures insane quality: *chefs kiss*.
There's no chance of low-poly rendering screwing up your shot, objects clipping through other objects or pop-in to make your shots look fake.
Shut up moron, bad rotoscoping or whatever the frick it was looked as shit and distracting as bad cgi does today
Look at this, it looks fake as frick. >but they commissioned an artist $500 to paint them an ugly painting, that means it has... LE SOUL
Matte paintings are cool but that's a really shit example. That's a noticeably fake-looking one that gets pointed out all the time. There are plenty of good ones out there, pic related.
>You 100% would not have noticed it if someone hadn’t pointed out it was a matte painting, especially in motion.
I've seen that movie a dozen times and I had no idea it was a painting until like last year. And then I found out about all the other paintings Lucas used in all the movies, including the sequels. And it's not like I didn't know about matte paintings, but man did he hire good ones and use them in the best way
Maybe CGI was never intended to look "real". That's what works well with scifi or fantasy. We know LOTR is "real", we accepted that in our brainsx subconsciously.
But place the action in real life, we know it doesn't belong there.
back then there was a talent barrier to get into sfx. you had to be smart and good. now with the advent of wizards, talentless hacks have access to high quality sfx. while the wizard does most of the hard work, these people aren't qualified to run them and have poor taste (poor understanding of aesthetics). add to this the fact that the spectacle has died, i remember being excited as a kid because a movie had some snippet of 3d in it, now who cares? no one cares about your propaganda vehicle.
take id4, back then it was a bunch of countries working together vs the aliens, versus id4 resurgence, now its the aliens working together to kill the last remaining countries. a total inversion!
I love all these crusty longhair California SFX guys
Every single technical guy on the movies looks exactly the same, like they've been cast for the part
this article is fricking incredible. just compare it to the dullards who make films today: "yeah we wanted to have this type of shot so they just did it all with a computer and we saved a lot of money since all our actors finished their dialogue scenes in about a week
There were plenty of poor, or at least very obvious effects back then as well, but in the case of physical props simply the fact that they were physical adds a lot. Like the Arnold head in Terminator is not really convincing but it's cool and gritty nonetheless, and you appreciate what went into constructing it for real.
In contrast a lot of early greenscreen/bluescreen/compositing work looked extremely naff and didn't really have the same mitigating factors in my opinion, for example I'm reminded of the end fall of Robocop which just looks incredibly bad compared to all the other robots, suits, miniatures and sets in the film. I'm glad we've seen improvements in that area even if it's still sometimes very obvious, though that has more to do with the visual style and content, and it's really the same problem for VFX overall. Movies in the '90s used to have maybe 5-10% of shots with VFX, so they figured out how to use that to greatest effect, but now some movies are like 90-100%. They don't know what they want and it's no longer even "fix everything in post" it's "create the movie in post."
The old FX people have years of art and photography experience, some who programmed the computers themselves vs some Pajeets on software they learn on a YouTube tutorial
Old CGI was expensive and pretty shit, so it was used sparingly, with a lot of effort put into making it look good, and with lots of practical effects to reference to make it blend in and not look wildly out of place.
Nowadays, almost all special effects are CGI outsourced to the cheapest pajeet farm, the movie itself is rushed along with zero artistic vision and both eyes on the profit margins, and even if anyone gave a shit during production it's hard to make something good when you're working with a scene that's 95% greenscreen.
Common myth. Nu CGI is a money laundering scam that studios exploit to alter flicks in post depending on their media influencer feed back.
Practical effects are generally the cheapest effects you can have, the only exceptions are giga flops like waterworld which were full of morons
Miniatures, practical effects, 3D puppetry. Effects in movies were produced more by hand rather than computers. Explosions/fire had to be ignited or detonated in real life and filmed using special camera techniques. Higher frame rates for movies have increased clarity and crispness which can make things look almost so real they're fake so to speak. Avatar 2 had that problem. Nothing looked "dirty" or "gritty". For example to help produce a more period looking film for Saving Private Ryan the filmmakers shot film with a lower shutter angle eliminating motion blur, making the images as crisp as possible. There's different methods to making a film more realistic. CGI doesn't always solve the problem.
I thought that particular museum shot still looked pretty alright all things considered. Some of the other ones though you could literally see the low-res bump maps.
There was never a point when movies didn't look fake and stupid, you brain-dead NPC.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>ackshually everything's always been awful chud
lmao the final stage of cope
10 months ago
Anonymous
>literally a babby transfixed by the electric israelite
top kek
10 months ago
Anonymous
>defends only certain periods of the electric israelite
good goy
10 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't "defend" anything, shit-for-brains. Having more advanced CGI doesn't make modern movies good, and I never said it did.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>muh 2010s cope
nice try joss
10 months ago
Anonymous
>posting gibberish
oh shit I broke the little homosexual lmao
10 months ago
Anonymous
>oh no he's found me out
Continue taking Ls my man, or consider suicide
10 months ago
Anonymous
>reddit spacing >zoomer Black person slang
your kind sticks out like a sore thumb, you know that?
10 months ago
Anonymous
>fell for "reddit spacing," tourist identified >mad that nobody thinks Transformers was the peak of Hollywood VFX
the bleach is under the sink
10 months ago
Anonymous
>doesn't deny that he's a wannabe Black person
back to discord you ugly troony
10 months ago
Anonymous
>fell for "reddit spacing" >calls others a discord troony >nooo the best "cgi" was man of steel!!
balding snydertroon identified, suicide recommended even moreso
10 months ago
Anonymous
>literally arguing with the voices in its head >pwease die pwease!!
The funny part is I don't even have to try and convince you to top yourself; I know you'll end up another stat regardless lol.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>balding snydertroon is now hallucinating entire people, as well as the imaginary cinematic quality of garbage capeshit flicks
just sad, maybe another rewatch of Thor 2 will lift your spirits
>modern
modern how please?
cause i'm not even an actual prequel gay but i saw autistic homosexuals here complain about episode ii cgi shitfest while i don't give a frick really like i don't mind
they worked so hard on the practical effects because practical effects look like shit in person, in the wrong lighting, without film grain, etc. The artists tended to keep working until they, themselves, could no longer tell it was fake.
Verhoeven was a kid in England when the germans were bombing them. He saw some shit and noticed how visceral real gore was. So it's something he has always tried to implement in his movies with varying degrees of what he could get away with.
the loss of blanks in the guns is even worse. nowadays you constantly see gun firing only via muzzle flash and bang band sound effect, no recoil whatsoever, the actor is just holding the gun in the general direction of the bad guys and that's it. Looks so fricking ridiculous but it's the norm now.
I don't know that they can. They move the slide back but the actor motionless and isn't bracing for the kickback either because without blanks there is no kick.
10 months ago
Anonymous
At any rate, it's still not worth endangering people just for the sake of some flick. Movies are a diversion; they're not actually important.
Hell, people used to be entertained by oral storytelling or stage plays where men played all the parts. Just use your imagination.
Squibs take too long to have a contingency on the pipeline. You can only shoot squib work so many times before you have to dump budget in to costume duplicates. Film making doesn’t take its time now and liquid sims for blood spatter etc are nearing and or pass threshold for the uncanny valley. Ostensibly any real squib work is going to be on a hero shot sequence, not fully phased out.
Telented technicians who took their time and had a proper aesthetic education have retired and been replaced by inept, visually moronic mediocrities who over-rely on computer-generated videogame visuals without depth or proper framing/blocking.
Incompetent directors/producers don't demand the appropriate level of quality as they should: remember someone greenlighted the disastrous, cringe effects in The Flash, WW 84, Black Widow etc etc
>Telented technicians who took their time and had a proper aesthetic education have retired
or are working on Cameron’s blue space cat movies. Say what you want about the story, the visuals are extremely impressive
no they're not. it's an alien environment so your brain doesn't kick off the uncanny valley effect it would be screaming about 24/7 if the setting was earth.
LOTR CGI was bad at the time, I thought. That troll didn't look real at all.
How is it false when it looks the same as the real thing would have? You can safely assume any promotional image of any product, that doesn't involve real people, is CGI these days. Virtually everything you see in the Ikea catalogue is CGI.
>That's just good special effects to fool you for so many years.
I swear to God until a few years ago I never knew the semi blowing up in The Terminator was a scale model.
They hate practical effects and partial practical/CG.
They want shit pronto and most of the people in the industry don't care about quality or don't know what quality effects looks like.
I remember seeing Seth Rogen talking about that end of the world movie he did. They built a practical fx monster for a scene, and filmed it, but they said it didn't look good so they replaced it with cgi.
So I think one factor is that even when practical fx are wanted, nobody knows how to do them anymore.
Maybe this is another "boomers didn't pass on skills" situation.
They love shooting everything on green screen because it allows them to make changes at any time. Which increases the power of studio suits, before the director was in charge and once the shooting started they had to stick to the plan. Now they constantly change random shit and do tons of reshoots based on some irrelevant test screening with 12 morons saying they want less blue color and more lensflare or whatever.
>they still had to animate CG characters accurately to get the proper reflections
Why even bother with expensive studios, film crews, wire rigs and stunts at this point? Just do the whole thing like an animated movie.
Keep in mind that CG is probably cheaper than renting out an actual office building and the owners would likely object to you doing stuff like destroying windows
You don't break actual windows when filming because glass is made to be hard to break, and when it does break it can be pretty sharp. You replace it with sugar panes which break easily and shatter with smooth edges on the pieces that are much harder to cut people with.
Quick explanation is the MCU pipeline for films means some actors who have minimal roles film all their shit in complete isolation to every other actor in the movie. They sometimes film so far ahead of time like with this Sam Jackson scene they don't know what they want the room they are in to look like. If they shoot him in a random room they are now locked into the look of that room for the rest of the scene or have to go through the work to replace the background. So they just greenscreen it and can insert him into anything they need.
It's amazing how they used CGI to make a gun that looks like a cheap prop made out of PVC pipe.
My dream job is making movies back in like the 70s and 80s. So many cool jobs like wardrobe or set design that have been half replaced by CG. Everything all the way down to lighting can just be fixed in post. There used to be real craft involved and now it's all just bullshit.
Imagine a modern Singing in the Rain. All the scenes that took place "behind the scenes" on sound stages would just be people in those dumb fricking mocap suits dancing in front of green screens. Maybe include a scene where Ian Mckellan breaks down crying because he hates filming in front of green screens so much.
>couldn't even tell it was CG >still butthurt just because
morons
Okay, your answer makes sense for the background, but why CGI the gun? This is like that BTS for that shitty Romero flick Survival of the Dead. He made it right before he passed and it was complete trash, but in the interview he talks about how great CGI is because of the simplicity for reshoots, then they demonstrate. It was absolutely horrible.
It's cheaper than getting an actual gun in the way they need it? Or rather, why hiring someone who can design it when anybody can render anything on a PC.
Same, the couldn't hire a few carpenters to make a throne either.
They love shooting everything on green screen because it allows them to make changes at any time. Which increases the power of studio suits, before the director was in charge and once the shooting started they had to stick to the plan. Now they constantly change random shit and do tons of reshoots based on some irrelevant test screening with 12 morons saying they want less blue color and more lensflare or whatever.
Why does that plain-ass background need to be CGI?
Wtf? Why?
In defense of this one particular shot, iirc this was some last-minute pickup shot that they did when Jackson was in the UK or somewhere, away from the studio, and they didn't have the prop gun wherever he was. So obviously they're going to shoot him on a green screen and composite in the background, and given the choice of creating a huge continuity error, flying someone out with one prop for a couple of shots, or putting the gun in post, they went for the non-crazy option
I dunno, sometimes when you're editing you realize a scene needs some extra dialogue, or a different scene with necessary exposition needs to get cut so you need to put the line in somewhere, or you just have a gap of some sort. Pickup shoots. And now it's great because you can just rent some space near where the actor is, shoot against a green screen and baboom
I remember reading Robert Rodriguez talking about this for Sin City. >I don't have to take hours to change the lights, it only takes 5 seconds!
I understand filmmakers being willing to kid themselves that all that ballache isn't necessary
My dream job is making movies back in like the 70s and 80s. So many cool jobs like wardrobe or set design that have been half replaced by CG. Everything all the way down to lighting can just be fixed in post. There used to be real craft involved and now it's all just bullshit.
Imagine a modern Singing in the Rain. All the scenes that took place "behind the scenes" on sound stages would just be people in those dumb fricking mocap suits dancing in front of green screens. Maybe include a scene where Ian Mckellan breaks down crying because he hates filming in front of green screens so much.
>Imagine a modern Singing in the Rain. All the scenes that took place "behind the scenes" on sound stages would just be people in those dumb fricking mocap suits dancing in front of green screens.
That's actually quite a funny idea for a movie, or at least a sketch
A similar thing happened in music recording, after DAWs got invented and people got really good at mixing and amp sims got good, some engineers just don't really know or care how to place a microphone.
"We'll just tweak it later" = polishing a turd.
If execs have their way, AI will be good enough to replace all the actors. Then AI can write the script and direct the film and no one will watch movies made by machines because frick machines.
ignore all the people telling you its just cgi, the REAL answer is that films aren't shot ON FILM anymore, the very thing you are viewing is NOT PHYSICAL, it is an LED projection of pixels reconstructed from digital data - that is the crime of digital filmmaking: everything looks fake even when its real
Excellent point. I think this is especially noticeable with black and white photography. Compare Eraserhead to Twin Peaks S03E08.
Digital photography is still in its infancy and is vastly different to film. People probably haven't really figured out how to make it look good yet (if it even can). A filmmaker in the glorious 90's had the benefit of a century or more of hard-won practical experience to draw on.
You talk to any photographer that is sufficient enough in photoshop and they will all say the same thing: you always want to get it in the camera. Its not only the problemof having the effects not look convincing anymore so much as its being relied on to tell the story rather than have a good story to start with.
Lighting also plays an immense role in making the shot look convincing and real, and that is becoming something odf a lost or niche art thye more that modern filmmakers rely on the digital equivalent of it making most if not everything in the shot look flat. For Independence Day, the scene where the aliens are making their arrival in the atmosphere with the smoke and such was done by blowing dye through fishtanks and blasting light through it.
Independence Day even went as far as to record their own newscasts to add more realisim to the event it was depicting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztZiPHvcyTw&t=975s&ab_channel=TheVideoEditingGuy
Older movies tried to find a good balance between practical effects and digital cgi, whereas modern movies tend to rely purely on green screen and cgi. The addition of practical effects give the film more realism and immersion, and also affects the actor's performance since they have something to act with.
Hollywood realized that the goyim are satisfied and pleased enough with the standard of bollywood shite. So now they outsource everything to southeast asia and india to save money and we get the worst looking vfx imaginable but Americans are so fricking braindead that they keep going to see worsening standards in film, hence supporting it. The vast majority of movies from the 90's look better than today in terms of effects in general, practical or cg. There is almost no integrity in film anymore, what was once an industry to thrived off innovation and pushing the limits now is 100% focused on pushing th elimits of profit and profit alone over everyting. >t. leaf vfx worker
Yeah but talk to a punter: they know what they're watching is shit, and they'd rather watch something better, and would, if it came along. They just don't want to admit it that they pay $50 a month on shitflix subscriptions and 100% of it is garbage. >vfx worker
Given that there's a huge audience for crappy-looking anime and basically free distribution, does anybody "in the industry" give any thought to trying to independently produce good-looking TV shows?
Before the 2010s, most studio blockbusters prided themselves in delivering the best special effects possible. The grindhouse nature of the MCU and the public eating it all up showed studios that having good vfx doesn't matter, especially when each studio has to crank out over half a dozen blockbusters a year
I think this stuff more often than not looks a bit more fake than CGI, but with the practical stuff, you had to wonder on how they made the effect, so it was visually interesting, but also interesting just for the fact they were able to make something like that
Now, theres no wonder, you don't even have to think about it, you know its a bunch of people sitting at computers making the stuff up.
There's also the degeneration of talent, ability, passion of the people doing the work. The amount of money thrown at CGI stuff is larger and larger but it just feels like the people doing it are going through the motions and have no genuine interest in it other than their paycheck.
The answer you're looking for is contrast (and the sharpness that goes along with it). Video games have that same problem now since they come overloaded with various VFX nonsense to the point any sort of discernible aesthetic is lost. Everything is a blurry smear.
Oh and post processing effects along with color grading. Again in vidya, everything is constantly graded with purple-teal-Black person-brown shade. That horrible tv show, Idol, actually has proper color grading and contrast and looks quite good cinematographically. But generally with digital you have zoomers deciding how to frick up your work in post production.
1. nobody gives a shit anymore due to cultural apathy
2. practical effects dudes are all dead or retired
3. underpaid and overworked nerds couldn't give less of a shit to make it look right since moronic boomer execs won't notice the difference anyway
I think it's the film grain and optical compositing which blends the edges so it looks like it was actually there
also more of the shots had real lighting and real stuff in them
and less shots per film mean they can really focus on them and do a good job instead of rushing them with a team of indians
I was watching the extended content on my lotr DVDs a bit ago and it's insane the amount of shit they made for those movies. They pretty much had a prosthetics factory going for 3 years constantly because the prosthetics had a shelf life of around 6 days before they would need to go back for maintenance. Each costume had around 40 versions for various purposes. They built and planted Hobbiton and waited a year for the plants and brush to grow out to make the set look natural. They brought in an artist famous for illustrations of the books and brought his illustrations to life and then that artist got to sit in life size versions of sets in the forest inspired by his work and sketch those. I don't think anything like this would ever happen again because I don't know that there is any story that enough people care so much about that they'd like to bring it to life in this way.
This also. Artist autism plays a big part , which doesn't exist anymore
You would have VFX artists spending weeks or months or even years trying to perfect every last tiny detail on some effect that would only be on screen for 2 seconds.
The guy who did the effects for the thing ended up hospitalized due to health problems and exhaustion because he would spend so much time trying, making and remaking the effects on the thing to autistic perfection
back then you couldn't cry about racism or some horseshit if your movie failed for being dogshit. people just accepted the fact it was dogshit.
now, you do a little song and dance about transphobia, and blackrock bankrolls you and you keep plopping out steamers with no fear of repercussions.
Real gaussian blur + real film composite mix. Hand made greebleing matched with efficiently handled lighting in camera. Masters of the pipeline given ample time to experiment and if there was no time they could McGuyver their way to success.
Aside from technical reasons it's because the movies were better, you were more sucked into the world
Doubly so because you were a kid
I recently had Jurassic Park movies on in the background: it's amazing how much of the effects don't actually hold up, because I'm not engrossed in the films anymore. It got me wondering about e.g. old stop-motion sequences: we laugh at clips of them, it looks fake, but perhaps if we watched them in context, the whole movie on the big screen, they'd look much better
I am old so I saw both stop motion (at its very technical peak) as a kid and JP as a teen. Even as a kid I knew stop motion looked fake and janky frick, especially since compositing back then meant everything added to live action footage had an obvious black border around it. I think the "terror dog chases Louis Tully" sequence was about as good as it got and even as a kid I remember kind of rolling my eyes at the obvious fakery. But it was movies so you just used your imagination. JP was a real "holy shit" experience, like what seeing the first color movie must've been like. Those dinosaurs looked real and moved like real animals - even us cynical teenagers got our dicks blown off
>Those dinosaurs looked real and moved like real animals
Not really though, go back and watch it again, especially the daylight scenes
you know what to look for now, watch Julianne Moore getting swiped by green-screen stegosaurus tails in Lost World >everything added to live action footage had an obvious black border around it
You just didn't know where to see the seams in 1993
>Not really though, go back and watch it again, especially the daylight scenes
I watched it again a few years ago and was actually impressed by how well the 1993 cg has held up, mostly I think because Spielberg grasped the limitations and shot around it really well. I think the gallimimus herd is the part that aged the worst. But in the theater at the time, it was like going from black and white to color. They moved like real animals! Shit was wild. And that T-Rex ending still holds up to me, but that might be because it was a cool as hell ending and all the kids in the theater gasped
Sounds like they should've paid more attention when they were writing the script
Pickup shots are pretty normal anon. Sometimes stuff that works great on the page doesn't work on film, or when you're cutting the film you realize certain scenes have to go or be reworked or the movie doesn't flow right. Sometimes you're in the edit bay and realize a scene that you thought was fine actually looks like crap and needs to be reshot etc
Pre-2000s a lot of it was practicals. And physical things tend to look more real than computer graphic. Also pre-2000 CGI was used sparingly. You had made one or big CGI shots,so the animators could focus on that and only that and it was being worked on for months, whereas now shit is changed on the fly and the 2,000 Indians working on it don't even know what it is they are animating. Lastly being CGI of the 1990s looked so bad they tried to hide it with dark lighting or rain.
Even cgi from the 00s looks better than most modern shit, hollywood has dropped in quality so much it's insane and I don't know how anyone can watch anything made in the past decade outside of the occasional exception.
They don't even try.
Models and real explosions.
shhh!
the people, props and environments weren't 100% cgi
They used CGI overlaying real models. It's literally the best way to do it as the CG can gloss over the parts of the model that dont work
Exactly, which is why the 90s was the last golden age of cgi effects
This is how movies should have kept being made. Nowadays every single element from that shot would be CGI, including the two people that fall down.
That IS how most movies and shows are still being made. It's just capeshit that's going full greenscreen moronation.
That iceberg looks dumb as frick
both of these look like they have better CGI then anything in the last decade. I am not sure how anyone could claim that the CGI in cape shit films today can even come close to what they were doing 20-30 years ago.
No they don't, the Titanic ship looked good for it's time but it's pretty obvious CG now, and way better renders are done all the time today even for commercials. For example plenty of commercials for new cars use CG renders because the real model is still under wraps, and you'd never know. But the actual answer is that they depict real, plausible scenes while capeshit insists on doing ridiculous zip-zooming around with flames and shockwaves and plasma bolts and magic vortexes that don't look real because they don't exist and wouldn't look or behave like that even if they did.
>e plenty of commercials for new cars use CG renders
this shit should be illegal
Why? Often it's done for perfectly sensible reasons, which is that they simply don't have a final, fully-functional model yet. In those cases shots of the interior or close-ups of details are usually real, using an empty "shell" of a car, while any shots where the car is driving are CGI.
It just screams false advertisement. Why not add "a 3d model not an actual car" oh right people will rightfully reee.
How is it false when it looks the same as the real thing would have? You can safely assume any promotional image of any product, that doesn't involve real people, is CGI these days. Virtually everything you see in the Ikea catalogue is CGI.
You're being dishonest.
This. It really does not hold up. In fact even the webm looks like playstation 3 graphics.
the population has gotten dumber since then. the quality of everything went down
This. We can’t go to the moon anymore.
>anymore
ngmi
kys
i think its 1. not using practical effects and 2. the movie isnt filmed on cameras that actually have film. so they look flat and ugly. everything today looks disgusting and ugly because everyone wants things to look like real life.
>This. We can’t go to the moon anymore.
we could, we just don't want to pay for it, there's a fundamental difference in those two things. It's estimated at $257 billion in todays money. That and the republicans are thieving grifters who have not done any work in congress since W.
>We can’t go to the moon anymore.
>we just don't want to pay for it,
We literally orbited a crew-capable spacecraft around the moon, and returned it to Earth, like 7 months ago
>We literally orbited a crew-capable spacecraft around the moon, and returned it to Earth, like 7 months ago
Right, but that's the thing it's been like 50 years. Just now they're deciding to go back so we can start making progress in space exploration again. The fricking idiots just dumped all progress because it was costly, Obama was one of the worst presidents for cutting the nasa budget as well. Shit president for that alone.
to be fair the Shuttle program was so unbelievably stupid and expensive it crippled space exploration for two generations. But Obama's hostility to space was pretty weird
>to be fair the Shuttle program was so unbelievably stupid and expensive it crippled space exploration for two generations. But Obama's hostility to space was pretty weird
Yeah I don't exactly blame people for looking at the shuttle program askance but to give up entirely is a terrible crime.
I'm actually kind of surprised they went ahead with SLS at all, considering I'm pretty sure it'll be more expensive than SpaceX.
Space is inherently racist on account of you can't see blacks against the background.
tpbp
also very true
>22
>millennial
boomer moron detected
That tiktok is about 6 years old, non-comprehending of time passing moron Black person.
>on 6 figures just to tick a box
And women say they’re oppressed frick me
even with VFX, they used to do tricks to hide the effects limitations
now they don't give a shit and even say the horrible CGI is on purpose
yep, nobody gives a shit anymore. Everyone is just trying to make their money as fast as possible and get out before the whole industry collapses.
What’s the explanation for it being intentionally bad?
>What’s the explanation for it being intentionally bad?
They want the indian audience.
Are all movies meant to look like the whole camera lens was covered in urine while filming them these days? Is that it? When did all movies start having this piss filter all of a sudden? Somewhere during the 2010s? Most 2000s movies at least still feel like they are not covered in urine at least.
>when did all movies start having this piss filter all of a sudden?
It started with the first digitally color graded film, O Brother, Where Art Thou in 2000.
Really? I feel like fricking everything is blue now
outsourcing 100% of cgi to india and malaysia, and quite frankly, a lack of care.
avengers 10 doesn't need good looking cgi to make big money. the brand is enough. villeneuve's flicks have good cgi because the chance of them bombing is very real, and probably also because he's passionate.
>villeneuve's flicks have good cgi because the chance of them bombing is very real, and probably also because he's passionate.
You made me kek.
>villeneuve's flicks have good cgi
villeneuve's flicks have fog
Its literally unreal how much is done with green screens now.
Nothing is real, not even the actors.
No one wants to pay for anything anymore. They just want more profits.
It's not money. They throw away trucks of money.
it's lack of vision
>They throw away trucks of money.
At the back end
At the front end I think they think it will be cheaper
>Just use bombay CGI monkeys
Then they have to redo it fifty times because the streetshitters shit on the screen as well
>screenshitters
I read "green skins" kek, now I cannot avoid thinking in Villeneuve directing a 40K film.
>What do you do?
>...I crusade
>REAL POST-HUMAN BEING
>villeneuve
Besson has good cgi, AND I know Valerian is a piece of shit but still better than Villeneuve's movies.
>S O V L
kek
heh.
meh.
This is what makes model and practical work fantastic, the distancing, perspective and lighting actually exist.and if you pair that up with real film that captures insane quality: *chefs kiss*.
There's no chance of low-poly rendering screwing up your shot, objects clipping through other objects or pop-in to make your shots look fake.
Did they film this in Villeneuve's backyard?
>villeneuve's flicks have good cgi
The scene where rachel gets shot in Bladerunner looks SO FRICKING BAD and awkward.
Also the entirety of Dune looked borderline unfinished.
funny how that works
They hired real aliens for Independence Day. But the mothership is obviously fake, they had to built it out of paper mache.
Models and matte are better than CGI
I kind of miss matte paintings.
Shut up moron, bad rotoscoping or whatever the frick it was looked as shit and distracting as bad cgi does today
Look at this, it looks fake as frick.
>but they commissioned an artist $500 to paint them an ugly painting, that means it has... LE SOUL
Hey, shut up.
First step is a doozy?
frick off needlenose
Amazing.
>Rotoscoping looked bad
You are the dumbest Black person I've ever met
not dumber than you who utterly lacks reading comprehension.
Matte paintings are cool but that's a really shit example. That's a noticeably fake-looking one that gets pointed out all the time. There are plenty of good ones out there, pic related.
RotJ has got to have the best matte paintings of any movie.
that shuttle looks extremely fake
seethe cgishitter
keep projecting, you delusional homosexual
settle down zoomer before i post a gif of your boyfriend john oogabooga from the sequels
>don't make me post my epic BBC folder!
nice self-own homo
kek
You 100% would not have noticed it if someone hadn’t pointed out it was a matte painting, especially in motion.
it literally looks like something out of a '90s kids cartoon
No it doesn’t you fricking mole
>You 100% would not have noticed it if someone hadn’t pointed out it was a matte painting, especially in motion.
I've seen that movie a dozen times and I had no idea it was a painting until like last year. And then I found out about all the other paintings Lucas used in all the movies, including the sequels. And it's not like I didn't know about matte paintings, but man did he hire good ones and use them in the best way
I miss matte paintings so much.
>it looks fake
And CGI looks real to you? At least matte paintings look fake and pretty instead of CG which is fake and ugly.
Movies were made with love before.
Maybe CGI was never intended to look "real". That's what works well with scifi or fantasy. We know LOTR is "real", we accepted that in our brainsx subconsciously.
But place the action in real life, we know it doesn't belong there.
S O V L
Jfc, what movie?
wow that looks fantastic for the 50's. I was thinking late 60's-early 70's at first.
it literally all comes down to
>practical effects
combine enough of those with strategic CGI that isn't jarring and its a win
The best cgi in the world wouldn't look half as good as practical effects.
Someone pointed out to me that cgi in every movie has to have the scene in the shade or it looks bad and now I will never unsee it.
back then there was a talent barrier to get into sfx. you had to be smart and good. now with the advent of wizards, talentless hacks have access to high quality sfx. while the wizard does most of the hard work, these people aren't qualified to run them and have poor taste (poor understanding of aesthetics). add to this the fact that the spectacle has died, i remember being excited as a kid because a movie had some snippet of 3d in it, now who cares? no one cares about your propaganda vehicle.
take id4, back then it was a bunch of countries working together vs the aliens, versus id4 resurgence, now its the aliens working together to kill the last remaining countries. a total inversion!
I love all these crusty longhair California SFX guys
Every single technical guy on the movies looks exactly the same, like they've been cast for the part
ID4 famously spend a shitload on practical effects
best explosion ever, my only problem is the non existing street in nyc
?
Models often look good.
Can't believe they let him kill a real truck driver for this
Never seen that b'fore!
Christian Bale mogging for the camera already
>Ilya.Muromets.1956.mosaic_3x3.webm
this article is fricking incredible. just compare it to the dullards who make films today: "yeah we wanted to have this type of shot so they just did it all with a computer and we saved a lot of money since all our actors finished their dialogue scenes in about a week
This is worth a watch
The guy at 3:11 sums it up. Basically, it looks real because it is real
Holy shit! Kind of cheesy, but looks real as frick.
>Kind of cheesy
any webms i seen posted of this movie gives me that feeling about this movie
to this day it's one the few bond movies i never watched
Licence to Kill is great.
do you prefer that or The Living Daylights?
I prefer Licence to Kill, but I like both Dalton's movies.
what's your favorite John Glen bond?
There were plenty of poor, or at least very obvious effects back then as well, but in the case of physical props simply the fact that they were physical adds a lot. Like the Arnold head in Terminator is not really convincing but it's cool and gritty nonetheless, and you appreciate what went into constructing it for real.
In contrast a lot of early greenscreen/bluescreen/compositing work looked extremely naff and didn't really have the same mitigating factors in my opinion, for example I'm reminded of the end fall of Robocop which just looks incredibly bad compared to all the other robots, suits, miniatures and sets in the film. I'm glad we've seen improvements in that area even if it's still sometimes very obvious, though that has more to do with the visual style and content, and it's really the same problem for VFX overall. Movies in the '90s used to have maybe 5-10% of shots with VFX, so they figured out how to use that to greatest effect, but now some movies are like 90-100%. They don't know what they want and it's no longer even "fix everything in post" it's "create the movie in post."
hello, i would like some matte painting/special effects kinos please
indiana jones and the temple of doom
Not bad, but he never made a decent movie since.
Elysium is very good and has outstanding action sequences.
IT'S A PUPPET
he cute
The old FX people have years of art and photography experience, some who programmed the computers themselves vs some Pajeets on software they learn on a YouTube tutorial
this is a big part of it
those guys had understanding of optical illusions and physics and art and other disciplines
Old CGI was expensive and pretty shit, so it was used sparingly, with a lot of effort put into making it look good, and with lots of practical effects to reference to make it blend in and not look wildly out of place.
Nowadays, almost all special effects are CGI outsourced to the cheapest pajeet farm, the movie itself is rushed along with zero artistic vision and both eyes on the profit margins, and even if anyone gave a shit during production it's hard to make something good when you're working with a scene that's 95% greenscreen.
>Old CGI was expensive and pretty shit,
that's why 90's cgi mogs shit 30 fricking years later
you stupid sack of shit
Common myth. Nu CGI is a money laundering scam that studios exploit to alter flicks in post depending on their media influencer feed back.
Practical effects are generally the cheapest effects you can have, the only exceptions are giga flops like waterworld which were full of morons
>replying before reading
Your zoomzoom attention span is the reason modern CGIslop is profitable at all.
Miniatures, practical effects, 3D puppetry. Effects in movies were produced more by hand rather than computers. Explosions/fire had to be ignited or detonated in real life and filmed using special camera techniques. Higher frame rates for movies have increased clarity and crispness which can make things look almost so real they're fake so to speak. Avatar 2 had that problem. Nothing looked "dirty" or "gritty". For example to help produce a more period looking film for Saving Private Ryan the filmmakers shot film with a lower shutter angle eliminating motion blur, making the images as crisp as possible. There's different methods to making a film more realistic. CGI doesn't always solve the problem.
>avatar 2 is bad because it doesn't looks like my dirty basement
they cared
i understand greenscreens too when you have so many morons and social media leaking stuff.
Not bad for the early 90s.
Rex looks the best. The gallimimus stampede and brachiosaurus introduction haven't fared as well.
The animation in Jurassic Park always impressed me as a kid. It didn't look fake at all to me back then.
Can't believe this was 30 years ago!!!FACT!!!
Only looks good because of the tiny res webm. Watched this recently in 4K and all the daytime shots of CGI dinos looked like complete shit.
I thought that particular museum shot still looked pretty alright all things considered. Some of the other ones though you could literally see the low-res bump maps.
>when dinosaurs ruled the earth
Atheist propaganda
Starting to think the internet is being completely taken over by bots saying enormously stupid shit to drive us insane.
It looks exactly like shit 90s cgi.
Try shit from a decade ago when the studios still had white guys employed there and were willing to spend money on slop like Oblivion or Man of Steel.
That unironically looks better than any Marvel movie of the last 10 years
You're a moronic nostalgia gay.
and also
>muh goyslop better than your goyslop!
kys
>moron has moronic opinions
no wonder everything looks like garbage now, if it's made for plebs like you
There was never a point when movies didn't look fake and stupid, you brain-dead NPC.
>ackshually everything's always been awful chud
lmao the final stage of cope
>literally a babby transfixed by the electric israelite
top kek
>defends only certain periods of the electric israelite
good goy
I didn't "defend" anything, shit-for-brains. Having more advanced CGI doesn't make modern movies good, and I never said it did.
>muh 2010s cope
nice try joss
>posting gibberish
oh shit I broke the little homosexual lmao
>oh no he's found me out
Continue taking Ls my man, or consider suicide
>reddit spacing
>zoomer Black person slang
your kind sticks out like a sore thumb, you know that?
>fell for "reddit spacing," tourist identified
>mad that nobody thinks Transformers was the peak of Hollywood VFX
the bleach is under the sink
>doesn't deny that he's a wannabe Black person
back to discord you ugly troony
>fell for "reddit spacing"
>calls others a discord troony
>nooo the best "cgi" was man of steel!!
balding snydertroon identified, suicide recommended even moreso
>literally arguing with the voices in its head
>pwease die pwease!!
The funny part is I don't even have to try and convince you to top yourself; I know you'll end up another stat regardless lol.
>balding snydertroon is now hallucinating entire people, as well as the imaginary cinematic quality of garbage capeshit flicks
just sad, maybe another rewatch of Thor 2 will lift your spirits
>When dinosaurs ruled the earth
Spielberg is such a fricking hack lol
they tried harder and the studios hadn't agreed to not compete yet
Still looks alright tbqh.
same for anything else you contrarians autistic homosexuals keep whining about
Pure kino sovel. Nothing in a modern flock can compete.
>modern
modern how please?
cause i'm not even an actual prequel gay but i saw autistic homosexuals here complain about episode ii cgi shitfest while i don't give a frick really like i don't mind
Looked good until the 90s fire came in.
Wrong the 90s fireball down a corridor is what makes it kino
THE DOG SURVIVED
BOOMER
WILL LIVE
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
Not sure how they wouldn’t have been fried and how the dog heard them yelling in that crowded ass loud tunnel
They say “the power of real things”. Especially the ones that corped with the miniatures still hold up for the todays’s standard.
they worked so hard on the practical effects because practical effects look like shit in person, in the wrong lighting, without film grain, etc. The artists tended to keep working until they, themselves, could no longer tell it was fake.
the CGI pukes don't give a shit.
Just remember to hide the model operator.
>hide the model operator
where is he?
Top left, 0:06 - top of his head.
?
I'm surprised they didn't fix this, because I know they fixed some other stuff in the last HD remaster.
that was supposed to be there, they got Big homie Aliens on that planet too not just bugs
Oh wow
>tfw squibs are basically gone
watched this again last night
it's insane how visceral it is
lotta great matte painting shots of mars too
Verhoeven was a kid in England when the germans were bombing them. He saw some shit and noticed how visceral real gore was. So it's something he has always tried to implement in his movies with varying degrees of what he could get away with.
the loss of blanks in the guns is even worse. nowadays you constantly see gun firing only via muzzle flash and bang band sound effect, no recoil whatsoever, the actor is just holding the gun in the general direction of the bad guys and that's it. Looks so fricking ridiculous but it's the norm now.
Blanks are dangerous. There's no sound reason to use them just for some LCD commercial product.
>There's no sound reason to use them
REEE-COIL! RECOIL IS THE REEE-SON!
I just got done fricking telling you, why you act like you don't know?
BAKA
You can literally add recoil in post. If they're not doing that, it's out of pure laziness or stinginess.
I don't know that they can. They move the slide back but the actor motionless and isn't bracing for the kickback either because without blanks there is no kick.
At any rate, it's still not worth endangering people just for the sake of some flick. Movies are a diversion; they're not actually important.
Hell, people used to be entertained by oral storytelling or stage plays where men played all the parts. Just use your imagination.
I'm not trolling!
Squibs take too long to have a contingency on the pipeline. You can only shoot squib work so many times before you have to dump budget in to costume duplicates. Film making doesn’t take its time now and liquid sims for blood spatter etc are nearing and or pass threshold for the uncanny valley. Ostensibly any real squib work is going to be on a hero shot sequence, not fully phased out.
>films cost more than ever
>can't afford a couple of spare shirts
Most actors are no-guns pussies that wince and blink when firing blanks, which hurts characterisation.
Look at 46 seconds in and tell me they added recoil in post and that this looks fine to you, motherfricker.
I'd rather that than some homosexual firing blind, dickhead.
I'd rather watch kino like this, frickface.
Me too, you flaming homosexual, but homosexual actors can't handle blanks without wincing so we can't have scenes like this anymore.
Get used to it.
Telented technicians who took their time and had a proper aesthetic education have retired and been replaced by inept, visually moronic mediocrities who over-rely on computer-generated videogame visuals without depth or proper framing/blocking.
Incompetent directors/producers don't demand the appropriate level of quality as they should: remember someone greenlighted the disastrous, cringe effects in The Flash, WW 84, Black Widow etc etc
>Telented technicians who took their time and had a proper aesthetic education have retired
or are working on Cameron’s blue space cat movies. Say what you want about the story, the visuals are extremely impressive
no they're not. it's an alien environment so your brain doesn't kick off the uncanny valley effect it would be screaming about 24/7 if the setting was earth.
Exactly after having watched TWOW I couldn’t look at other movies anymore without thinking ‘Are they even trying? This looks like complete shit‘
Tbqh they still seem subpar to me compared for instance to the LOTR of POTC visual effects
LOTR CGI was bad at the time, I thought. That troll didn't look real at all.
This post is CGI
CGI is meant to be utilized alongside and enhance practical effects. Unfortunately studios think it exists to replace it.
Miniatures and actual explosions
Nice.
Too soon, m'eight.
It looked even realer with VHS grain on a thick screen. Thats the real mindfrick.
Zoomies will never understand.
>it was not a 2m robot
childhood status - ruined
That's just good special effects to fool you for so many years.
>That's just good special effects to fool you for so many years.
I swear to God until a few years ago I never knew the semi blowing up in The Terminator was a scale model.
I still wish there were a full length movie of this
that was t1's final act
>manlytears turned into t-800
Cgi flames are a big part of it.
They hate practical effects and partial practical/CG.
They want shit pronto and most of the people in the industry don't care about quality or don't know what quality effects looks like.
I remember seeing Seth Rogen talking about that end of the world movie he did. They built a practical fx monster for a scene, and filmed it, but they said it didn't look good so they replaced it with cgi.
So I think one factor is that even when practical fx are wanted, nobody knows how to do them anymore.
Maybe this is another "boomers didn't pass on skills" situation.
They love shooting everything on green screen because it allows them to make changes at any time. Which increases the power of studio suits, before the director was in charge and once the shooting started they had to stick to the plan. Now they constantly change random shit and do tons of reshoots based on some irrelevant test screening with 12 morons saying they want less blue color and more lensflare or whatever.
Why does that plain-ass background need to be CGI?
I just explained why. So they can change it if they want, for whatever reason.
>they still had to animate CG characters accurately to get the proper reflections
Why even bother with expensive studios, film crews, wire rigs and stunts at this point? Just do the whole thing like an animated movie.
Maybe they did. How do you know these "behind the scenes" shots aren't fake?
Keep in mind that CG is probably cheaper than renting out an actual office building and the owners would likely object to you doing stuff like destroying windows
>renting out an actual office building, destroying windows
lmao
>what is a studio
Maybe the setbuilders all retired or something.
You don't break actual windows when filming because glass is made to be hard to break, and when it does break it can be pretty sharp. You replace it with sugar panes which break easily and shatter with smooth edges on the pieces that are much harder to cut people with.
>they even CGI'd the helmet and shield
cgi helmet makes sense imo it constricts a lot of expression. Shield is dumb
Continuity
Quick explanation is the MCU pipeline for films means some actors who have minimal roles film all their shit in complete isolation to every other actor in the movie. They sometimes film so far ahead of time like with this Sam Jackson scene they don't know what they want the room they are in to look like. If they shoot him in a random room they are now locked into the look of that room for the rest of the scene or have to go through the work to replace the background. So they just greenscreen it and can insert him into anything they need.
Wtf? Why?
>couldn't even tell it was CG
>still butthurt just because
morons
Okay, your answer makes sense for the background, but why CGI the gun? This is like that BTS for that shitty Romero flick Survival of the Dead. He made it right before he passed and it was complete trash, but in the interview he talks about how great CGI is because of the simplicity for reshoots, then they demonstrate. It was absolutely horrible.
It's cheaper than getting an actual gun in the way they need it? Or rather, why hiring someone who can design it when anybody can render anything on a PC.
Same, the couldn't hire a few carpenters to make a throne either.
Probably because they were using artificial lighting and trying to project that reflection onto an actual throne would have been problematic
In defense of this one particular shot, iirc this was some last-minute pickup shot that they did when Jackson was in the UK or somewhere, away from the studio, and they didn't have the prop gun wherever he was. So obviously they're going to shoot him on a green screen and composite in the background, and given the choice of creating a huge continuity error, flying someone out with one prop for a couple of shots, or putting the gun in post, they went for the non-crazy option
But why did they need to shoot this extra shot in the first place?
I dunno, sometimes when you're editing you realize a scene needs some extra dialogue, or a different scene with necessary exposition needs to get cut so you need to put the line in somewhere, or you just have a gap of some sort. Pickup shoots. And now it's great because you can just rent some space near where the actor is, shoot against a green screen and baboom
Sounds like they should've paid more attention when they were writing the script
I remember reading Robert Rodriguez talking about this for Sin City.
>I don't have to take hours to change the lights, it only takes 5 seconds!
I understand filmmakers being willing to kid themselves that all that ballache isn't necessary
My dream job is making movies back in like the 70s and 80s. So many cool jobs like wardrobe or set design that have been half replaced by CG. Everything all the way down to lighting can just be fixed in post. There used to be real craft involved and now it's all just bullshit.
Imagine a modern Singing in the Rain. All the scenes that took place "behind the scenes" on sound stages would just be people in those dumb fricking mocap suits dancing in front of green screens. Maybe include a scene where Ian Mckellan breaks down crying because he hates filming in front of green screens so much.
>Imagine a modern Singing in the Rain. All the scenes that took place "behind the scenes" on sound stages would just be people in those dumb fricking mocap suits dancing in front of green screens.
That's actually quite a funny idea for a movie, or at least a sketch
It's amazing how they used CGI to make a gun that looks like a cheap prop made out of PVC pipe.
A similar thing happened in music recording, after DAWs got invented and people got really good at mixing and amp sims got good, some engineers just don't really know or care how to place a microphone.
"We'll just tweak it later" = polishing a turd.
If execs have their way, AI will be good enough to replace all the actors. Then AI can write the script and direct the film and no one will watch movies made by machines because frick machines.
ignore all the people telling you its just cgi, the REAL answer is that films aren't shot ON FILM anymore, the very thing you are viewing is NOT PHYSICAL, it is an LED projection of pixels reconstructed from digital data - that is the crime of digital filmmaking: everything looks fake even when its real
Excellent point. I think this is especially noticeable with black and white photography. Compare Eraserhead to Twin Peaks S03E08.
Digital photography is still in its infancy and is vastly different to film. People probably haven't really figured out how to make it look good yet (if it even can). A filmmaker in the glorious 90's had the benefit of a century or more of hard-won practical experience to draw on.
You talk to any photographer that is sufficient enough in photoshop and they will all say the same thing: you always want to get it in the camera. Its not only the problemof having the effects not look convincing anymore so much as its being relied on to tell the story rather than have a good story to start with.
Lighting also plays an immense role in making the shot look convincing and real, and that is becoming something odf a lost or niche art thye more that modern filmmakers rely on the digital equivalent of it making most if not everything in the shot look flat. For Independence Day, the scene where the aliens are making their arrival in the atmosphere with the smoke and such was done by blowing dye through fishtanks and blasting light through it.
Independence Day even went as far as to record their own newscasts to add more realisim to the event it was depicting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztZiPHvcyTw&t=975s&ab_channel=TheVideoEditingGuy
>Takes Place in 1996
>Soviet Central TV
Older movies tried to find a good balance between practical effects and digital cgi, whereas modern movies tend to rely purely on green screen and cgi. The addition of practical effects give the film more realism and immersion, and also affects the actor's performance since they have something to act with.
the same reason a sub got crushed looking for the Titanic.
Hollywood realized that the goyim are satisfied and pleased enough with the standard of bollywood shite. So now they outsource everything to southeast asia and india to save money and we get the worst looking vfx imaginable but Americans are so fricking braindead that they keep going to see worsening standards in film, hence supporting it. The vast majority of movies from the 90's look better than today in terms of effects in general, practical or cg. There is almost no integrity in film anymore, what was once an industry to thrived off innovation and pushing the limits now is 100% focused on pushing th elimits of profit and profit alone over everyting.
>t. leaf vfx worker
Yeah but talk to a punter: they know what they're watching is shit, and they'd rather watch something better, and would, if it came along. They just don't want to admit it that they pay $50 a month on shitflix subscriptions and 100% of it is garbage.
>vfx worker
Given that there's a huge audience for crappy-looking anime and basically free distribution, does anybody "in the industry" give any thought to trying to independently produce good-looking TV shows?
Real
because they put effort into it and also used props instead of outsourcing it all to moronic pajeets.
Before the 2010s, most studio blockbusters prided themselves in delivering the best special effects possible. The grindhouse nature of the MCU and the public eating it all up showed studios that having good vfx doesn't matter, especially when each studio has to crank out over half a dozen blockbusters a year
Coz they were mostly real.
Nowdays they are done seperately on a computer and pasted onto the footage and it never looks right.
they weren't able to outsource it to chinks and pajeets back then so they had to do it themselves.
because you suspend disbelief
Because they were real models made by real artists and not computer generated at all so they did not suffer from uncanny Valley
I think this stuff more often than not looks a bit more fake than CGI, but with the practical stuff, you had to wonder on how they made the effect, so it was visually interesting, but also interesting just for the fact they were able to make something like that
Now, theres no wonder, you don't even have to think about it, you know its a bunch of people sitting at computers making the stuff up.
There's also the degeneration of talent, ability, passion of the people doing the work. The amount of money thrown at CGI stuff is larger and larger but it just feels like the people doing it are going through the motions and have no genuine interest in it other than their paycheck.
CGI is perfectly able to make shit that looks real
Its just major studios only hire nepos and talentless hacks
this was done for a couple thousand by some tiny CGI company
The answer you're looking for is contrast (and the sharpness that goes along with it). Video games have that same problem now since they come overloaded with various VFX nonsense to the point any sort of discernible aesthetic is lost. Everything is a blurry smear.
Oh and post processing effects along with color grading. Again in vidya, everything is constantly graded with purple-teal-Black person-brown shade. That horrible tv show, Idol, actually has proper color grading and contrast and looks quite good cinematographically. But generally with digital you have zoomers deciding how to frick up your work in post production.
they used to treat the audience with respect but then the audience convinced them not to, the internet helped
It's because they don't think it be like it is, but it do.
Avatar 2 looks better than any movie made with pratical effects.
1. nobody gives a shit anymore due to cultural apathy
2. practical effects dudes are all dead or retired
3. underpaid and overworked nerds couldn't give less of a shit to make it look right since moronic boomer execs won't notice the difference anyway
>practical effects dudes are all dead or retired
Evil Dead Rises was almost entirely practical effects
There was a lot of CGI in that Evil gay Rises. Now Terrifier 2 had a lot of practical effects done well
I think it's the film grain and optical compositing which blends the edges so it looks like it was actually there
also more of the shots had real lighting and real stuff in them
and less shots per film mean they can really focus on them and do a good job instead of rushing them with a team of indians
What was that vehicle originally meant for that its shaped that way?
taxiing planes
Makes sense actually, thanks.
What's their tax policy?
They used to care
because even movies known for the cutting edge CGI still heavily used huge sets, make up, and shot on location.
Dinos torturing people is something i really hate about JP franchise.
shut up pussy homie
I was watching the extended content on my lotr DVDs a bit ago and it's insane the amount of shit they made for those movies. They pretty much had a prosthetics factory going for 3 years constantly because the prosthetics had a shelf life of around 6 days before they would need to go back for maintenance. Each costume had around 40 versions for various purposes. They built and planted Hobbiton and waited a year for the plants and brush to grow out to make the set look natural. They brought in an artist famous for illustrations of the books and brought his illustrations to life and then that artist got to sit in life size versions of sets in the forest inspired by his work and sketch those. I don't think anything like this would ever happen again because I don't know that there is any story that enough people care so much about that they'd like to bring it to life in this way.
This also. Artist autism plays a big part , which doesn't exist anymore
You would have VFX artists spending weeks or months or even years trying to perfect every last tiny detail on some effect that would only be on screen for 2 seconds.
The guy who did the effects for the thing ended up hospitalized due to health problems and exhaustion because he would spend so much time trying, making and remaking the effects on the thing to autistic perfection
back then you couldn't cry about racism or some horseshit if your movie failed for being dogshit. people just accepted the fact it was dogshit.
now, you do a little song and dance about transphobia, and blackrock bankrolls you and you keep plopping out steamers with no fear of repercussions.
Because we used to actually blow shit up.
Real gaussian blur + real film composite mix. Hand made greebleing matched with efficiently handled lighting in camera. Masters of the pipeline given ample time to experiment and if there was no time they could McGuyver their way to success.
Aside from technical reasons it's because the movies were better, you were more sucked into the world
Doubly so because you were a kid
I recently had Jurassic Park movies on in the background: it's amazing how much of the effects don't actually hold up, because I'm not engrossed in the films anymore. It got me wondering about e.g. old stop-motion sequences: we laugh at clips of them, it looks fake, but perhaps if we watched them in context, the whole movie on the big screen, they'd look much better
I am old so I saw both stop motion (at its very technical peak) as a kid and JP as a teen. Even as a kid I knew stop motion looked fake and janky frick, especially since compositing back then meant everything added to live action footage had an obvious black border around it. I think the "terror dog chases Louis Tully" sequence was about as good as it got and even as a kid I remember kind of rolling my eyes at the obvious fakery. But it was movies so you just used your imagination. JP was a real "holy shit" experience, like what seeing the first color movie must've been like. Those dinosaurs looked real and moved like real animals - even us cynical teenagers got our dicks blown off
>Those dinosaurs looked real and moved like real animals
Not really though, go back and watch it again, especially the daylight scenes
you know what to look for now, watch Julianne Moore getting swiped by green-screen stegosaurus tails in Lost World
>everything added to live action footage had an obvious black border around it
You just didn't know where to see the seams in 1993
>Not really though, go back and watch it again, especially the daylight scenes
I watched it again a few years ago and was actually impressed by how well the 1993 cg has held up, mostly I think because Spielberg grasped the limitations and shot around it really well. I think the gallimimus herd is the part that aged the worst. But in the theater at the time, it was like going from black and white to color. They moved like real animals! Shit was wild. And that T-Rex ending still holds up to me, but that might be because it was a cool as hell ending and all the kids in the theater gasped
Pickup shots are pretty normal anon. Sometimes stuff that works great on the page doesn't work on film, or when you're cutting the film you realize certain scenes have to go or be reworked or the movie doesn't flow right. Sometimes you're in the edit bay and realize a scene that you thought was fine actually looks like crap and needs to be reshot etc
Sure, but let's not pretend "pickup shots" haven't morphed into "let's just animate the movie over a period of years in response to focus groups"
meh every movie has them. And Marvel movies are garbage, but there is a decent reason for that one pic of Jackson holding that little piece of plastic
Pre-2000s a lot of it was practicals. And physical things tend to look more real than computer graphic. Also pre-2000 CGI was used sparingly. You had made one or big CGI shots,so the animators could focus on that and only that and it was being worked on for months, whereas now shit is changed on the fly and the 2,000 Indians working on it don't even know what it is they are animating. Lastly being CGI of the 1990s looked so bad they tried to hide it with dark lighting or rain.
modern movies will never touch this level of realism
Even cgi from the 00s looks better than most modern shit, hollywood has dropped in quality so much it's insane and I don't know how anyone can watch anything made in the past decade outside of the occasional exception.
They don't even try.
Specially because they have more special effects. Modern movies rely more on visual effects. CG is not a special effect.