why the frick are they CGI, how hard/expensive it would be to build props? The future of movie industry is grim
why the frick are they CGI, how hard/expensive it would be to build props? The future of movie industry is grim
why the frick are they CGI, how hard/expensive it would be to build props? The future of movie industry is grim
Is Stan Winston even alive?
it's a horror movie for kids, do you think anyone would give a flying frick. Make some shit for cheap, make bank, forget about it. If CGI was cheap and available in the 80's TMNT would be all CGI, make no mistake about it.
CGI costs more to produce than practical effects.
That CGI is expensive is some hangover from the 2000's where they had to create specialized software for pretty much every movie. Now it's done in VFX factories in India and China.
It's still more expensive today than practical effects even when shipping it out to be done by third worlders. It's just no effort at all on their part. They negotiate a fee, and probably pay a friend's company a consulting fee for a kickback to help select the VFX house, and then it's that VFX house's problem to deliver the product on time or they'll sue.
So in essence they are paying more for a subpar product just to avoid having slightly more work and responsibility while filming.
It isn't about money, it's about producers getting more control in post. In otherwords: unartistic types who couldn't make it in the house of cinema any other way.
>It isn't about money
Clearly not because I explained that they're willing to pay more for a shittier product with CGI.
Right, I'm agreeing with you while also stating the real reason they're doing it.
Not that expensive. But studios have a weird aversion to physical props and sets because it doesn't allow them to change things up in post like the lighting.
It doesn't allow producers to mazquerade as artists, is what you mean. You actually have far more control over lighting if you're shooting on set with live props, lights, and costumes, and it also looks much better and more organic.
Sure. But it's "easier" in that in post the lighting, framing, and even the props can be manipulated by the simple click of a button. You don't have to pay a bunch of crew members / actors to be on a set either. It also makes it helpful for making those trailers that you often see for blockbusters that look very different from the final film.
Sure, just like how McDonalds is an "easier" hamburger than making one yourself from scratch with fresh ingedients. I'm not against CGI as a concept, but I am against it replacing prop, set, and lighting departments, making movies more soulless, and giving unartistic producers power they should not have. It also takes away power from directors, final-cut privalage is a thing of the past unless the director is also executive producing. But with fipms being largely CGI a producer can basically change an entire movie after the fact.
I'm not arguing for more CG slop in films, just saying that it's the easier route that studios take to quickly crank out these flicks.
They're not really cranking them out any faster than before. Saying it is an inherently "faster" process is an overstatement. And there is definitely less artistry involved
I'm reminded of that Nick Fury pistol prop photo. Executives and directors want to be able to say, nah, actually I want that duck animatronic in this scene, not the bear. With computer shit that's a $ change that means Ranjeet doesn't get to sleep tonight. Whereas with physical props that means $$$$ in reshoots.
I eagerly await all the banks self-destructing once the last Boomer that knows COBOL dies.
>Whereas with physical props that means $$$$ in reshoots
Maybe just get the important and crucial parts of the set done right during filming? Hate this reliance on CGI, it destroys the natural creative process on-set. Go figure it's the non-creatives all pushing for it.
Yeah, its this. I remember cg artists badmouthing marvel/disney because the producers/directors are indecisive fricks that want to keep changing stuff up to release. Its part of why the cg looks bad too since there's barely time to just polish it.
the horror kinoverse is coming
This is happening across all industries in America right now.
Basically all the hyper-specialized boomers are beginning to die / retire and never passed on their institutional knowledge. The animatronics of the 80's / 90's are a lost art.
As much as people criticize Disney Star Wars Ahsoka really hit a sweet spot of puppets and CGI that I didn't see a lot of credit for. It's a shame what they did right will be overwhelmed by other criticism. It's not realistic per se, but it looks great on a soul vs soulless scale.
This is one of the few pieces of legitimate praise I've seen about the Disney Star Wars tv shows.
It's actually kind of impressive how good things like Grogu look visually compared to some of the other special effects like the awful hoverbike effects in Boba Fett.
It's not boomers' obligation to pass on knowlledge, it's millennials/zoomers obligation to acquire it. None of this knowledge is hidden.
I'm confused, I read they weren't CG and that Henson Co. is doing the animatronics and puppeterring.
shouldve made them looking like this
>no nipples
cringe rule follower
nipples are against the rules chud
they're using real animatronics for the film
They are CGI??? Wasn't Henson Co. doing the animatronics?
They’re not CGI
That's what I thought.
You need to come out of your basement sometimes, you spent so much time in there that vibrant colours look unnatural to you and you confuse it for CGI.
Seek help and touch grass.
>why the frick are they CGI, how hard/expensive it would be to build props?
You're a fricking moron you know that OP.
Are you confused OP? They aren't CGI, they are props.
That looks awful