4 ms·

I've been watching a lot of films recently. Films started getting better during the 80s, leading to a golden era from 90s to 2000s, I feel CGI has contributed t

by __s 5y ago

I've been watching a lot of films recently. Films started getting better during the 80s, leading to a golden era from 90s to 2000s, I feel CGI has contributed to a drop in quality. Especially in action films I've also tried to avoid selection bias: I've seen bad (& not funny B-movie bad) films from the 90s Death Proof is a masterpiece discarding CGI This isn't to say there aren't good films anymore, there definitely are, CGI isn't what makes them good tho

pm90 5y ago
Hah, Death Proof is a classic, there’s the scene in Texas Chilli Parlor where Stuntman Mike talks about how CGI is replacing what he did… was that the scene you’re referencing? Or is it that the movie itself is made with no cgi? Those last scenes couldn’t have been easy.
- __s 5y ago
  The movie itself is made with no cgi. Helps when the cast is made up of stunt actors Tarantino on JRE described how the car crash scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ) was done by pulling the two cars together with a wire & dummies for the gore
rectang 5y ago
I still remember seeing Tron as a 11 year old with my Dad. His reaction as we left the theater: they spent millions of dollars on special effects and a couple thousand on plot.
kzrdude 5y ago
CGI contributes to making everything bigger (see late GoT seasons), which isn't better storytelling or more compelling, just more "badass", which is what they were optimizing for anyway.
- catlikesshrimp 5y ago
  Late GoT seasons lacked books to be based on. Heck, Winds of Winter hasn't been released, yet. "They say" GRRM is rewriting it because we disliked HBO's GoT story. I say he had no idea what to write and now he knows what not to write.
leetcrew 5y ago
CGI can be beneficial, it just can't carry a film or show by itself. think about star wars OT. for a trilogy that's ostensibly about a galaxy-wide struggle for freedom, we spend an awful lot of time following a few people around in small rooms and remote earth biomes. as a product of the time, they hold up just fine, but like, where are all the normal people? are the rebels fighting for the freedom of a few dozen moisture farmers on tatooine and some small bears? the crew of a single star destroyer must be larger than the combined population of every world we see in the original trilogy (note: we don't actually "see" alderaan). the prequels (for all their faults) show that there was a very large part of the star wars universe that george lucas simply couldn't depict in the early 80s. I suppose some might argue it would have been better if he hadn't, but I digress.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  Yes, budget. The newer versions of ROTJ for example have scenes of celebration on other planets inserted after the DS2 explodes.
- hammock 5y ago
  More to do with budget than limitations of lack of CGI. Take a look at epics like Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. They use HUGE scales with no need for CGI.
  - leetcrew 5y ago
    if we do a naive inflation adjustment to 2021 dollars: star wars ANH: $50 million star wars ESB: $100 million star wars RoTJ: $90 million lawrence of arabia: $137 million ben hur: $144 million so yeah, the movies you mentioned had significantly larger budgets, but not massively so (at least compared to ESB and RoTJ). I'd argue the bigger difference is the subject matter. you can do a large 1930's battle without CGI just by throwing money at the problem. there isn't an amount of money you could spend in 1970 to do any of the prequel trilogy coruscant scenes. they probably could have done most of the naboo scenes, though. I'm also not arguing that huge CGI renders are always a good thing. most stories are really just about the interactions between a few people. I do think it's a significant value add for the scifi genre especially, where the world itself is often a character.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
>I feel CGI has contributed to a drop in quality. Especially in action films This is a logistics issue not a technology issue of the major players who make action movies these days. Your average Avengers film has the action sequences already pencilled out and being created and finished before the rest of the plot is even really figured out and the connective tissue of these scenes is filmed later which is why the action scenes all feel like just random set pieces that are sometimes tonally different and also often don't really have any plot development or repercussions to the rest of the movie because they're just set pieces the director is slipping their story between.
remir 5y ago
CGI can be incredibly well done and definately enhance a scene. But is has to be used by a competent director.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
There's a whole generation of filmmakers that shoot everything on a sound stage and have all the complicated stuff done in post. As the generations from the 70s/80s/90s who blended practical effects with tasteful CGI use retire, their knowledge and wisdom will be permanently lost. It's part sad and disgusting.

by __s 5y ago

pm90 5y ago

Hah, Death Proof is a classic, there’s the scene in Texas Chilli Parlor where Stuntman Mike talks about how CGI is replacing what he did… was that the scene you’re referencing? Or is it that the movie itself is made with no cgi? Those last scenes couldn’t have been easy.

__s 5y ago
The movie itself is made with no cgi. Helps when the cast is made up of stunt actors Tarantino on JRE described how the car crash scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ) was done by pulling the two cars together with a wire & dummies for the gore

rectang 5y ago

I still remember seeing Tron as a 11 year old with my Dad. His reaction as we left the theater: they spent millions of dollars on special effects and a couple thousand on plot.

kzrdude 5y ago

CGI contributes to making everything bigger (see late GoT seasons), which isn't better storytelling or more compelling, just more "badass", which is what they were optimizing for anyway.

catlikesshrimp 5y ago
Late GoT seasons lacked books to be based on. Heck, Winds of Winter hasn't been released, yet. "They say" GRRM is rewriting it because we disliked HBO's GoT story. I say he had no idea what to write and now he knows what not to write.

leetcrew 5y ago

CGI can be beneficial, it just can't carry a film or show by itself. think about star wars OT. for a trilogy that's ostensibly about a galaxy-wide struggle for freedom, we spend an awful lot of time following a few people around in small rooms and remote earth biomes. as a product of the time, they hold up just fine, but like, where are all the normal people? are the rebels fighting for the freedom of a few dozen moisture farmers on tatooine and some small bears? the crew of a single star destroyer must be larger than the combined population of every world we see in the original trilogy (note: we don't actually "see" alderaan). the prequels (for all their faults) show that there was a very large part of the star wars universe that george lucas simply couldn't depict in the early 80s. I suppose some might argue it would have been better if he hadn't, but I digress.

mixmastamyk 5y ago
Yes, budget. The newer versions of ROTJ for example have scenes of celebration on other planets inserted after the DS2 explodes.
hammock 5y ago
More to do with budget than limitations of lack of CGI. Take a look at epics like Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. They use HUGE scales with no need for CGI.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  if we do a naive inflation adjustment to 2021 dollars: star wars ANH: $50 million star wars ESB: $100 million star wars RoTJ: $90 million lawrence of arabia: $137 million ben hur: $144 million so yeah, the movies you mentioned had significantly larger budgets, but not massively so (at least compared to ESB and RoTJ). I'd argue the bigger difference is the subject matter. you can do a large 1930's battle without CGI just by throwing money at the problem. there isn't an amount of money you could spend in 1970 to do any of the prequel trilogy coruscant scenes. they probably could have done most of the naboo scenes, though. I'm also not arguing that huge CGI renders are always a good thing. most stories are really just about the interactions between a few people. I do think it's a significant value add for the scifi genre especially, where the world itself is often a character.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

>I feel CGI has contributed to a drop in quality. Especially in action films This is a logistics issue not a technology issue of the major players who make action movies these days. Your average Avengers film has the action sequences already pencilled out and being created and finished before the rest of the plot is even really figured out and the connective tissue of these scenes is filmed later which is why the action scenes all feel like just random set pieces that are sometimes tonally different and also often don't really have any plot development or repercussions to the rest of the movie because they're just set pieces the director is slipping their story between.

remir 5y ago

CGI can be incredibly well done and definately enhance a scene. But is has to be used by a competent director.

JohnWhigham 5y ago

There's a whole generation of filmmakers that shoot everything on a sound stage and have all the complicated stuff done in post. As the generations from the 70s/80s/90s who blended practical effects with tasteful CGI use retire, their knowledge and wisdom will be permanently lost. It's part sad and disgusting.