3 ms·

People who say they don't like makeup, are often really just saying they don't like makeup they notice. Same is true with CGI. CGI is actually everywhere and o

People who say they don't like makeup, are often really just saying they don't like makeup they notice. Same is true with CGI. CGI is actually everywhere and often goes unnoticed, unless it is bad. I point to set-extensions as a perfect example of invisible CGI done well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47IIj-hws7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47IIj-hws7g

lkramer 5y ago
I think this is correct, but it's also what the article says between the lines. A problem with a lot of movies these days is that they got this great new toy, CGI, and then they don't when to stop. Whether the CGI is good or bad, perhaps because you don't have to work around limitation you follow the formula that whenever you want to add some action or don't know what to say, or don't know how to get the main protagonist out of a sticky situtation, you just add a bunch of CGI, and solve it that way. It ends up spilling into lazy storytelling and lazy film making in general, as opposed to when you had to work along side limitations to tell a story. I think to me this seems most evident in the Star Wars films, where as technology progressed, the lack of imagination in the creators when not forced became increasingly evident.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  There are a lot of bad uninformed takes in this thread, but I think this is the worst of them all. First, CG has been part of films for more than 25 years now and it isn't a "great new toy". More than that though, movies just aren't made like this. People don't go out with a camera and try to make something sequentially, they are planned from start to finish and refined for years before actual production.
  - lkramer 5y ago
    In all honesty, I think you're right. But I do feel something has happened. I definitely enjoy new blockbuster films a lot less then older ones. I still think fantastic films are made, but they are usually more independent films on smaller budgets, and some of them do have CGI, also obviously so, but it seldom matter. Is it a problem with how the modern film industry puts together movie? I don't know.
  - greedo 5y ago
    I remember watching Terminator 2 when I was in film school (1991). It was shot in 1990, and the tech for the T1000 seemed incredible. Then a friend showed me how much CGI was used to clean up simple stuff that you would never have thought of. Watch the T800 (Arnold/Stuntrider) jump his Harley into the river bed. That was wire work cleaned up via CGI. Not really necessary, they could have shot a diff angle to hide it, but that's a tell as well. Movies since then have always used low-key FX and CGI for this type of journeyman stuff. The thing that makes this great is that it increases a movie's verisimilitude. Your shots don't need to mask or hide things. They can be more organic and real.
daveslash 5y ago
I agree with this. I agree with the author of the post that there is something wonderfully authentic about movies with PFX before the rise of CGI, but then again I am noticing a lot of CGI; most of my family can't stop gushing about how unbelievably real most modern movies look ~ they're not seeing the CGI. They also love the Soap Opera Affect [1] of modern TVs, which I can't stand. So while I agree with the post's author, I think my agreement is one of a matter of personal preference, not objective evaluation. Side note: As a nice "stay at home" hobby during the pandemic, I've gotten really into film photography; shooting it, developing it at home, learning as much as I can about the history and science of it ~ one consequence is that I view older movies shot on film in a completely different light now (no pun intended). [1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect-in-tvs-and-how-to-turn-it-off/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-... Edit: Spelling, and to say that "my family" is both older and younger, so I don't think it's a generational thing, per se.

lkramer 5y ago

I think this is correct, but it's also what the article says between the lines. A problem with a lot of movies these days is that they got this great new toy, CGI, and then they don't when to stop. Whether the CGI is good or bad, perhaps because you don't have to work around limitation you follow the formula that whenever you want to add some action or don't know what to say, or don't know how to get the main protagonist out of a sticky situtation, you just add a bunch of CGI, and solve it that way. It ends up spilling into lazy storytelling and lazy film making in general, as opposed to when you had to work along side limitations to tell a story. I think to me this seems most evident in the Star Wars films, where as technology progressed, the lack of imagination in the creators when not forced became increasingly evident.

CyberDildonics 5y ago
There are a lot of bad uninformed takes in this thread, but I think this is the worst of them all. First, CG has been part of films for more than 25 years now and it isn't a "great new toy". More than that though, movies just aren't made like this. People don't go out with a camera and try to make something sequentially, they are planned from start to finish and refined for years before actual production.
- lkramer 5y ago
  In all honesty, I think you're right. But I do feel something has happened. I definitely enjoy new blockbuster films a lot less then older ones. I still think fantastic films are made, but they are usually more independent films on smaller budgets, and some of them do have CGI, also obviously so, but it seldom matter. Is it a problem with how the modern film industry puts together movie? I don't know.
- greedo 5y ago
  I remember watching Terminator 2 when I was in film school (1991). It was shot in 1990, and the tech for the T1000 seemed incredible. Then a friend showed me how much CGI was used to clean up simple stuff that you would never have thought of. Watch the T800 (Arnold/Stuntrider) jump his Harley into the river bed. That was wire work cleaned up via CGI. Not really necessary, they could have shot a diff angle to hide it, but that's a tell as well. Movies since then have always used low-key FX and CGI for this type of journeyman stuff. The thing that makes this great is that it increases a movie's verisimilitude. Your shots don't need to mask or hide things. They can be more organic and real.

daveslash 5y ago

I agree with this. I agree with the author of the post that there is something wonderfully authentic about movies with PFX before the rise of CGI, but then again I am noticing a lot of CGI; most of my family can't stop gushing about how unbelievably real most modern movies look ~ they're not seeing the CGI. They also love the Soap Opera Affect [1] of modern TVs, which I can't stand. So while I agree with the post's author, I think my agreement is one of a matter of personal preference, not objective evaluation. Side note: As a nice "stay at home" hobby during the pandemic, I've gotten really into film photography; shooting it, developing it at home, learning as much as I can about the history and science of it ~ one consequence is that I view older movies shot on film in a completely different light now (no pun intended). [1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect-in-tvs-and-how-to-turn-it-off/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-the-soap-... Edit: Spelling, and to say that "my family" is both older and younger, so I don't think it's a generational thing, per se.