5 ms·

I think this criticism undoes itself. The thesis is that CGI visual effects are not convincing, not "weighty", implausible, unconvincing. But there's no mention

by pushcx 5y ago

I think this criticism undoes itself. The thesis is that CGI visual effects are not convincing, not "weighty", implausible, unconvincing. But there's no mention of CGI being pervasively used outside of blockbusters! I'm not enough of a film buff to say for certain, but I'd guess it's a majority of non-indie releases. It goes unnoticed because it's seamless and convincing. It's enormously helpful to avoid an expensive location shoot or reshoot, fix an error, add setting, integrate actors and stunt doubles, all kinds of things. This article doesn't even know to complain about it because it's so dang good. For an example off the top of my head, I know Wolf of Wall Street had a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g You can search youtube for the title of any movie and "cgi" or "visual effects" to turn up tons of examples. David Fincher's movies have some great examples. And to hop on my bar stool and opine, I think CGI is going to lead to a revolution in filmmaking over the next decade or two as it continues to get better and cheaper. There's ubiquitous criticisms that movies the last couple decades have been so expensive that studios only put money into blockbusters, or meddle in the creators' vision, or only fund simple action movies that are easily translated, etc. When low-budget indie films get access to this stuff they're going to to have the ability to make all kinds of movies rather than just contemporary character studies with limited sets and props. (Digital distribution will help, too.) CGI will be a landmark revitalizing force for movies, much bigger and stranger and better than the New Hollywood movement in the 70s.

the_af 5y ago
You have a point. I think in this kind of discussions when we say "CGI visual effects" we mostly implicitly also mean "...as used in fantasy/scifi movies". You know, the high profile, in-your-face effects. We don't mind the subtler effects and enhancements done to non fantastical movies, which go unnoticed and are therefore by definition suitably done :)
munificent 5y ago
The article does complain about it. The author says today's films have an overall level of unreality. Even when the CGI is good enough that you don't actively notice it, every scene emits a subconscious level of fakeness that pervades the whole film.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  If you asked me to name a movie that had a clear pervasive fakeness, I would never have thought "The Wolf of Wall Street". Conversely, I routinely feel like MCU movies are guilty of this. So it seems to be less "CGI always reads out as fake" and more how you're using it.
  - munificent 5y ago
    > I would never have thought "The Wolf of Wall Street". For what it's worth, I would have. Part of the reason you don't notice it is that they all have this sheen of unreality, so it's hard for any particular film to stand out. They're all color corrected to hell.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  On one level this is subjective, but even to the extent that I might grant the author to have a point about current film having a “subconscious level of fakeness”, it is only in contrast to older film persistently hitting you over the head with fakeness. If you grew up with it, sure, you learned to expect and accept it and so maybe it didn't break immersion most of the time, but not because it wasn't obviously unreal, but because it was obviously unreal in a way that you expected in cinema from experience.
_9omd 5y ago
Wow, I had no idea a movie like Wolf of Wall Street had so much CGI. This makes your point perfectly, that it truly is not noticeable and seamless in a lot of movies. CGI is just a tool, and it's not to blame for so many mediocre movies being made. This reminds me so much of the constant "JavaScript ruined the web" arguments I see on HN.
sleepybrett 5y ago
Pretty much every shot that looks out a window in pretty much every movie since the just about forever has been an effect of one kind or another just because if the problems with lighting the scene and the time of day being 'shot for' and what time it actually is. Most modern prime time television uses compositing for pretty much any shot on a street, they aren't standing on the street they are standing on a green stage. This article is just so much 'the good ol' days bullshit...'
SubiculumCode 5y ago
And a lot of those shots (wolf of wall street) look fake-ish.
- pushcx 5y ago
  Can you find any contemporary reviews or commentary mentioning it?
lelandbatey 5y ago
I agree that the criticism undoes itself. The negative CGI we talk about is the negative CGI we notice; we don't talk about all the CGI that we never notice, of which there is a huge amount. Take for example the movie 1917[0], a WWII film that's extremely practical. They actually dug trenches for the actors to run/walk through, they actually built a bombed out town for a central set-piece, and they actually had huge numbers of men running across a battlefield. Yet it's also the case that the movie seamlessly transitions from filmed shots of actors to complete CGI replacements for multiple seconds before transitioning back to filmed shots of actors, without a single cut or transition, and no one would know that unless you watch the effects breakdown.[0] I agree that CGI is almost certainly a massive vitalizing force. CGI is making it possible for creators, hollywood or no, to build far beyond what was ever possible to those creators in decades past. Take this tiny short film, "Royal Dumplings"[1], a student made short film for no budget[2] . Made with a camera, green cloth backdrop, and hardware store lights. What we get to see on screen, even if "un-real", is so vastly more interesting than what we'd have gotten 30 years ago at this price that I don't care. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_llajTMEXI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_llajTMEXI [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRt39HkI-e8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRt39HkI-e8 [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBbq9M-NzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBbq9M-NzA
cm2187 5y ago
To me it’s not that they are not realistic, it is that I know everything is CGI and I have the feeling I am watching a cartoon. It isn’t convincing anymore not because of the rendering itself, but because I know it is all fake. I like the roughness of 90s action movies. Think Die Hard 3 for instance.
Mawr 5y ago
Most of the author's complaints are centered around CGI used for moving objects, especially in focus. So humans, vehicles, robots, anything like that. CGI does seem perfectly suitable to model backgrounds, but the moment it's used to show movement, the difficulty of doing it right goes way up. > For an example off the top of my head, I know Wolf of Wall Street had a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g Yea those are all background replacements. When watching the movie two scenes stood out to me as very unreal-feeling CGI: the helicopter landing and the boat during the storm. And indeed, it's all CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D7MqlNWUEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D7MqlNWUEs. It's awful - just look at that piece breaking off at 0:26. The scene at 2:30 is egregious as well. Modeling the physics of such a complex scene well enough to be convincing to humans is essentially impossible. We are far too attuned to how our physical world works to be fooled by anything less than perfect. Use CGI where it makes sense - for mostly static backgrounds. For movement, use practical effects. Let the universe do the physics simulations for you.

by pushcx 5y ago

the_af 5y ago

You have a point. I think in this kind of discussions when we say "CGI visual effects" we mostly implicitly also mean "...as used in fantasy/scifi movies". You know, the high profile, in-your-face effects. We don't mind the subtler effects and enhancements done to non fantastical movies, which go unnoticed and are therefore by definition suitably done :)

munificent 5y ago

The article does complain about it. The author says today's films have an overall level of unreality. Even when the CGI is good enough that you don't actively notice it, every scene emits a subconscious level of fakeness that pervades the whole film.

handoflixue 5y ago
If you asked me to name a movie that had a clear pervasive fakeness, I would never have thought "The Wolf of Wall Street". Conversely, I routinely feel like MCU movies are guilty of this. So it seems to be less "CGI always reads out as fake" and more how you're using it.
- munificent 5y ago
  > I would never have thought "The Wolf of Wall Street". For what it's worth, I would have. Part of the reason you don't notice it is that they all have this sheen of unreality, so it's hard for any particular film to stand out. They're all color corrected to hell.
dragonwriter 5y ago
On one level this is subjective, but even to the extent that I might grant the author to have a point about current film having a “subconscious level of fakeness”, it is only in contrast to older film persistently hitting you over the head with fakeness. If you grew up with it, sure, you learned to expect and accept it and so maybe it didn't break immersion most of the time, but not because it wasn't obviously unreal, but because it was obviously unreal in a way that you expected in cinema from experience.

_9omd 5y ago

Wow, I had no idea a movie like Wolf of Wall Street had so much CGI. This makes your point perfectly, that it truly is not noticeable and seamless in a lot of movies. CGI is just a tool, and it's not to blame for so many mediocre movies being made. This reminds me so much of the constant "JavaScript ruined the web" arguments I see on HN.

sleepybrett 5y ago

Pretty much every shot that looks out a window in pretty much every movie since the just about forever has been an effect of one kind or another just because if the problems with lighting the scene and the time of day being 'shot for' and what time it actually is. Most modern prime time television uses compositing for pretty much any shot on a street, they aren't standing on the street they are standing on a green stage. This article is just so much 'the good ol' days bullshit...'

SubiculumCode 5y ago

And a lot of those shots (wolf of wall street) look fake-ish.

pushcx 5y ago
Can you find any contemporary reviews or commentary mentioning it?

lelandbatey 5y ago

I agree that the criticism undoes itself. The negative CGI we talk about is the negative CGI we notice; we don't talk about all the CGI that we never notice, of which there is a huge amount. Take for example the movie 1917[0], a WWII film that's extremely practical. They actually dug trenches for the actors to run/walk through, they actually built a bombed out town for a central set-piece, and they actually had huge numbers of men running across a battlefield. Yet it's also the case that the movie seamlessly transitions from filmed shots of actors to complete CGI replacements for multiple seconds before transitioning back to filmed shots of actors, without a single cut or transition, and no one would know that unless you watch the effects breakdown.[0] I agree that CGI is almost certainly a massive vitalizing force. CGI is making it possible for creators, hollywood or no, to build far beyond what was ever possible to those creators in decades past. Take this tiny short film, "Royal Dumplings"[1], a student made short film for no budget[2] . Made with a camera, green cloth backdrop, and hardware store lights. What we get to see on screen, even if "un-real", is so vastly more interesting than what we'd have gotten 30 years ago at this price that I don't care. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_llajTMEXI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_llajTMEXI [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRt39HkI-e8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRt39HkI-e8 [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBbq9M-NzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBbq9M-NzA

cm2187 5y ago

To me it’s not that they are not realistic, it is that I know everything is CGI and I have the feeling I am watching a cartoon. It isn’t convincing anymore not because of the rendering itself, but because I know it is all fake. I like the roughness of 90s action movies. Think Die Hard 3 for instance.

Mawr 5y ago

Most of the author's complaints are centered around CGI used for moving objects, especially in focus. So humans, vehicles, robots, anything like that. CGI does seem perfectly suitable to model backgrounds, but the moment it's used to show movement, the difficulty of doing it right goes way up. > For an example off the top of my head, I know Wolf of Wall Street had a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g Yea those are all background replacements. When watching the movie two scenes stood out to me as very unreal-feeling CGI: the helicopter landing and the boat during the storm. And indeed, it's all CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D7MqlNWUEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D7MqlNWUEs. It's awful - just look at that piece breaking off at 0:26. The scene at 2:30 is egregious as well. Modeling the physics of such a complex scene well enough to be convincing to humans is essentially impossible. We are far too attuned to how our physical world works to be fooled by anything less than perfect. Use CGI where it makes sense - for mostly static backgrounds. For movement, use practical effects. Let the universe do the physics simulations for you.