3 ms·
I don't get it. We've been using CGI for backgrounds for... Decades? And in a direct-to-tv disposable low-budget movie nonetheless. We also have a whole genre
by NikolaNovak 3y ago
I don't get it.
We've been using CGI for backgrounds for... Decades? And in a direct-to-tv disposable low-budget movie nonetheless.
We also have a whole genre of animated movies with no human actors which are of course bread and butter for Disney.
So while I feel there is outrage to be had, I also feel we are going waaaaaay over any reasonable line which will diminish the impact of our outrage. This seems like a silly distraction away from real systemic issues.
- vlunkr 3y agoYeah they are taking a viral clip of bad CGI and conflating it with current AI controversies. And although it’s Disney, these Disney channel movies have always been made on the cheap. Nothing to see here folks.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DoesntMatter22 3y agoWhy would people be outraged about something like this?
- wahnfrieden 3y agovfx were favored when presented as an option over actor/set talent because vfx studios were not union
- cyanydeez 3y agoThe next generation won't even know what a fake crowd scene looks like.
- FireBeyond 3y agoYeah, this is just SAG-AFTRA acting as the union it is, trying to protect jobs for its members. Next it'll be "Studios shouldn't be allowed to use CGI as long as there is a SAG member willing to play that role."