You must log in or # to comment.
Counterpoint, Godzilla Minus One was very well received and it’s 100% CGI. People aren’t against CGI, they are against shoddy work, which includes bad CGI.
Exactly. A great movie with a lot of CGI is still a great movie and a shit movie made entirely without CGI is still a shit movie.
A great movie with a lot of CGI is also great when you barely notice the CGI.
100% CGI
Godzilla isn’t real? 😰
Neither are any of the people in the movie.
Other way, Godzilla is real, but they CGIed the people for safety, because being around Godzilla is pretty dangerous.
A shame Japan isn’t real. It’s such an interesting concept.
Of course Godzilla is, it just wasn’t available for filming because it had to pillage some east Pacific cities.
“they”, please.
Maybe it’s because I’m a non native speaker, but I thought this was only used for sentient beings?
Or I just don’t get the joke, possible as well.
I’m being somewhat silly, though possibly Godzilla identifies as enby.
Same and agreed, but possible that I’m Godzilla and I know better.
Not probable. Just not completely impossible.
That said, my tummy hurts, that last village had some sort of disease I think.
What makes you think Godzilla isn’t sentient?
I know almost nothing about it.
And it behaves like the rooster my granddad had.
Except the fire breath.
Yeah his name is Gojira
Hail Mary had a ton of CGI too. You can’t tell because enough is real that the actor behaves like it is, the camera moves as if it is, and the artists know what real looks like.
A major reason the first Transformers looks and feels as good as it does, even so long after it came out, is that the director has an incredible ability to imagine where something will be after the CGI pass. He could shoot entire action scenes with the camera behaving as if it was reacting to what actors did, not an empty street.
Yeah. Most of the public simply doesn’t care. They just want a good movie\story.
The bean counters don’t seem to comprehend that the effort and work that goes into practical effects is part of the draw for people. Sure they go for the movie itself, but if it’s nothing but green screen the whole time, nothing feels truly at stake or at risk. You can’t convey the same intensity in CGI battles as you can in practical stunt work battles.
It’s similar to how I hate my job as a programmer now that we’re all forced to use AI. “But your job is easier now” - in ways maybe, but part of why I liked my job was because I had to solve problems myself hands-on. I didn’t need a robot trying to solve all of the problems. When you remove those stakes and the learning through building, you remove the essence of what made it appealing for people.
This describes why I love Lord of the Rings but hate The Hobbit.
Except, you know, LotR was had biggest CG battles in movie history up until that point and still ranks pretty high today. They definitely didn’t take the easy route by actually filming a lot of scenes outside while innovating on the CG front dramatically to make huge battles possible the likes of which were deemed nearly impossible at the time, though. There were some large innovations in the Hobbit movies too but they didn’t land. And yeah, too much green screens. They should’ve done it the hard way while still using just as much CG.
LOTR has tons of green screen and CGI. The Hobbit didn’t have the prep time that LOTR did, which meant they were figuring out what things looked like after shooting instead of before.
Basically every great effect film had tons of pre-production. You can’t figure it out in post and have it land.
You can’t convey the same intensity in CGI battles as you can in practical stunt work battles.
For this, I would contrast the space battles in older Star Trek series vs new ones. Back in the days when ships had to be physically modeled, space battles, except for the real series-defining ones, would have just a few space ships. You would probably know each ship by name and have seen some of its crew. They meant something. They seemed real. When you see a ship get destroyed, you’re just watching characters you saw earlier in the episode die. It makes the stakes feel real, as if these are real space ships crewed by actual people. But compare that to the battles seen in a show like Discovery. They’ll have massive space battles with giant armadas of nameless ships, none of which the audience cares at all about.
I think there was a time when CGI was new and novel, and the ability to depict massive battles without hiring and costuming thousands of extras was truly revolutionary. But the novelty has worn off. Big still has its place, but battles shouldn’t be big just for the sake of being big.
Project Hail Mary and not CG-stuffed? WHAT??? So they actually flew to the sun and found an actual rock alien in a huge space ship to film with? Because no, Rocky isn’t an actual puppet in every single scene. It’s mostly CG and so is the bubble around the guy. I despise this type of sensationalism so much because it spits and pisses on the work of dozens, if not hundreds of VFX artists doing heavy lifting to make movie magic happen. I haven’t watched Odyssey but I’ve seen all his other movies and Nolan himself said he’s heavily reliant on VFX in his acceptance speech at the VES awards 2011. This is a bunch of BS.
Rocky… Isn’t real? 🥺
Yeah Project Hail Mary was a good film but its bursting at the seems with computer generated graphics. The ship interiors, space, the planet, Rocky, Rocky’s ship, hell the fruit bowl is probably cg.
They had the full interior and most of the exterior as sets, but half the time walls and ceilings are removed to give space for the camera, lights, puppeteers, etc. It is full of CGI, but it all blends together seamlessly.
They CGI-d all the actor’s balls. For whatever reason that was important for the message.
That’s a conclusion you could draw but it’s hardly proof! The other cited were a film-length conclusion to a tv series, an unnecessary live action remake of an animated movie, and another superhero movie. Another conclusion one could draw is that people don’t want derivative crap and don’t care how it’s made or what the budget is if it’s a good film. Or you could conclude it’s a success of viral marketing, or…
Yeah, I would rather say audiences are a little tired of the usual franchise stuff and unnecessary remakes.
This is just ridiculous. Movie goers don’t give a shit how hard it is to make a movie.
The inputs affect the outputs.
Practical effects generally need to be planned before filming and that planning seems to both force restraint on the director and planning of the shot, which forces the director to decide on the visuals early in the process.
Practical effects also generally helps the actors give better performances since there are more visual cues informing emotional states.
There is also an uncanny valley that CGI can still fall in.
I agree that audiences likely don’t care about the difficulty of the shot, but it seems to affect how audiences receive the output.
Backrooms deserves a nod on this point too, at very least. It’s got truly brilliant set design and execution, among many other really strong points.
Just waiting for the behind the scenes material on The Odyssey showing how they recreated the real longship entirely in CGI because it didn’t look right on the waves, and also added CGI dolphins while they were at it.
This is also a good reason why I say late 80s/early 90s was peak cinema. Unique stories, practical effects and memorable music. I mean take 1993 alone: Jurassic Park, Schindlers List, The Fugative just to name a few.
That is a lot. And they’re still good for new viewers 30+ years later.
