Absolutely. CGI looks too crisp now making it look out of place. And to make it fit in more the rest of the filmography is matched to the colours of the cgi. Making the whole thing look too bright and lacks mood.
True. Things that can be done without CGI should never be done with CGI. Like the orcs, for example. With makeup and prosthetics it looks absolutely realistic. More realistic than CGI can ever be. Things you can only do with CGI (and that's less than you think if you put enough time and effort into the movie like Lord of the Rings) look either unrealistic or too realistic.
not necessarily. Reference and tools also play a role on how good the effects look, you can't just throw time at an artist and tell him to do something.
Black Panther is a great example of this. There are many INCREDIBLE VFX shots in the film. You can tell they are great because often you don’t notice them. However, the finale fight was given the least amount of time to animate. They were given less than a few weeks (2 weeks) to animate and finish the entire fight. The animators were pushed into a time-crunch and had to make sacrifices. That’s why the suit looks great in certain moments. And terrible in others.
If you remember, James Cameron actually waited around 10 years to make Avatar, because the technology to make it look how he envisioned it didn't exist. That's dedication.
I think one of the biggest factors why movies like Jurassic Park looks so lifelike is because the lighting and hues are completely unfiltered. So many movies use heavy artificial light and/or filters.
@@SMGJohn It does. Like all those "ufo sighting" or "mysterious creature" footages have low res on purpose because it tames the digital look/texture of CGI and can help blend into environment better. but of course that's not always the case.
@rain Alaska they did use cgi. I remember reading about Halo 2 using texture bump mapping and the developers mentioned jurassic park as a great example of that.
This. I think the biggest problem is that joe popcorn is going to buy a ticket to see marvel avengers 18: the civil league of retribution, no matter how bad the cgi is.
Old school animators are classicaly trained. They study perspective and how human body works. They also study how light react to different kind of materials. This lesson is mostly skipped by new generation of animators as they focus more on technical stuff rather than the artistic part.
But these people still have to be hired. Just because anyone COULD attempt the job doesn't mean they SHOULD be given the job? Your statement doesn't really address the question. Disney isn't letting people in their bedrooms on their home computers submit work for the next Marvel film.
i think the decision to have every action scene shot from impossible swooping angles just trips something in your brain where you know it's impossible.
I think it's because they've relied to much on cgi The reason jurassic park looks so good is because they knew they couldn't heavily rely on cgi, alot of the effects are practical and the cgi is only used when it has to be and that's jurassic park holds up so well. They had the mindset of trying to mainly use practical effects while using cgi as a backup from time to time when they needed it, if tney could get a practical shot they would do it, they wouldn't jump to cgi for laziness like today
Finally someone said it. Nobody ever mentions camera position in discussions about CGI. When the camera is zipping around in angles that a real camera can't do, it adds to the fakeness of the CGI models. The unconscious brain doesn't only trip on the physics of the CGI model, it also trips on the physics of the camera movement, because it looks like a video game shot.
The technology is getting better, yet I think its more the studios decision to cut budget and effort. And the general public isnt critical enough to see through it.
i think there is also an obvious lack of effort put into simulating camera effects and proper lighting which makes the cgi look more cartoonish. in the past cgi was more blended into the real world whereas now its on its own and not properly simulated as if it was being filmed by a camera
This is the same what happened to music from late 70s - compaines greed driving everything to shit and is also seen in new computer games -EA seems to understand nothing other than the next paycheck anymore.
@Milktank ™ actually it's largely crunch and a race to the bottom in terms of the amount of people studios are willing to hire and the amount of time they are willing to give them. The Black Panther suit looks unfinished because it is literally unfinished. The producer/director will ask animators to make massive changes to scenes (because producers/directors change their minds a lot) without realising how long it takes to render these changes (because CGI is now common and necessary, whereas it used to only be employed by people who were enthusiastic and more knowledgeable of its workings) so all the graphics artists time is wasted on less than vital changes instead of on final rendering.
'They' haven't forgotten. It's easier and often cheaper to use CG than shoot practical. It requires less planning. Byt that I mean it requires less planning to get an average result. To get a good result planning is still needed even with CG. Unfortunately many film makers and film studios have become lazy, everything is a post job now. And where the planning or the schedule is unrealistic (quite common) quality drops.
You can have bad cgi and still make a scene look good with the right amount of motion blur. But we live in a age where people love seeing fake things fight IN 4K!!!
Like you said, even though the special effects in LOTR are now dated, they still managed to reach the perfect balance between practical effects and special effects in my opinion. That way, things feel less off or simply weird, unlike more recent movies that achieve rather easily the "uncanny valley" impression
The orcs in LOTR look sooo cool due to the practical effects. They still creep me out whenever I watch it whereas in the hobbit its just so unreal looking. They are too smooth
It's funny because the climax used to be the most exciting part of movies, today the climax is where I lose my attention and grab my phone because they're just weightless pixels fighting on screen. I remember checking out mentally on the climax of Black Widow and Shang-Chi.
Imo Aslan looked nice since he barely did any real action scenes. Makes him feel like a real lion. Unlike the recent Lion King, which had a more realistic 3d model than Aslan, but all of those actions they did, all their dialogue plus the environment really made it look... Uncanny
Yes i think that’s also the problem the new cgi looks too cartoonish for example look at the cgi of the t-rex from jurassic park, he does look cgi but he is scary and then look at the one from jurassic world the cgi looks more realistic but he doesn’t that scary as the jurassic park one. Maybe it’s the blue lightning i dunno.
@@golden_shadow1243 the t-Rex from Jurassic park was a animatronic prop my dude. Unless your talking about the second and third Jurassic park movies if so you should say that. Also the reason why the T-Rex from Jurassic world lacked the same fear factor is simply because we know as the viewer that it is no longer the biggest threat and they made the movie sending that message.
I work in VFX production and I can back up his second theory. It takes a lot of time and care to properly and convincingly render CG Characters and Assets. The reason why Iron Man looked so real in 2008 and cannot capture the same effect in 2018 is that the number of VFX shots in films have skyrocketed in recent years. Example: Iron Man had approx 800 visual effects shots where Iron Man 3 had over 2000. It is insanely competitive and difficult to find qualified artists in the industry to match the amount of work required to complete all of these big budget VFX films that come out every year. Often times due to scheduling restrictions we need to submit shots for final before the artists working on them are happy with their work. The truth is, we know that the product we are delivering could be better, but we lack the time money and man power to do so. It breaks my heart to sit in calls with directors who flat out say, it’s not as good as we could make it, but it’s good enough that we can get away with it and we have no choice but to accept that, and we do accept it, because we are exhausted. Things can always be better, but at some point we all have to put the pencils (or Wacom pens) down.
sadly RDJ gets 25+ mil for a role meanwhile vfx studios bankrupt because no one fucking cares about "faceless" bunch who literally created 99% of the movie.
@@ChadDidNothingWrong The reason is that the VFX industry sucks ass. Why would anyone want to be a vfx artist when it means that you make 80% of a movie and get paid crap, and get no respect or recognition outside the field for the backbreaking hours you put in every day? No one would do that is the answer - except for the love of movies and vfx. And when people are in business with their hearts, they get shafted by the studios as they demand reworks and crunching, and they hold all the cards. For all they care the vfx house can go burnout and go bankrupt as long as they deliver the extra hours - and if they don't, there's always a new vfx house that will bid lower and make mistakes and deliver top quality, until they don't. When VFX people burnout, in my experience they don't get back to movies, because they have lots of paths to choose, and after your dream job with movies broke you, a high paying job casually rendering architectural visualisations sounds pretty good. btw. This sounds salty, but it's not based on personal experience, but on stories from my buddies in VFX-industry and some articles and documentaries about vfx-field and subsidies etc.
@@montymole2yeah, I’ll use fifa as a example, career mode has so much potential, so does UT aswell, and they could add other stuff in like a icons vs new players game mode, etc, but it’s EA so I don’t think that’s gonna happen 😂😂
@@Exarhadsgfds These are both excellent examples of bad character design. The CGI itself was okay. The character designs themselves made it unpleasant. You should refer to Lavender Towne's Redesigning the cats video. ruclips.net/video/NdUGvERSnnQ/видео.html
@@MAR-sc7np I don't know if English is your first language or not, but can you say that in a way I understand. Are you asking what I'm saying about the character design of Sonic from the movie? And yeah, CGI is actually pretty amazing, but lighting and character design can honestly kill it. People don't know the difference anymore...
They don't have the time anymore; expected production times are getting tighter and tighter. Movies used to be something made because it was great to watch it. Now they're produced because movie=money. We are greedy bastards.
@@thethinkingbeing9817 It's the same with computer games nowadays. We have a new Far Cry, Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed game almost every year and the creators don't have much time for improvements etc Now look at the Witcher series, there are many great changes in every new game because CD Projekt Red takes enough time to make their games perfect.
Movies look worse then video games I mean the last of us looks better then any cgi in movies nowadays and that game came out in 2013 and stuff like vr are gonna get to that level
I've said to myself many times over my gaming years that 'if they could make an entire movie off this cutscene it would be the best movie I ever saw". I know what you mean though, the CGI quality is better in movies. In video games the scenes are usually ALL CGI though, which not only makes it look better rather than superimposing CGI over the real world, devs can capture some intensity and true to the character you just don't see when recording real actors. A good example is Joker in the batman arkham games. No actor could even come close except for one, and that would be the one who voices him (Mark Hamill), but then the look is all off.
Stuff like this is happening in 3D animated movies too. The “Pixar look” has become so popular in studios that they chose what’s familiar instead of using a style that matches the tone of the movie. One example is the difference between the first and second croods movie. They completely redid the models for the sequel, and the gritty grimy textures of the first movie are completely lost, and as a result, I felt like I was watching toys move around on screen. And the color palate was AGGRESSIVELY vibrant, especially compared to the first one, in an unnatural overstimulating way.
Yeah, in the first one I’ve seen people point out how certain scuffs and dirt marks appear on the characters throughout the movie, subtle but it makes it seem that much more realistic. Even with the obviously made up plants and animals, it still felt real.
Yeah, there’s this show called the clone wars with a very unique 3D animation style, but when the same studio made a second show they got rid of all the “dry brush” texture and rounded everything off
I work in VFX and it typically comes down to over-promising and little time allowed to deliver. Typically these types of deals are made by people who have no idea how much work goes into CGI. ALWAYS use practical fx where possible.
well see... here's the thing: if they started just NOT revealing the movies and making all these promises and instead just drop it when it's actually finished and THEN announce it, that would give them much more time to work on stuff, and practical fx isn't necessarily needed unless you want to get something done fast, but if you want to go full cgi, you either have to sacrifice quality OR go through with what you're doing all the way which can take however long between months and years depending on how long a movie/show is, look at into the spiderverse, they used low fps to speed up production time and it still looks great
And now, four years later and the CGIs are even worse. 🤦♂️ Many people don't realize it but CGI work is actually an art and not enough appreciation goes to great CGI artists, and now there are less and less of them.
It depends. Sometimes there are movies with great CGI and some with bad CGI. Dune for example has really good looking CGI. So does the Mandalorian series. Good CGI is often not noticed, because it feels real and doesnt stand out. And thus isnt talked about. If a CGI artist has done his work well, you dont even notice, he has done any work for the most part.
I mean, my dad worked as an animator and you don't know hell if you haven't worked in animation or VFX. People are overworked with 14-hour weekdays and sometimes we even have to work on weekends. It's especially true for VFX and games, as those industries are soul-sucking. Although animation can be a little better due to the animation guild in the United States, for all the work they get paid the same as unskilled workers. I mean, it's a thankless job that we do because we enjoy it, but can we expect nothing more than a minimum wage and half-second names in our credits in return? Well, for all the above reasons, I left the animation industry, and now I'm currently enrolled in a master's in computer science program. If the industry doesn't treat its artists better, then there will be tough times ahead.
@@masonirwin1057 14hr+ staring at a computer day after day actually sounds mentally exhausting, and pretty sure the 'hell' was slightly hyperbolic m8 xD take the twig out of your ass
@@beamzsalt4252 it’s actually a full stick but that’s beside the point. A sedentary job is not hell. You get to do your hobbie of creating and artistry. Sure it’s boring but probably pretty good
Jurassic Park used lighting, shadow and weather effects to mask the CGI as much as possible as well as frequent switches back and forth between CGI footage and practical effects footage. I'm sure this what makes the CGI of that movie in particular look as good as it does.
But Birdemic was hands down the BEST cgi we've seen in years I'm not kidding, it's literally the best thing I've ever seen how the birds looked so fake just blew my mind.
Been around the CG industry for a few years now and the general feeling as an artist is that, back in the day, when they knew they will face a major technical difficulty, they would work their way around these problems on set / before shooting (for instance the T-Rex shot in the original Jurassic Park : technically we can only do shiny CG that lacks definition ? Make it in a rainy night, problem solved). Nowadays I feel like since we know that we have the techniques and resources to achieve photorealistic imagery, not much is really prepared on set for the CG work afterwards since we can do retakes over and over until client is happy, therefore sometimes a team can spend several months on a shot and in the end, the result shown would be the equivalent of a couple of weeks.
I'm sorry but even the best "photorealistic" CG is anything but realistic. The Prometheus Squid was as realistic as it gets but still was visibly CG. People thinking that it looked real have either never seen a real squid or were raised with CG and can't tell the difference just like a lot of younger people can't tell the differnce between an MP3 recording and one from a CD. The differences are really glaring they just have lost the abilities to distinguish them. The iron man suit never looked real to me. Now CG can do well animated non living things like cars and planes (Top Gun: Maverick) but is still miles away from doing anything convincing with living things. Also mind you a lot of movies look very artificial due to the post processing like color correction. Skin tones look like orange plastic due to Orange and Teal color correction and everything looks very artificial which makes anything CG stick out less. Make everything look more plasticky from the beginning and CG won't show as much I guess. Just compare 80s or 90s movies and pay attention how much more of the skin texture is visible and how much more natural the skin tones look.
Meh I mean, they try very hard to make the CGI real, I dont think the standards are entirely common to make it look just like real life, but whats way mre important is how animators like at the VFX studio are underpaid AND overworked
No, not necessarily. You can tell something like Iron Man would be CGI because those suits don't actually exist, it would have to be CGI. But if you're talking about something more realistic, like explosions, I agree.
That movie was criminally underrated and under watched. People complain about getting a bunch of poorly made blockbusters with weak visual effects but then they refuse to support a brilliant blockbuster with great visual effects and strong writing
Carter F Bladerunner 2049 had the most insultingly hole-ridden plot I’ve ever seen in a theater. The Room looks like a masterpiece of scriptwriting compared to Bladerunner 2049
MrDenzi why does Wallace want replicants to give birth? How did the resistance track down K or know that he was investigating robomessiah? How did robomessiah end up entrenched in the middle of Wallace’s brainwashing operation? And on a meta level, the mystery was total bullshit. A minute of consideration makes it obvious that K couldn’t be the robomessiah, so you’re left waiting over two hours for the movie to tell you this obvious fact.
I'm a CGI artist, from my own experience, If anything one of the main reasons is time and budget constraints. The more detailed and realistic the CGI looks, the longer the rendering time takes, and higher frame rates make for better quality. Another reason is the type of software that particular studio is using.
@@jrvv174 That depends on your budget. And that totally depends on what you're doing the CGI for. If you need a background for a RomCom, something like Vue, or if you can't afford Vue then Bryce is a cheaper alternative, and those programs are time consuming when it comes to rendering time. For something like creating digital stunt doubles, then something like Poser or Daz3D, the rendering time is faster, but then the time consuming part would be with the post work. It also greatly depends on what type of hardware one would have accesses to use. Me I just have my laptop, but Pixar have access to server farms.
@@TomasCorvidea So one gets less paid than a software engineer I guess for being a VFX artist huh? I heard 150 a year + bonus from a friend of mine in a big Hollywood company but I don't know if that holds true for a junior VFX guy, what'd you say?
As an industry professional, I can say that theory #2 is correct. There are many aspects of CGI, and not all of them have progressed at the same pace. The talent has definitely not scaled up at the same pace as certain aspects of technology. There was a sweet spot, I would say the decade of 1999-2009, where you had the amount of CGI required match the supply of high level talent. I agree with you that Iron Man and Avatar were basically the peak. Beyond that point, the demand outpaced the talent, so the quality got diluted. Like most of the things these days, it is more mass produced than hand crafted.
Honestly, the choreography is what really makes an action scene work. Uncut action scenes are good if the choreography is built for it. Typically, cutting works better for a 1v1 in anything from a real fight to a CG fight. If you have a fight with a handful of people fighting against something that can be uncut without any worries. At the end of the day, it comes down to movement. If the characters are not moving in a way that the camera can follow without cuts, it will look awkward as hell. It’s not all that much easier to do an uncut CG fight as it is to do a real one. It’s also really expensive.
@@rakoonshampoo2608 I must respectfully disagree with you here Jump-cut style editing is usually used to hide poor choreography and save time during production. People always used to say "Jackie-Chan your fight scenes are so fluid and well done, you must be a really great martial-artist" and he would say: No, we practised it for weeks and it took 100 takes to get it perfect on the day
Gh0st Well, yeah. I Bess if you mean where they do 10 cuts for one punch. If that’s what you mean than of course that’s just a bad decision by the director. There are many reasons a director might cut a fight that have nothing to do with the choreography. It really depends on what the motion of the scene calls for. Sometimes keeping the shot rolling can really screw up the pacing of a fight. Not all fight scenes would be improved if the whole thing was done in one continuous shot. In CG covering up choreography isn’t why you’d cut a scene. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if there are cuts in a CG fight scene they are there for reasons other than poor choreography. Someone took a look at it and said that the scene simply does not come together in the right way without a camera cut. Literally, the angle the camera needs to be at for one move to flow into another may be totally different. For example, if you have time, take a look at the CG trailers for RWBY (Specifically Red, Black, and Yellow). Monty Oum is a master at creative and well executed choreography. The cuts are obviously there for a reason and the fights would not feel as good w/out them.
Dustin Platt I think what sells it in particular is the movement. Rex has weight to it and doesn’t look „rubbery/weightless“ in it’s movement. I wonder how much of that is actually because of Phil tippets initial stop motion. He blocked out those scenes in stop motion before they decided to go cgi. I think the cgi guys used his work as a reference. Also they built a „dinosaur input device“ for him. I can’t find any detailed infos on it, but I think tippet helped out a lot to get the movement right.
@@joshuamerrill6446 some shots were an animatronic others were fully cg they didn't layer over the animatronic one. That's more of a modern technique like the did with Spider-Man, black panther and iron mans suits.
It's the perfect combination of quality CGI, quality animatronics, and an expert knowing how animals move realistically. They only used CGI for full body shots, when the rex was walking or had to make other really big movements a robot couldn't do static.businessinsider.com/image/55720bdc71ca1b7f308b4602/image.gif. A full size, functioning robot was used for all other shots, which was especially important for close-up shots where you could see a lot of detail www.themarysue.com/jurassic-park-t-rex/ On top of that, Jurassic Park was working with Phil Tippett who was a go-motion expert and knew how to make animal models move realistically. He built a small, metal t-rex model which was connected to a CGI t-rex on the computer, and when he adjusted the positions of the metal model, it translated to movements of the t-rex on the computer screen. Jurassic Park constantly used his knowledge of animal movement to make sure the CGI t-rex was moving like a 6 ton animal and looked good on screen. ruclips.net/video/VTGQ_K0DBPo/видео.htmlm20s
i have worked in visual effects for about 20 years. one thing i can tell you is that schedules become more and more compressed. at a certain point, no matter how many great cg artists you might have on the crew, the quality is going to suffer.
Yeah. One person can today do better effects at home than what a whole team could 20-30 years ago. The tech that exists today is just crazy. It just comes down to how much time you have available.
@@nidebau I think most people can look past the color grading because it is there more to give the tone of the environment at an artistic level than trying to actually tell us that the world is now orange.
I have felt this way for a while, and honestly feel like the examples you used were major players that defined my own thoughts on the subject. Movies just havn't been hitting like they used to for a minute. There are sooooo many mediocre movies that just aren't worth the time in terms of recent releases. When I want to watch movies now, I find older films which I have yet to see.
Yeah. Watching a modern movie is almost unbearable, with few exceptions. It´s SO much bloat and progresses SO SLOW! Look at a movie from say the 90´s - early 2000´s and most have the main plot going within the first 10-15 minutes. I watched Fresh the other day, and the INTRO TITLE played at the 30 minute mark. Movie was 2 hours long, you could easily have axed 30-45 minutes and it would have been a much better movie.
@@timothytim1053 "faster" films are just brain dead garbage insulting their audience's intelligence. You can't be expected to rewatch a movie or discuss it with friends to figure out something you missed before. EVERYTHING needs to be explained because writers don't know what they're doing. Every director thinks they're a screenplay writer. Every studio has to intensely monitor each step of production to ensure it is the least offensive piece of entertainment to date. Can't have get offended by violence so horror movies are just jump scares. Nobody can get offended by villains doing evil things so they're all secretly benign. The movie industry has been castrated to be calmer, prettier, and appropriate for children.
Me too. The good thing about the internet is that even if I somehow managed to watch all old American movies, I can still go watch classics from other countries and get to know other cultures like Italian movies, Hong Kong movies, Bollywood and so on. I honestly don’t bother going to the theater anymore.
That's because movies used to be live action sprinkled with CGI, today blockbusters are CGI sprinkled with live action. Even in scenes where there are real actors, 75% of the frame is CGI because the background is CGI, the props are CGI, some of the background extras are CGI. They're basically animated cartoons with human guest stars.
It still looks so good for 1993. So ahead of it’s time. I would argue that terminator 2 also still looks very solid for its time, then again, it is one of the best sequels of all time, so that’s not surprising.
The second one and third were good. I did not like the scenes or plot of the third, but it felt like a modernized message. Very relevant to life and times. I loved the second one, but the first one was the original and a breakout in CGI film.
The only way to improve CGI is to not abuse the artists! They are currently underpaid and are overworked to reach an impossible schedule. They need more time and a lesser work load to deliver on great CGI. Most movies shoot their films a year in advance and have over 2000 VFX shots! It can take days to weeks to perfect just one shot! Watch some of those 1 hour-10 minutes-1 hour drawing time lapses and you'll definitely have a relative understanding as to why CGI has been getting worse. People complaining about bad CGI need to understand the working conditions those artists often fall under and that they definitely wanted to do the best they could under an impossible deadline.
Maybe they shouldn’t bother then. Terminator genisys came out in 2015 and it is plain embarrassing that the CGI in Terminator 2 from 1991 beat it on every level.
we should make some standards, because just saying "artist need more time, pay and rest" can eventually lead to 5-year production of simple scene. And guess what? No investors would be found to invest in such long period without any gain, we will face a strong cease in movie and cartoon production.
@@MaruskaStarshaya I get what you're saying but at the same time, SOME amount of slowdown/elimination would be beneficial. If movies/shows took more time and investment to make, they wouldn't be so eager to shovel out mediocre content and just pray the public eats it up. Paying the artists more and decreasing their workload would have more positive effects on the industry than only better-looking CGI. But you're right that after a certain point, investors just aren't going to bother if they can't see a return on their money in what they consider a reasonable time frame - which is the main problem. The investors want their profits, and they want them ASAP, and are pretty oblivious to the fact that their insistence on such actually hurts their own interests. If investors could have a bit of patience and look at the big picture, everyone would win.
Also take a look at the Dark Crystal. Jim Henson's dark world creation. It's old, it's a cult favorite, but really check out the puppets and layout, it's amazing for not a drop of CGI (Skeksis eating scene).
Oh, the T-Rex in the original Jurassic Park was a full blown animatronic. *THAT'S* why it was so good. They likely meshed it with CGI for film shots. There are really cool (and scary) stories behind it as well. Like how it tended to move a bit when it was off/idle, so whenever it moved even a little bit, you could hear people on set screaming. And there was a close call when a tech actually needed to get inside the guts for some repairs, and they almost got stuck inside the t-rex's jaws.
Evan exactly this, combine this with movies that are relying on name recognition and not paying your artists and you get...almost every movie released today.
Evan Just skills, this dude does not have any skills, not understanding.... Not a money thing...You can do great Maya jobs that are close to nothing...
+Evan It used to be an art form. Lots of people with passion were involved. And you could see that in the movies and behind the scenes footage. Now artisric freedom is suppressed, people are underpaid, high-cost geniuses have been thrown out and known names are being used to just push agendas.
Triplex No, they’re actually real apes, I know a guy. He’s one of the apes. If you do enough research you’ll find him. His name is Zach Monkoid, his wife just got pregnant a month ago(she’s human, btw).
"glossy and rubbery" is going on all over. It's not even just CGI in movies, it's in animation too where they design stuff this way as if it's "cleaner/better" and it's just pathetic and a horrible trend.
Joesdf Joesdfg wouldn’t consider toads inspiration for MOST monsters. There’s also lizards and mammals that inspire monsters. Also, roads don’t look clean cut or rubbery. They look dry with bumps and things in their skin.
@@stevethea5250 Definitely not. I do not know about the marvel movies since I do not care about them, and about most I am not sure. Jurassic park - 1993 Avatar - 2009 (?) Rogue One - 2017 (?) Hobbit movies - 2011-2015 I think Justice league - 2016 (?) SW force awakens - 2015 Those are the movies I recognize, others might be gods of egypt, ghostbusters 2016 is in there too I think (one scene, that is one scene more than should have been in here), some transformers movie is on there too.
Crunch is a major issue as well for black panther the artists had to remake the whole scene in to weeks while other films have years of time to do the work.
@@rogerx1258 Look it is a pretty awesome movie I second that. The pacing of it is what I love, it's a rush from start to end and it's hard to take your eyes off it.
I was a cg artist through the nineties and one thing that changed dramatically during that time is turnaround. A team might have 2 to 5 years to build the tools and complete the shots for Jurassic Park where as 15 years later a studio might expect a vfx team to turn around similar work in a month, week or days.
You’re absolutely right about reference. Also pre production and TIME are the other biggest factors LOTR had years of pre production, (which is basically unheard of) and the Hobbit had essentially none. They were making up sets as they went, kind of similar to the Star War prequel approach. Except for the Gollum scenes, which were plotted early in production. Ridley Scott is a good example of a director who produces great visuals. He is known for doing a lot of work in pre production as well to visualize everything before they start rolling the camera and spending a bunch of money
I agree with you 3000. It probably would have taken probably trillions of dollars and hundreds of years to build and program a fake looking animatroni I think opting to a real T-Rex saved then money and probably helped make Jurassic Park the classic it is today
Excellent observations. Another thing that pervades virtually every movie and TV show now is the sunset/sunrise light wash in every scene, dominated by yellow and blue colouring. I’ve no idea why this happens now.
I think it also has to do with overdoing. A dinossaur back then would just groan, and we would see it from a certain angle and feel like we were there. Now it has to make a thousand of cOoL mOvEmEnTs with an amazing lighting setup that does not go with the actual scenery, and the camera goes spinning around it like crazy. It's like the movie is trying too hard to look fancy.
i had the feeling that they are usually aiming for style over realistic consistency. like even when the stylistic flourishes actually look really unrealistic they keep doing it at the cost of the CG elements looking tacked on and fake. it makes no sense but i'm guessing it's just the mentality of the CG artists themselves. they are artists, they are making discrete pieces of art for movies and they seem to be treating it the same way digital artists treat their own personal art. even though movies usually call for a more subdued, controlled aesthetic, it's possible the directors just don't have that much control. maybe there's just not enough time for them to send it back and demand they fix it. or maybe the directors are part of the problem too. i just find that hard to imagine, i can't imagine that peter jackson actually thought the CGI in the hobbit looked good. it feels like for whatever reason the director's vision is being compromised by some kind of push for more intense, stylish, fancy scenes. like that entire sequence in the goblin city is just the most absurd, unbelievable action i've ever seen in a movie. it's all very stylish, but unfortunately it's a pretty serious movie, not a dr. seuss book. that kind of stuff might be very impressive in a VFX/graphic artist's portfolio but it doesn't make for satisfying drama, at ALL
also having worked in graphic design myself i know there's a phenomenon in that world where everyone tries to imitate the "wave" at any given moment. whatever seems to be getting recognition and making money becomes a big trend and everyone tries to learn how to do it. so a few successful movies happened to have absurd, over the top caricaturish CGI elements and presumably every hollywood VFX designer felt obligated to sort of absorb that into their own personal repertoire of abilities.
I agree, all too often you see all these fast moving camera shots spinning around people while they are falling through the sky and its so hard to even keep track on whats happening in the movie. Way overdone, never used to see such crazy scenes in films once.
The limitations of older CGI also meant that they often did things to help offset their failings; the Rex in the original JP, for example, is shrouded in heavy rain and darkness that helps blur out aspects of it. By contrast, in the same film the CG Velociraptors are quite a bit more dated. Since EVERYTHING is CGI now, that means we're getting a lot more shots where there's perfect viewing conditions that make the flaws much more obvious. That's not the total biscuit, of course, but I think it's a factor.
Starship Troopers still looks amazing with a mix of miniatures and CGI. The visual effects teams mentions in a bts that the lighting during many bug scenes really allowed them to preserve convincing effects.
Marvel and DC are mastering the art of launching 1-3 movies a year with cheap cgi... It's sad Been re-watching good old movies instead of trying new ones...
Rubbery IS the exact word! I can't highly agree more. LOTR was badass, Hobbit certainly disappointed me. Edit: woah those numbers, thanks I guess? And please don't fight in the comments ;;
Honestly, I hate people who bitch about things when they haven't done their research into figuring out WHY they did it. The Del Torro version of The Hobbit that was years in progress got scrapped and Jackson was brought in at the last moment and given only 3 MONTHS of pre production. While the LOTR had 3.5 years of pre production. Go watch the Behind The Scenes of The Hobbit. Jackson is constantly stressed out and exhausted, always running against the clock. He was forced to rely on CGI because the studio was rushing him.
@Jubei Kibagami Hobbit was supposed to be shameless cash grab and that exactly what it was. It is a short story, very nice in what it is, but they made three movies out of it because it occured to THEM ;) that "Tolkien sells". "This guy Torkien sells! Did he write anything more? Yes, couple of things, for example this story for kids Hobbit or Bobbitt, I'm not sure. This is kind of childish and stupid with all those elves and trolls but you know what? It has a dragon! OK. So let's make movie out of it. No wait! I meant THREE movies so we can earn three times as much. People love dragons, they will pay!" ;)
Ones shot with more traditional sfx and on 35mm. The other with shit cgi and on hd. 35mm is superior to hd Light is captured different in 35mm it burns itself in the image it feels more realistic it has no digital division. But it's also that much more difficult to work with amd far more expensive. If the audience is ok with weak cgi and hd. Then who cares more profit. Go watch some of Kubrick's 2001 sequences then remind you're self how old it is. And then go watch the new hd shit you will get it.
@@CenterRow It's more relevant today than when you first uploaded the video. Most new releases are completely unwatchable. I spend my time showing my kids how movies used to look better than they do today. Remakes are terrible, especially lifelike remakes such as Lion King or Aladdin. My kids have lower quality movies than I did decades ago, it's really sad. Not just animation either, audio quality as well. Aladdin is a prime example of how the singing was so much better in the original than the remake. Overall everything about cinematography these days is worse. Your video is more relevant than ever before, and it's going to become even more relevant as the years roll on.
@@Garybutonline They actually used AI generation on the Grand Theft Auto remasters. Absolute disaster. The laziness and greed are off the charts. They are trying to automate everything. Then they put their hands up in the air and wonder why there are no jobs and the quality of products is so bad.
You put everything I've been feeling about movies today in perfect words. I'm really trying to give the new movies that come out a chance, marvel, Dc, etc, it's just so difficult to get immersed. Not only that but the plots today feel repetitive or soulless. I wish I can enjoy new cinema the way I joined movies from the early 2000s, 80s and 90s. Even animation has gone down hill.
I thought i was alone. Glad to see soo many others noticing this too. I'm soo bored by movies and computergames now days i can't bother with either anymore. The magic just isn't there.
PerfectionHunter I can understood u lol I am in the same boat too.and I am practically nitpicking everything while watching movies that my friends and sister is afraid of me and advising me'Can we take you to a therapist..?Because u simply can't enjoy anything.'But what can I do..?it's all showing up on the screen.the bad effects, bad acting,whatnot.
You may wanna get checked out for narcissism disorder, you'll never be alone in any action, thought, or idea. Someone else already came up with whatever you thought of.
Chill Dudie there's also only so many concepts in existence. No new concept can be created. Only the concepts which already exist can be manipulated, joined together with other concepts, etc.
I lost interest in movies and video games a long time ago. It was mainly due to what I thought unsatisfactory experiences at first but after a little reflection on it I realized that they were just reselling the same content just repackaged in a different form.
Same. I can't stand watching movies anymore. It's too fake, too predictable. Good guy vs bad guy, or guy wants girl, everything's working, climax point they breakup/goid guy gets beat up, then before the finale the guy wins over the girl, the good guy gets the help to beat the bad guy. Yawn... And don't get me started on horror movies.. Fucking 5 minutes of cut scenes showing a chick walk down a ten foot hallway towards the sound you know isn't the killer cause he's been behind the woman the whole time... 😑 I hate movies.
@@Eris_Norregard Still, look at the highway scene, it looks just awesome and holds up today, hell, I would say it's better than more of what was shown here. They highway scene is just perfect. And last but not least, look at the Heat shootout, it's the best shootout scene in all of movies, cause they used real guns with blank ammo and the sounds man! The sounds of these beautiful guns firing. Oh, and to be honest, I think Avatar looks fake, especially the blue aliens. They look just so out of place. I don't even like Avatar, cause the movie itself is unoriginal and you really don't know who to root for. Poor aliens, still, I am a human, humans first before anything.
@@belladonnahigh9206 Loved that Heat shootout! With action scenes and in particular fights, theyre choreographed and if taken too far just look stupid and unrealistic but with two real people it's believable. With CGI the fighters can literally do anything, defying the laws of physics which detaches any link with reality.
@@belladonnahigh9206 Oh don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Matrix trilogy. It's probably my favourite movie series. That's why that scene bugs me so much, it's just so bad compared to the rest. And you are right, subway scene is great. The fight choreography is insanely good, it's almost like a dance routine.
Henrik Wenne I’m a videographer and sometimes DP for short films. The amount of times I’ve heard people say this, is a clear sign that a lot of filmmakers just don’t give a shit about doing it the best way possible. It’s depressing really because sometimes I feel like i care more about the project than the guy who wrote and directed it.
David Martinez Thanks David! Your name will be forever attached to whatever you work on for everyone to see, so why wouldn’t you want to do your best? Here’s another comment I hear from directors when I’m about to change the lighting and camera position to prepare for a close up: “You know... It’s 4K, so you don’t have to change the light and camera position. I can just crop it in post...” Hahahaha! I do my best to not look perplexed, and respond, “Oh cool. But you know what? Since we have the time, If you don’t mind I’ll just make a quick lighting adjustment and move the camera. This way I can make sure I’m giving you exactly what you want.” However, I’d rather say, “What??? That’s dumb, AND stupid! Not to mention, dumb.”
If you haven't gone back and watched Avatar and seeing how strange the CGI looks in regards to motion and human movement, you remembering it too fondly.
I still can't get over how realistic the cgi effects look in Rogue One, seems to be something to do with how they applied the lighting on all the assets but it looks so good even now
Maybe because they were _trying_ to make it look a bit retro, to capture the kind of aesthetic from the original trilogy. Which, if that's the case, means directors should continue to look to that for inspiration as well as the companies financing them.
The stark contrast between sunlight and shade that you get in space is a criminally underused aesthetic in sci-fi, and the Battle of Scarif absolutely _nailed_ it. For me, that's a major part of why the final battle looked so real.
@@JeanRausis Agreed. A great director makes a hell of a difference. Edwards has been on my radar ever since Monsters, which blew me away when I saw it. He is a director who understands how to use effects - because he started out as an effects man. His experience shines through.
This is such an interesting topic that becomes even more relevant as time goes by. I do agree with the reference point, but I would also add that many of the films you mentioned that have good CGI are films where our brain has little to no reference. Our brains don't really know how they should look or act like such as LOTR or Jurassic park. Plus older films have established some reference for us which leads to sequels being held to them. This is why the avatar was so successful we had no prior reference to what they should look or act like. I do somewhat disagree with the last point and I think it is more to do with art direction as many newer directors want to leave an impression of creativity and innovation which tends to completely break our prior reference for better or for worse.
same happened with Pirates of Caribbean does someone remembered that Davy Jones was the best CGI creation it never looked fake and that slazar shit looks hilarious and many more mistakes in the movie
RKO 1718 omg yes! i’m still blown away by the work they done on davy jones! remember the scene where Orlando Bloom steals davy jones key from his tentacles? that looked absolutely realistic!
I still think Davy Jones is one of the best CGI creatures to exist on screen. Especially seeing as he's a main character and so gets a lot of screen time.
Marvel took recognition from this though, Infinity War got an Oscar for VFX which it totally deserved. They didn't over do the CGI neither did they under do it - it was literally perfect.
@@nanderlizernanderlizer684 if you think Infinity War has shit cgi then you have no idea what you're talking about. The level of detail they put into Thanos is amazing in every way. Better than most films nowadays, that's for sure. You can watch videos about how good the cgi is if you want, but calling it shit and equivalent to every other superhero movie is just plain ignorance. The level of attention they put in that film is better than most down to a technical level.
I think a massive part of this is better quality images make it harder to get realistic CGI since everything else is so detailed. Older movies don't have this problem because they are maybe only shot in around 1080p while some new ones are in 4/8k and since the cgi has to match the surroundings it takes a lot more work to make good cgi
The final fight, the crowds in all the ceremonial fights, the grainy scenery, all sweeping motion shots, Disney was like hey it's got 'diversity' it's bullet proof.
Exactly. The bear in Annihilation had more on screen presence than leading characters in most other films and it was literally just a guy in a black suit on set for one scene. But the model was amazing, the lighting was perfect, and the animation was pretty damn good so it worked. For the Alligator they went back to the Jurassic Park method and just intercut some CGI with a practical effect. Those shots were so good they actually take away from other parts in that film.
You're spot on like, 80% of the problem. I'm sure other people have said so by now, but as an animation school dropout, the rest of it is that CGI animators do not have a union. Practical effects people do. CGI animation is cheaper - not because it actually is cheaper to do in man hours, but because Disney can pay those people less. And the more they replace (including whole scenes, i.e. the frame of reference part), the more they save. The reason I dropped out of animation is less to do with lack of interest and more to do with this lol.
I hated black panther cus of that. CGI was so bad and the movie fell off the planet after kill monger became king. Why wouldn't they use the civil war black panther cgi as reference.
and it's such a simple fix. In Civil War, having that real suit there made ample difference. All they had to do was touch it up. They had the movement, the environment, the lighting... everything they needed, so the result was great. In Black Panther, they had no reference, just full CGI environment and CGI character creations, or the annoying habit of just having the actors in mocap suits. I really wish they'd give them *some* kind of suit to wear that looks similar, like they did in Civil War, that the CGI artists can have a better frame of reference for appearance/movement/lighting.
Full Frenzy they did have real suits if u see behind the scenes same with spider man but they completely cover it up with cgi which makes it looks seamless hence feel fake . If u compare homecoming to amazing u will see a difference amazing Spider-Man uses a flowing loose design. Same with iron man iron man had a real suit but look at infinity war the suit it self isn’t realistic it feels fake and unbelievable
100 percent correct. It's not that CG in movies is a bad thing, it is the CG effect companies that don't devote enough time or money to make it look perfect. Producers want more CG, faster and cheaper, and quality is suffering.
In all industries. A smaller studio could do better if they had the rights to the properties. Its the problem with the modern economy, you can only cut so much quality before you've ruined the market, you can eliminate your competition in other ways but in the end there is only a finite way you can cut costs while increasing profits. A lot of companies are more focused on overpowering eachother rather than create something sustainable. Nintendo is one of the few companies left that looks for that sustainability, its mostly an American problem.
I agree, CGI will never look exactly like the real world, there's just too much detail in the real world to replicate. This becomes very apparent when entire scenes are made in CGI. In these cases, people usually start noticing irregularities, there's maybe too much reflection on that surface, or this huge monster is moving faster than what would be possible in the real world. I'm not against CGI, but it needs to be used selectively.
@@Tendoboy1984 Those movies aren't trying to look realistic, besides, every studio can do whatever they want to do. We're just saying that if they want to make their movies look realistic and believable, they should be more selective with using CGI.
@@independentthought3390 I definitely wouldn't say never. It's already a bit hard to tell the difference as it is and we're just scratching the surface of CGI. Tech demos for game engines are getting insanely detailed already, most people can't tell the difference with those. At the rate technology has been developing I say in 50-100 years it will be completely indistinguishable from reality.
The CG of Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean still holds up beautifully today. Others worth mentioning are movies such as District 9, LOTR trilogy, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Terminator 2.
It really was! However, there is one scene where the Rohirrim come to Helms Deep´s rescue and you can notice the bad quality. Other than that though I never noticed anything
@@tamarren6575 There are also a few places where you can see the motion tracking isn't perfect (e.g, when they exit the mines of moria after losing Gandalf). However this is only really obvious after watching the movie too many times.
Im still blown away by the Massive war scenes with thousands of combatants fighting at once, I know the program they used or something similar has been used many times since but it's still amazing they managed it back then.
@@absolutelynot7236 Idk.. Personally this issue with CGI has been something that has been bothering me more and more over the past few years. It makes it impossible for me to sit and watch a lot of the movies. My biggest complaints go towards the newer Marvel movies, idky but they bother me so much I can't watch more than 10or15 min of them. Sometimes I can excuse it with some movies, but with a lot of movies that rely heavily on cgi all throughout the movie , that looks like shit.. I can't. And yes I understand a LOT of stuff is done cgi. Buildings, entire cities and cars and more. A lot of it is done really well, but I think EVERYTHING needs to be done really well or else it's ruined. And I also understand it's far easier for computers to render and use cgi for some stuff and harder for others. But still, with time and practice and people who know what they're doing, way more is possible than what's currently coming out.
@@bigpingpongballshot2229 you guys are confusing the terms here. CGI, Computer Generated Imagery, is not getting worse, the technology has advanced so far in the last few years, an incredible amount in fact, but the resulting artistry has suffered because of time and budget constraints imposed on the CGI artists during projects. Give the artists the right tools and enough time, and you will be blown away. What we are able to create at home now is just so far beyond what was possible even 15 years ago in a studio. But the amount of CGI used in movies these days means that the sheer volume of work for the artists is just insane. They don't have the time to polish everything as much as they would like to.
I too just came from that video. I think the pirates of the Caribbean is extremely underrated. The first movie was great but the beautiful shots and CGI of the other two are absolutely amazingly stunning. Just looking into the background of the world they built with CGI. Too bad the story was pretty shit.
@@jasonhymes3382 IMO the story of the 2nd and 3rd where fine, it was just a huge detour from what the first one was. The first was just a great one off story about some getting some buckles swashed. No one expected them to dive into a huge war with Goddesses and Pirate Kings.
Another GREAT one is General Grievous from SW Revenge of the Sith. That movie came out forever ago and he still looks amazing! They didn’t give him very much screen time because of how difficult and expensive it was to make him look so good.
I work for a company in Belgium specialized in CGI / render . And All a can say about thoses bad cgi scene is the light is ruining the 3d model. The light is the key in 3D rendering ! i.imgur.com/1Golhyn.png Just take a look at this kind of 3D render (yes all is in 3D), www.artstation.com/artwork/mGbny the light is making all the realism in that scene, not the models or the materials. Light and color grading at the best :) !
Hi, I'm from Belgium too. So, why can't these big budget movies just change the light ? Is it because of a lack of skills, underpaid artists or whatever ?
@@En_theo depends..its budget, and time.. if you want to render the most realistic lighting in a complex shot with a lot of real amd cgi stuff in it composited in the finale image... Its a tideous work, also truly absurd amount of time to render out the frames, even with a dedicated renderfarm at your disposal..... You have only so much time to finish the product...
So in short... movies producers are becoming more and more greedy. I find that really unfair for the artists, who sometimes make the magic of the movie more than the actors themselves.
I think what is making cgi worse is the lack of time and care studios are allowing for vfx artists to put into the projects at hand. Marvel is a prime example of a big budget studio that has the money to put the time in but instead are trying harder now more than ever to pump out projects as fast as possible. My buddy points to blade runner 2049 as an example of great cgi and said it because there was thought and time put into every shot about what was being presented on screen. Someone else here in the comments said dune had great cgi and from my understanding that project had alot of care put into its production.
Dude totally agree. Glad u used the example of the hobbit and lord of the rings. I remember when I first watched lotr I thought the orcs were so menacing and gruesome and scary, but in the hobbit they look so glossy and refined and fake, definitely didn’t feel the same
I despised that movie due to the horrendous CGI it had, maybe the storyline was good? Idk, I was too distracted watching a balloon man skate around the city on a hot wheels car
Delta Core the movie was actually really good with a great story that isn’t even tired or anything at all. It isn’t the best movie off all time but you can’t blame people for liking it. Killmonger was a great villain too and Michael B Jordan did an amazing job
Well I think t's the fact that CGI is now taken for granted and animators are given much less time. I also think that the horrible aesthetics are now fully accepted, since younger generations are so used to them. So let's play it safe and keep everything as it is. This happened with a LOT of artforms and many other things: we seem to have been stuck with things that look, sound and feel the exact same: lifeless, for at least 15 years.
I think the thing is that they used to use cgi as a complimentary dish, but now it’s often used as the main course
7:01
YES
Lmao did you even watch the video? That’s exactly what he just said
@@sterlinggutierrez5240 lmao did you think he might have made the comment BEFORE watching it? Smartass...
You're totally right Bubba
4 years later and it is INSANE how accurate this video essay still is
Indeed, wonder when it will get better
Came here cos of she hulk
Absolutely. CGI looks too crisp now making it look out of place. And to make it fit in more the rest of the filmography is matched to the colours of the cgi. Making the whole thing look too bright and lacks mood.
True. Things that can be done without CGI should never be done with CGI. Like the orcs, for example. With makeup and prosthetics it looks absolutely realistic. More realistic than CGI can ever be. Things you can only do with CGI (and that's less than you think if you put enough time and effort into the movie like Lord of the Rings) look either unrealistic or too realistic.
_The MCU has entered the chat_
Cgi look more real when the artist is given more time to create the effects
facts
not necessarily. Reference and tools also play a role on how good the effects look, you can't just throw time at an artist and tell him to do something.
Black Panther is a great example of this. There are many INCREDIBLE VFX shots in the film. You can tell they are great because often you don’t notice them. However, the finale fight was given the least amount of time to animate. They were given less than a few weeks (2 weeks) to animate and finish the entire fight. The animators were pushed into a time-crunch and had to make sacrifices.
That’s why the suit looks great in certain moments. And terrible in others.
no shit
Yup, fax
If you remember, James Cameron actually waited around 10 years to make Avatar, because the technology to make it look how he envisioned it didn't exist. That's dedication.
Same with George Lucas and the Star Wars prequel trilogy
@@BigDaddyKnez which still looked quite shitty, cgi-wise
Unpopular opinion: And it still looked like crap
Peter Jackson direct both LotR and The hobbit and Its hard to believe the cgi flops
The technology has existed long before it was ever released to the masses.
Movies look more fake every year but gaming looks more realistic
How.
But far less challenging and enjoyable
Play modern warfare 2019 and you’ll be blown away graphics crazy
Lmao video game design is so stagnant tf are you even talking ab
@@thomasl2646 have we been playing the same games?
I think one of the biggest factors why movies like Jurassic Park looks so lifelike is because the lighting and hues are completely unfiltered. So many movies use heavy artificial light and/or filters.
Also high video resolution exposes more CGI flaws.
@@leinad2934 But these days people demand 4k for everything.
+L S D
The resolution has nothing to do with it.
@@SMGJohn It does. Like all those "ufo sighting" or "mysterious creature" footages have low res on purpose because it tames the digital look/texture of CGI and can help blend into environment better. but of course that's not always the case.
@rain Alaska they did use cgi. I remember reading about Halo 2 using texture bump mapping and the developers mentioned jurassic park as a great example of that.
CGI is NOT getting worse.. its becoming MORE ACCESSIBLE to people with LOWER TALENT.
etyrnal SO MUCH THIS! Not enough animators have a real understanding of physics!
This. I think the biggest problem is that joe popcorn is going to buy a ticket to see marvel avengers 18: the civil league of retribution, no matter how bad the cgi is.
Old school animators are classicaly trained. They study perspective and how human body works. They also study how light react to different kind of materials. This lesson is mostly skipped by new generation of animators as they focus more on technical stuff rather than the artistic part.
@@anggi8699 Well going for more artistic doesn't always mean anatomically or perspectively correct though.
But these people still have to be hired.
Just because anyone COULD attempt the job doesn't mean they SHOULD be given the job?
Your statement doesn't really address the question. Disney isn't letting people in their bedrooms on their home computers submit work for the next Marvel film.
i think the decision to have every action scene shot from impossible swooping angles just trips something in your brain where you know it's impossible.
I completely agree, cameras doing impossible things ruin our sense of space and take the viewer out of the scene
I think it's because they've relied to much on cgi
The reason jurassic park looks so good is because they knew they couldn't heavily rely on cgi, alot of the effects are practical and the cgi is only used when it has to be and that's jurassic park holds up so well.
They had the mindset of trying to mainly use practical effects while using cgi as a backup from time to time when they needed it, if tney could get a practical shot they would do it, they wouldn't jump to cgi for laziness like today
Finally someone said it. Nobody ever mentions camera position in discussions about CGI. When the camera is zipping around in angles that a real camera can't do, it adds to the fakeness of the CGI models. The unconscious brain doesn't only trip on the physics of the CGI model, it also trips on the physics of the camera movement, because it looks like a video game shot.
The technology is getting better, yet I think its more the studios decision to cut budget and effort. And the general public isnt critical enough to see through it.
i think there is also an obvious lack of effort put into simulating camera effects and proper lighting which makes the cgi look more cartoonish. in the past cgi was more blended into the real world whereas now its on its own and not properly simulated as if it was being filmed by a camera
This is the same what happened to music from late 70s - compaines greed driving everything to shit and is also seen in new computer games -EA seems to understand nothing other than the next paycheck anymore.
I don't think it's a cut in budget but a cut in time to do so.
@Milktank ™ actually it's largely crunch and a race to the bottom in terms of the amount of people studios are willing to hire and the amount of time they are willing to give them. The Black Panther suit looks unfinished because it is literally unfinished. The producer/director will ask animators to make massive changes to scenes (because producers/directors change their minds a lot) without realising how long it takes to render these changes (because CGI is now common and necessary, whereas it used to only be employed by people who were enthusiastic and more knowledgeable of its workings) so all the graphics artists time is wasted on less than vital changes instead of on final rendering.
JKanimation I doubt justice league,black panther,and endgame had small indie budgets.
People have forgotten the benefit of combining CGI and practical. It is so important to use both.
It's critical for a good eye but not so important for the average viewer. And that is simply sad...
The new Dark Crystal movie is going to be great with the CGI and practical effects combo.
'They' haven't forgotten. It's easier and often cheaper to use CG than shoot practical. It requires less planning. Byt that I mean it requires less planning to get an average result. To get a good result planning is still needed even with CG. Unfortunately many film makers and film studios have become lazy, everything is a post job now. And where the planning or the schedule is unrealistic (quite common) quality drops.
You can have bad cgi and still make a scene look good with the right amount of motion blur. But we live in a age where people love seeing fake things fight IN 4K!!!
I bet practical typically saves a lot of time and money in the end too.
The original lord of the rings films felt so grand and on such a large scale. Films don’t feel that way anymore but they should!
The could feel the scale, even tho the scale wasn't that good
To be fair, the lord of the rings is one of the greatest films of all time
I agree! Thats why I hate hobbit
But without tom Bombadil they loose the best part of the story
@@nekman8521 Tom bombadil in no way shape or form advances the plot lol, it's a fun entry in the books sure, but totally unnecessary for the movie
Like you said, even though the special effects in LOTR are now dated, they still managed to reach the perfect balance between practical effects and special effects in my opinion. That way, things feel less off or simply weird, unlike more recent movies that achieve rather easily the "uncanny valley" impression
They still look great imo
The orcs in LOTR look sooo cool due to the practical effects. They still creep me out whenever I watch it whereas in the hobbit its just so unreal looking. They are too smooth
@@maddys7281 Agreed! I prefer and by far having actors and extras playing orcs rather than lousy special effects that in the end, just seem off
It's funny because the climax used to be the most exciting part of movies, today the climax is where I lose my attention and grab my phone because they're just weightless pixels fighting on screen. I remember checking out mentally on the climax of Black Widow and Shang-Chi.
best cgi: aslan from narnia - had me fooled for years growing up that they didn't just train a lion
They also used a life size mannequin with life like hair as a reference on the lion
Hands down for Aslan, and still Birdemic's bird are more Okay than the Live action Lion king last year.
Imo Aslan looked nice since he barely did any real action scenes. Makes him feel like a real lion. Unlike the recent Lion King, which had a more realistic 3d model than Aslan, but all of those actions they did, all their dialogue plus the environment really made it look... Uncanny
Davy Jones is still beautiful to this day.
Same for me
Transformers from 2007 still looks absolutely incredible and realistic. Transformers TLK from 2017 looks super cartoonish.
Yes i think that’s also the problem the new cgi looks too cartoonish for example look at the cgi of the t-rex from jurassic park, he does look cgi but he is scary and then look at the one from jurassic world the cgi looks more realistic but he doesn’t that scary as the jurassic park one. Maybe it’s the blue lightning i dunno.
Remember about the SuperSonic? They want to make it real but the audience want it the cartoon way
@@deenszxking6818 supersonic was just ugly not realistic
Whaaaaaaaat I've DONE!!!
I'LL FACE MYSELF
TO CRUSH OUT WHAT I'VE BECOOOOME!!!!
@@golden_shadow1243 the t-Rex from Jurassic park was a animatronic prop my dude. Unless your talking about the second and third Jurassic park movies if so you should say that. Also the reason why the T-Rex from Jurassic world lacked the same fear factor is simply because we know as the viewer that it is no longer the biggest threat and they made the movie sending that message.
I work in VFX production and I can back up his second theory. It takes a lot of time and care to properly and convincingly render CG Characters and Assets. The reason why Iron Man looked so real in 2008 and cannot capture the same effect in 2018 is that the number of VFX shots in films have skyrocketed in recent years.
Example: Iron Man had approx 800 visual effects shots where Iron Man 3 had over 2000.
It is insanely competitive and difficult to find qualified artists in the industry to match the amount of work required to complete all of these big budget VFX films that come out every year. Often times due to scheduling restrictions we need to submit shots for final before the artists working on them are happy with their work. The truth is, we know that the product we are delivering could be better, but we lack the time money and man power to do so.
It breaks my heart to sit in calls with directors who flat out say, it’s not as good as we could make it, but it’s good enough that we can get away with it and we have no choice but to accept that, and we do accept it, because we are exhausted. Things can always be better, but at some point we all have to put the pencils (or Wacom pens) down.
so true... "get away with it" is the rule now.
That is an interesting point, about the lack of artists to fill the demand.
sadly RDJ gets 25+ mil for a role meanwhile vfx studios bankrupt because no one fucking cares about "faceless" bunch who literally created 99% of the movie.
@@morbid1. just remember Gravity and Sandra Bullock in it, which had a salary $20 million PLUS 15% from the gross.
@@ChadDidNothingWrong The reason is that the VFX industry sucks ass. Why would anyone want to be a vfx artist when it means that you make 80% of a movie and get paid crap, and get no respect or recognition outside the field for the backbreaking hours you put in every day? No one would do that is the answer - except for the love of movies and vfx. And when people are in business with their hearts, they get shafted by the studios as they demand reworks and crunching, and they hold all the cards. For all they care the vfx house can go burnout and go bankrupt as long as they deliver the extra hours - and if they don't, there's always a new vfx house that will bid lower and make mistakes and deliver top quality, until they don't.
When VFX people burnout, in my experience they don't get back to movies, because they have lots of paths to choose, and after your dream job with movies broke you, a high paying job casually rendering architectural visualisations sounds pretty good.
btw. This sounds salty, but it's not based on personal experience, but on stories from my buddies in VFX-industry and some articles and documentaries about vfx-field and subsidies etc.
My verdict: CGI didn't get worse, filmmakers just gave up and got lazy
No i think they rushed it to quick, the animator get abused because they only have 4 months to make film... U know
@@noelle9724 i think The word abuse has lost Its initial meaning at this point
Not even filmmakers though, the studios care less and less about the art and more abou the money
it's the same with game developers, the games aren't bad, just the developers are, a program is only as bad as its developer
@@montymole2yeah, I’ll use fifa as a example, career mode has so much potential, so does UT aswell, and they could add other stuff in like a icons vs new players game mode, etc, but it’s EA so I don’t think that’s gonna happen 😂😂
"Is CGI getting worse?"
*plays the whole trailer for cats*
Or Sonic The Hedgehog
@@Exarhadsgfds exactly
@@Exarhadsgfds These are both excellent examples of bad character design. The CGI itself was okay. The character designs themselves made it unpleasant. You should refer to Lavender Towne's Redesigning the cats video. ruclips.net/video/NdUGvERSnnQ/видео.html
@@Kalciferonacid what yall on about the sonic design and CGI now is good
@@MAR-sc7np I don't know if English is your first language or not, but can you say that in a way I understand. Are you asking what I'm saying about the character design of Sonic from the movie? And yeah, CGI is actually pretty amazing, but lighting and character design can honestly kill it. People don't know the difference anymore...
It's because all the money goes into creating good characters and quality storytelling. No wait, that's the complete opposite of what's happening.
Exactly 👍
They don't have the time anymore; expected production times are getting tighter and tighter. Movies used to be something made because it was great to watch it. Now they're produced because movie=money. We are greedy bastards.
There are exceptions to that rule, but I agree.
@@thethinkingbeing9817 It's the same with computer games nowadays. We have a new Far Cry, Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed game almost every year and the creators don't have much time for improvements etc
Now look at the Witcher series, there are many great changes in every new game because CD Projekt Red takes enough time to make their games perfect.
Game of thrones
2009: Movies look better than video games
2019: Movies look like video games
look at detroit: become human, video games look better than movies
A lot of the tools used by both groups used to be different, now they are often using the same software kits but to different ends.
Movies look worse then video games I mean the last of us looks better then any cgi in movies nowadays and that game came out in 2013 and stuff like vr are gonna get to that level
@@peterjohnson1379 duuuhhh... Ray Tracing
I've said to myself many times over my gaming years that 'if they could make an entire movie off this cutscene it would be the best movie I ever saw". I know what you mean though, the CGI quality is better in movies. In video games the scenes are usually ALL CGI though, which not only makes it look better rather than superimposing CGI over the real world, devs can capture some intensity and true to the character you just don't see when recording real actors. A good example is Joker in the batman arkham games. No actor could even come close except for one, and that would be the one who voices him (Mark Hamill), but then the look is all off.
Stuff like this is happening in 3D animated movies too. The “Pixar look” has become so popular in studios that they chose what’s familiar instead of using a style that matches the tone of the movie. One example is the difference between the first and second croods movie. They completely redid the models for the sequel, and the gritty grimy textures of the first movie are completely lost, and as a result, I felt like I was watching toys move around on screen. And the color palate was AGGRESSIVELY vibrant, especially compared to the first one, in an unnatural overstimulating way.
Yeah, in the first one I’ve seen people point out how certain scuffs and dirt marks appear on the characters throughout the movie, subtle but it makes it seem that much more realistic. Even with the obviously made up plants and animals, it still felt real.
Things are changing now, in a way, thanks to “into the spiderverse “ that movie really brought 3D into new artistic territory.
sadly even hotel Transylvanian wen't this road
The Incredibles 2:
Yeah, there’s this show called the clone wars with a very unique 3D animation style, but when the same studio made a second show they got rid of all the “dry brush” texture and rounded everything off
I work in VFX and it typically comes down to over-promising and little time allowed to deliver. Typically these types of deals are made by people who have no idea how much work goes into CGI. ALWAYS use practical fx where possible.
Our salutes to you and everyone else who works in the VFX industry. I hope you never work for Marvel
well see... here's the thing: if they started just NOT revealing the movies and making all these promises and instead just drop it when it's actually finished and THEN announce it, that would give them much more time to work on stuff, and practical fx isn't necessarily needed unless you want to get something done fast, but if you want to go full cgi, you either have to sacrifice quality OR go through with what you're doing all the way which can take however long between months and years depending on how long a movie/show is, look at into the spiderverse, they used low fps to speed up production time and it still looks great
And now, four years later and the CGIs are even worse. 🤦♂️ Many people don't realize it but CGI work is actually an art and not enough appreciation goes to great CGI artists, and now there are less and less of them.
It depends. Sometimes there are movies with great CGI and some with bad CGI.
Dune for example has really good looking CGI. So does the Mandalorian series.
Good CGI is often not noticed, because it feels real and doesnt stand out. And thus isnt talked about.
If a CGI artist has done his work well, you dont even notice, he has done any work for the most part.
I mean, my dad worked as an animator and you don't know hell if you haven't worked in animation or VFX. People are overworked with 14-hour weekdays and sometimes we even have to work on weekends. It's especially true for VFX and games, as those industries are soul-sucking. Although animation can be a little better due to the animation guild in the United States, for all the work they get paid the same as unskilled workers. I mean, it's a thankless job that we do because we enjoy it, but can we expect nothing more than a minimum wage and half-second names in our credits in return?
Well, for all the above reasons, I left the animation industry, and now I'm currently enrolled in a master's in computer science program.
If the industry doesn't treat its artists better, then there will be tough times ahead.
@@animeforever8508 I’m pretty sure there are worse ways to experience hell than sitting at a chair and looking at a computer
@@masonirwin1057 14hr+ staring at a computer day after day actually sounds mentally exhausting, and pretty sure the 'hell' was slightly hyperbolic m8 xD take the twig out of your ass
@@beamzsalt4252 it’s actually a full stick but that’s beside the point. A sedentary job is not hell. You get to do your hobbie of creating and artistry. Sure it’s boring but probably pretty good
One of the best CGI I ever saw was Davy Jones
Clearly you've never been to Mustafar.
And that was 15 years ago!
Davy Jones was damm awesome.
Yes Davy Jones is best CGI model for me 💪
So true
Jurassic Park used lighting, shadow and weather effects to mask the CGI as much as possible as well as frequent switches back and forth between CGI footage and practical effects footage. I'm sure this what makes the CGI of that movie in particular look as good as it does.
But Birdemic was hands down the BEST cgi we've seen in years I'm not kidding, it's literally the best thing I've ever seen how the birds looked so fake just blew my mind.
There was cgi in that movie?!
It takes a lot of talent to make effects that look that fake.
@@mrfister825 there was none it was all 2-d layers and composting.
Yeah the dude roundhouse kicked a bird lmao
I’m at the point that I genuinely believe that movie is satire.
This is why the john wick movies are so pleasing to the brain
Ikr. They use practical effects
ikr. they really use real bodies.
Couldn't agree more.
Fariz Fathul Hakim well those are grounded movies so you don’t need cgi unlike when a giant creature or machine is running around
The John Wick movies are shit.
You have no idea how refreshing it is to watch a RUclips video where the intro is just "Hi".
You made my dreams come true
I was the 100th like
*loud 3d intro play* WHAT IS UP GUYS TODAY WE ARE PLAYING FORTNITE BATTLE ROYALE! WERE GONNA YAH YEET ON THEM HATERS AND GET A DUB!!!!!
Makes me sad, though! If he had 28 more seconds the video could be monetized.
You have no idea that there are many videos that doesn't have any intro
Almost all youtube videos start with "hey guys" which is the biggest proof that humans are copy-cats.
Been around the CG industry for a few years now and the general feeling as an artist is that, back in the day, when they knew they will face a major technical difficulty, they would work their way around these problems on set / before shooting (for instance the T-Rex shot in the original Jurassic Park : technically we can only do shiny CG that lacks definition ? Make it in a rainy night, problem solved). Nowadays I feel like since we know that we have the techniques and resources to achieve photorealistic imagery, not much is really prepared on set for the CG work afterwards since we can do retakes over and over until client is happy, therefore sometimes a team can spend several months on a shot and in the end, the result shown would be the equivalent of a couple of weeks.
It's curious how CG has developed. I can think of so many other possibilities for the technology. It is, after all, a form of animation
I'm sorry but even the best "photorealistic" CG is anything but realistic. The Prometheus Squid was as realistic as it gets but still was visibly CG. People thinking that it looked real have either never seen a real squid or were raised with CG and can't tell the difference just like a lot of younger people can't tell the differnce between an MP3 recording and one from a CD. The differences are really glaring they just have lost the abilities to distinguish them. The iron man suit never looked real to me. Now CG can do well animated non living things like cars and planes (Top Gun: Maverick) but is still miles away from doing anything convincing with living things. Also mind you a lot of movies look very artificial due to the post processing like color correction. Skin tones look like orange plastic due to Orange and Teal color correction and everything looks very artificial which makes anything CG stick out less. Make everything look more plasticky from the beginning and CG won't show as much I guess. Just compare 80s or 90s movies and pay attention how much more of the skin texture is visible and how much more natural the skin tones look.
If you can notice CGI they're not doing it right.
*If you can notice any effect
Meh I mean, they try very hard to make the CGI real, I dont think the standards are entirely common to make it look just like real life, but whats way mre important is how animators like at the VFX studio are underpaid AND overworked
@Dragon On Crack Why would they be different?
@@big-bonkin-head1034 true
No, not necessarily. You can tell something like Iron Man would be CGI because those suits don't actually exist, it would have to be CGI. But if you're talking about something more realistic, like explosions, I agree.
As soon as you started to bring up the Hobbit/The Lord Of The Rings comparison, I couldn't stop nodding to myself in agreement. Great Vid!
Yup, CGI ruined the Hobbit for me.
Legolas skipping on the falling bridge was a face palm of the century
What's that movie at 7:15? With the flower people? Also the next clip, is that the same movie?
@@kylez9094 straight from a platformer game to a future platformer game
I watched LOTR few times but I could never force myself to finish watching Hobbit, way too much of bad CGI and Hollywood stereotypes stuffed in.
The one recent film that sticks out in my mind is Blade Runner 2049. That CGI was stunning yet it also had a retro feel
That movie was criminally underrated and under watched. People complain about getting a bunch of poorly made blockbusters with weak visual effects but then they refuse to support a brilliant blockbuster with great visual effects and strong writing
@@carterf3585 Agreed. I thought the movie was phenomenal but I rarely see discussion about it.
Carter F Bladerunner 2049 had the most insultingly hole-ridden plot I’ve ever seen in a theater. The Room looks like a masterpiece of scriptwriting compared to Bladerunner 2049
jogiff what plot holes are you talking about?
MrDenzi why does Wallace want replicants to give birth? How did the resistance track down K or know that he was investigating robomessiah? How did robomessiah end up entrenched in the middle of Wallace’s brainwashing operation? And on a meta level, the mystery was total bullshit. A minute of consideration makes it obvious that K couldn’t be the robomessiah, so you’re left waiting over two hours for the movie to tell you this obvious fact.
It's not that its getting worse. Its all about how much time and effort the producers put into it.
yeah, for example, if i tried to make cgi it would be very very poorly done and everyone would take it personal and start attacking me about it
I'm a CGI artist, from my own experience, If anything one of the main reasons is time and budget constraints. The more detailed and realistic the CGI looks, the longer the rendering time takes, and higher frame rates make for better quality. Another reason is the type of software that particular studio is using.
What are the hours like when working on a time constrained project?
@@JFM94 It's a balance between how good you want it, Vs. how fast you want it.
What is the best type of software for rendering?
@@jrvv174 That depends on your budget. And that totally depends on what you're doing the CGI for. If you need a background for a RomCom, something like Vue, or if you can't afford Vue then Bryce is a cheaper alternative, and those programs are time consuming when it comes to rendering time. For something like creating digital stunt doubles, then something like Poser or Daz3D, the rendering time is faster, but then the time consuming part would be with the post work. It also greatly depends on what type of hardware one would have accesses to use. Me I just have my laptop, but Pixar have access to server farms.
@@TomasCorvidea So one gets less paid than a software engineer I guess for being a VFX artist huh? I heard 150 a year + bonus from a friend of mine in a big Hollywood company but I don't know if that holds true for a junior VFX guy, what'd you say?
As an industry professional, I can say that theory #2 is correct. There are many aspects of CGI, and not all of them have progressed at the same pace. The talent has definitely not scaled up at the same pace as certain aspects of technology. There was a sweet spot, I would say the decade of 1999-2009, where you had the amount of CGI required match the supply of high level talent. I agree with you that Iron Man and Avatar were basically the peak. Beyond that point, the demand outpaced the talent, so the quality got diluted. Like most of the things these days, it is more mass produced than hand crafted.
Completely CGI action scene. Still needs jump cuts
that is so infuriating😂
Honestly, the choreography is what really makes an action scene work. Uncut action scenes are good if the choreography is built for it. Typically, cutting works better for a 1v1 in anything from a real fight to a CG fight. If you have a fight with a handful of people fighting against something that can be uncut without any worries. At the end of the day, it comes down to movement. If the characters are not moving in a way that the camera can follow without cuts, it will look awkward as hell. It’s not all that much easier to do an uncut CG fight as it is to do a real one. It’s also really expensive.
@@rakoonshampoo2608 I must respectfully disagree with you here
Jump-cut style editing is usually used to hide poor choreography and save time during production.
People always used to say "Jackie-Chan your fight scenes are so fluid and well done, you must be a really great martial-artist"
and he would say: No, we practised it for weeks and it took 100 takes to get it perfect on the day
Gh0st Well, yeah. I Bess if you mean where they do 10 cuts for one punch. If that’s what you mean than of course that’s just a bad decision by the director.
There are many reasons a director might cut a fight that have nothing to do with the choreography. It really depends on what the motion of the scene calls for. Sometimes keeping the shot rolling can really screw up the pacing of a fight. Not all fight scenes would be improved if the whole thing was done in one continuous shot. In CG covering up choreography isn’t why you’d cut a scene. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if there are cuts in a CG fight scene they are there for reasons other than poor choreography. Someone took a look at it and said that the scene simply does not come together in the right way without a camera cut. Literally, the angle the camera needs to be at for one move to flow into another may be totally different.
For example, if you have time, take a look at the CG trailers for RWBY (Specifically Red, Black, and Yellow). Monty Oum is a master at creative and well executed choreography. The cuts are obviously there for a reason and the fights would not feel as good w/out them.
@@rakoonshampoo2608
Hm, i even think his unfinished masterpiece "Dead Fantasy" has a few jumpcuts:
It is to empathize the dramatic part of the action.
Facial expressions and human movement are by far the "hardest" CGI to recreate I would say. It always becomes too smooth compared to the real world.
Its amazing how original Jurrasic Park TRex looks after 20 years.
They built a fully functioning trex robot thats why it looks so good. And layered on top of that.
Stanwinston
Dustin Platt I think what sells it in particular is the movement. Rex has weight to it and doesn’t look „rubbery/weightless“ in it’s movement. I wonder how much of that is actually because of Phil tippets initial stop motion. He blocked out those scenes in stop motion before they decided to go cgi. I think the cgi guys used his work as a reference. Also they built a „dinosaur input device“ for him. I can’t find any detailed infos on it, but I think tippet helped out a lot to get the movement right.
@@joshuamerrill6446 some shots were an animatronic others were fully cg they didn't layer over the animatronic one. That's more of a modern technique like the did with Spider-Man, black panther and iron mans suits.
It's the perfect combination of quality CGI, quality animatronics, and an expert knowing how animals move realistically. They only used CGI for full body shots, when the rex was walking or had to make other really big movements a robot couldn't do static.businessinsider.com/image/55720bdc71ca1b7f308b4602/image.gif. A full size, functioning robot was used for all other shots, which was especially important for close-up shots where you could see a lot of detail www.themarysue.com/jurassic-park-t-rex/
On top of that, Jurassic Park was working with Phil Tippett who was a go-motion expert and knew how to make animal models move realistically. He built a small, metal t-rex model which was connected to a CGI t-rex on the computer, and when he adjusted the positions of the metal model, it translated to movements of the t-rex on the computer screen. Jurassic Park constantly used his knowledge of animal movement to make sure the CGI t-rex was moving like a 6 ton animal and looked good on screen. ruclips.net/video/VTGQ_K0DBPo/видео.htmlm20s
i have worked in visual effects for about 20 years. one thing i can tell you is that schedules become more and more compressed. at a certain point, no matter how many great cg artists you might have on the crew, the quality is going to suffer.
Yeah. One person can today do better effects at home than what a whole team could 20-30 years ago. The tech that exists today is just crazy.
It just comes down to how much time you have available.
We just never would’ve known considering most cgi in modern movies looks like total crap
How about resolution?, low resolution hide a lot of cgi defects. Now you are able to notice everything really easy.
Mad Max Fury Road has the best of both worlds: practical effects and computer effects.
It's mind blowing how much was done practical for the movie. But I gotta say, the color grading made some of it seem fake even though it wasn't.
yes!!! best movie
Nick LeMec I did not think anything was fake when I was watching it
@@nidebau I think most people can look past the color grading because it is there more to give the tone of the environment at an artistic level than trying to actually tell us that the world is now orange.
The fire that comes out from the guitar was TERRIBLY fake. lol
But I don't remember anything else, that movie was very well done.
I have felt this way for a while, and honestly feel like the examples you used were major players that defined my own thoughts on the subject. Movies just havn't been hitting like they used to for a minute. There are sooooo many mediocre movies that just aren't worth the time in terms of recent releases. When I want to watch movies now, I find older films which I have yet to see.
Yeah. Watching a modern movie is almost unbearable, with few exceptions. It´s SO much bloat and progresses SO SLOW!
Look at a movie from say the 90´s - early 2000´s and most have the main plot going within the first 10-15 minutes.
I watched Fresh the other day, and the INTRO TITLE played at the 30 minute mark. Movie was 2 hours long, you could easily have axed 30-45 minutes and it would have been a much better movie.
@@timothytim1053 "faster" films are just brain dead garbage insulting their audience's intelligence. You can't be expected to rewatch a movie or discuss it with friends to figure out something you missed before. EVERYTHING needs to be explained because writers don't know what they're doing. Every director thinks they're a screenplay writer. Every studio has to intensely monitor each step of production to ensure it is the least offensive piece of entertainment to date. Can't have get offended by violence so horror movies are just jump scares. Nobody can get offended by villains doing evil things so they're all secretly benign. The movie industry has been castrated to be calmer, prettier, and appropriate for children.
True
Me too. The good thing about the internet is that even if I somehow managed to watch all old American movies, I can still go watch classics from other countries and get to know other cultures like Italian movies, Hong Kong movies, Bollywood and so on. I honestly don’t bother going to the theater anymore.
That's because movies used to be live action sprinkled with CGI, today blockbusters are CGI sprinkled with live action. Even in scenes where there are real actors, 75% of the frame is CGI because the background is CGI, the props are CGI, some of the background extras are CGI. They're basically animated cartoons with human guest stars.
THANK YOU. Jurassic Park is one of the best examples, for sure. The first one looked REAL.
bison1203 pretty sure a lot of the dinosaurs were robots in the first one
@@slickguitar1037 The point, though, is that you can't tell what's animatronics and what's CGI - and that's a movie from 1993!
It still looks so good for 1993. So ahead of it’s time. I would argue that terminator 2 also still looks very solid for its time, then again, it is one of the best sequels of all time, so that’s not surprising.
The second one and third were good. I did not like the scenes or plot of the third, but it felt like a modernized message. Very relevant to life and times. I loved the second one, but the first one was the original and a breakout in CGI film.
@@slickguitar1037 yes.
The only way to improve CGI is to not abuse the artists! They are currently underpaid and are overworked to reach an impossible schedule. They need more time and a lesser work load to deliver on great CGI. Most movies shoot their films a year in advance and have over 2000 VFX shots! It can take days to weeks to perfect just one shot! Watch some of those 1 hour-10 minutes-1 hour drawing time lapses and you'll definitely have a relative understanding as to why CGI has been getting worse.
People complaining about bad CGI need to understand the working conditions those artists often fall under and that they definitely wanted to do the best they could under an impossible deadline.
Completely agree!
Maybe they shouldn’t bother then. Terminator genisys came out in 2015 and it is plain embarrassing that the CGI in Terminator 2 from 1991 beat it on every level.
@@southlondon86 movies dont need to be as heavily CGI-ed as they are nowadays, anyway. they should focus on practical visual effects as much as CGI.
we should make some standards, because just saying "artist need more time, pay and rest" can eventually lead to 5-year production of simple scene. And guess what? No investors would be found to invest in such long period without any gain, we will face a strong cease in movie and cartoon production.
@@MaruskaStarshaya I get what you're saying but at the same time, SOME amount of slowdown/elimination would be beneficial. If movies/shows took more time and investment to make, they wouldn't be so eager to shovel out mediocre content and just pray the public eats it up. Paying the artists more and decreasing their workload would have more positive effects on the industry than only better-looking CGI.
But you're right that after a certain point, investors just aren't going to bother if they can't see a return on their money in what they consider a reasonable time frame - which is the main problem. The investors want their profits, and they want them ASAP, and are pretty oblivious to the fact that their insistence on such actually hurts their own interests. If investors could have a bit of patience and look at the big picture, everyone would win.
Can I just say the ‘Last March of the Ents’ scene in LOTR: The Two Towers was breathtaking. Definitely beats some stuff that’s come out recently.
Yesss i legit got goosebumps everytime i watch the scene
Go back and re-watch Terminator 2: Judgement Day. The CGI in that movie is almost 30 years old and still holds up.
If we are too mention some more cgi giving emotion it is the Oliphants, they look so damn scary when they enter the battle of Minas Tirith.
Also take a look at the Dark Crystal. Jim Henson's dark world creation. It's old, it's a cult favorite, but really check out the puppets and layout, it's amazing for not a drop of CGI (Skeksis eating scene).
Oh, the T-Rex in the original Jurassic Park was a full blown animatronic. *THAT'S* why it was so good. They likely meshed it with CGI for film shots. There are really cool (and scary) stories behind it as well. Like how it tended to move a bit when it was off/idle, so whenever it moved even a little bit, you could hear people on set screaming. And there was a close call when a tech actually needed to get inside the guts for some repairs, and they almost got stuck inside the t-rex's jaws.
that's some fnaf type of stuff, i think you're making that up
to be fair, Deadpool did say: "big cgi fight coming up!" ; )
Poffo Ortiz that doesn’t say wether I’d would be shitty or good. Your comment shouldn’t even exist
he should have said Big crappy CGI fight coming up.that would have been fair yeah.
@@vincent9864 you shouldn't even exist. My comment was funny and relevant, get over it.
Lol :D it would have been great, if they didn't have any effects, just the green screen and crappy suits. That would have been great fun!
That's why Deadpool is outstanding the self-awareness alone puts its in it own category.
Never forget that making movies is a business...."good enough" is the price point.
Evan exactly this, combine this with movies that are relying on name recognition and not paying your artists and you get...almost every movie released today.
Evan
Just skills, this dude does not have any skills, not understanding....
Not a money thing...You can do great Maya jobs that are close to nothing...
That's why you put together a production cast who actually cares about the work to not just make a run-of-the-mill movie, but a film.
with that attitude that studios have, the next star wars or lord of the rings will never be made
+Evan
It used to be an art form. Lots of people with passion were involved. And you could see that in the movies and behind the scenes footage. Now artisric freedom is suppressed, people are underpaid, high-cost geniuses have been thrown out and known names are being used to just push agendas.
What do you mean Planet of Apes had great CGI are you trying to tell me those aren't real apes???
Haha, I know the 100 of the tempher insturoxcitive chemicals used in the Usophical Orianted Logostics. Oops sorry I get carried away sometimes.
Triplex No, they’re actually real apes, I know a guy. He’s one of the apes. If you do enough research you’ll find him. His name is Zach Monkoid, his wife just got pregnant a month ago(she’s human, btw).
Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!
@@weldon9254 *gasp* he can talk he can talk? He can talk he can talk
@@robloxgamerboy-zy9ge what are the list of movies especially from 2:18 onwards with the Purple ground thing following the truck
Maybe this is one of the reasons that each year passing by less and less I find a reason to see a movie.
"glossy and rubbery" is going on all over. It's not even just CGI in movies, it's in animation too where they design stuff this way as if it's "cleaner/better" and it's just pathetic and a horrible trend.
yeah, years ago we have Studio ghibli, now we have that ugly modern animes.
@@OsvaldoBayerista yep, no better example either than something equivalent to dragon ball super. Everyone looks like sticker rubbery glossy cut outs.
It is like you never seen a frog. Too rubbery for you as well? Toads are the classic inspiration for most monsters .... hence the look
and yet literal direct inspirations you speak of look way better than "the problem" per say. @@TheOriginalEntz
Joesdf Joesdfg wouldn’t consider toads inspiration for MOST monsters. There’s also lizards and mammals that inspire monsters. Also, roads don’t look clean cut or rubbery. They look dry with bumps and things in their skin.
Blade Runner 2049 has one of the best CGI in recent memory, so tasteful, elegant, real, and seamless.
Denis villeneuve is just on a total other level
@@simescoun22009 when is tat coming out
@@stevethea5250 it was in cinemas I think in 2017 or even 2016.
@@mbnhiphopmusik6429 can u tell all movies in the video?
@@stevethea5250 Definitely not. I do not know about the marvel movies since I do not care about them, and about most I am not sure.
Jurassic park - 1993
Avatar - 2009 (?)
Rogue One - 2017 (?)
Hobbit movies - 2011-2015 I think
Justice league - 2016 (?)
SW force awakens - 2015
Those are the movies I recognize, others might be gods of egypt, ghostbusters 2016 is in there too I think (one scene, that is one scene more than should have been in here), some transformers movie is on there too.
I glad you used black panther as an example. That fight scene made me feel like I was watching catwoman all over again lol
danielle bordley yikes! That’s bad 😵
Maybe the industry needs to stay away from Cat-heros
Crunch is a major issue as well for black panther the artists had to remake the whole scene in to weeks while other films have years of time to do the work.
This make you appreciate Mad Max: Fury Road
Nothing makes me appreciate that movie. If I missed irony on your part it´s all good.
@@rogerx1258 its good movie
@@forloop7713 it is most definitely not but if you believe that fine
@@rogerx1258 Look it is a pretty awesome movie I second that. The pacing of it is what I love, it's a rush from start to end and it's hard to take your eyes off it.
@@Sahiyena11 ^_^
I was a cg artist through the nineties and one thing that changed dramatically during that time is turnaround. A team might have 2 to 5 years to build the tools and complete the shots for Jurassic Park where as 15 years later a studio might expect a vfx team to turn around similar work in a month, week or days.
It makes me mad that some of these movies literally look like Shark boy and Lava girl
XParekilz Dang you did them dirty
@@zarekshockley7009 MEMORIES I USED TO FAP TO LAVA GIRL WHEN I'S YOUNGER
*HE RUINED MY DREAM JOURNAL!!!!!!!*
Damn this movie so fake
@@stevethea5250 LOL
You’re absolutely right about reference. Also pre production and TIME are the other biggest factors LOTR had years of pre production, (which is basically unheard of) and the Hobbit had essentially none. They were making up sets as they went, kind of similar to the Star War prequel approach. Except for the Gollum scenes, which were plotted early in production. Ridley Scott is a good example of a director who produces great visuals. He is known for doing a lot of work in pre production as well to visualize everything before they start rolling the camera and spending a bunch of money
The basilisk from harry potter and the chamber of secrets is amazing looking
So is Gilderoy Lockhart
Sploooosh
Movies are getting worse.
Adalid del Retraso tell that marvel
I think because in some of the scenes they use animatronics. Like they did with Buckbeak. :)
I don't care what anyone says that was a real T-Rex in Jurassic Park
I agree with you 3000.
It probably would have taken probably trillions of dollars and hundreds of years to build and program a fake looking animatroni
I think opting to a real T-Rex saved then money and probably helped make Jurassic Park the classic it is today
ahahah ulan :QWeq:Weq.We
Adam Dominguez yea,the T-Rex is an actor
@@palmtop_studios it was a joke lol and it was cgi
@@zarifhossain4510 The dude was also joking too
I thought I was tripping when I notice it was getting bad
Excellent observations. Another thing that pervades virtually every movie and TV show now is the sunset/sunrise light wash in every scene, dominated by yellow and blue colouring. I’ve no idea why this happens now.
Man I was actually watching black panther yesterday and agree so much with this, the panthers fight felt like a ps4 game
That is not true...Uncharted 4 looks much better.
Have you played Mad Max? You feel the weight of every punch.
black panther is one standing out example of bad graphics.
more like ps3 on low settings. Ps4 has at least some dignity with damn ambient occlusion and reflection
iv seen CGI movies or games have more weight then the final fight in black panther
I think it also has to do with overdoing. A dinossaur back then would just groan, and we would see it from a certain angle and feel like we were there. Now it has to make a thousand of cOoL mOvEmEnTs with an amazing lighting setup that does not go with the actual scenery, and the camera goes spinning around it like crazy. It's like the movie is trying too hard to look fancy.
i had the feeling that they are usually aiming for style over realistic consistency. like even when the stylistic flourishes actually look really unrealistic they keep doing it at the cost of the CG elements looking tacked on and fake. it makes no sense but i'm guessing it's just the mentality of the CG artists themselves. they are artists, they are making discrete pieces of art for movies and they seem to be treating it the same way digital artists treat their own personal art. even though movies usually call for a more subdued, controlled aesthetic, it's possible the directors just don't have that much control. maybe there's just not enough time for them to send it back and demand they fix it. or maybe the directors are part of the problem too. i just find that hard to imagine, i can't imagine that peter jackson actually thought the CGI in the hobbit looked good. it feels like for whatever reason the director's vision is being compromised by some kind of push for more intense, stylish, fancy scenes. like that entire sequence in the goblin city is just the most absurd, unbelievable action i've ever seen in a movie. it's all very stylish, but unfortunately it's a pretty serious movie, not a dr. seuss book. that kind of stuff might be very impressive in a VFX/graphic artist's portfolio but it doesn't make for satisfying drama, at ALL
also having worked in graphic design myself i know there's a phenomenon in that world where everyone tries to imitate the "wave" at any given moment. whatever seems to be getting recognition and making money becomes a big trend and everyone tries to learn how to do it. so a few successful movies happened to have absurd, over the top caricaturish CGI elements and presumably every hollywood VFX designer felt obligated to sort of absorb that into their own personal repertoire of abilities.
I agree, all too often you see all these fast moving camera shots spinning around people while they are falling through the sky and its so hard to even keep track on whats happening in the movie. Way overdone, never used to see such crazy scenes in films once.
The limitations of older CGI also meant that they often did things to help offset their failings; the Rex in the original JP, for example, is shrouded in heavy rain and darkness that helps blur out aspects of it. By contrast, in the same film the CG Velociraptors are quite a bit more dated. Since EVERYTHING is CGI now, that means we're getting a lot more shots where there's perfect viewing conditions that make the flaws much more obvious. That's not the total biscuit, of course, but I think it's a factor.
Lord of the Rings trilogy was beyond it’s time
Lord of the Rings trilogy was beyond its time
Lord of the time trilogy was beyond it’s ring
@@rmoim99 Fuck you.
@@leonardo9313 You made me laugh
Leonardo now? Here? Daddy?
Starship Troopers still looks amazing with a mix of miniatures and CGI. The visual effects teams mentions in a bts that the lighting during many bug scenes really allowed them to preserve convincing effects.
"I really miss go into the movies and get in fully sucked in into the new world"
COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!!
Marvel and DC are mastering the art of launching 1-3 movies a year with cheap cgi... It's sad
Been re-watching good old movies instead of trying new ones...
Rubbery IS the exact word! I can't highly agree more. LOTR was badass, Hobbit certainly disappointed me.
Edit: woah those numbers, thanks I guess? And please don't fight in the comments ;;
Hobbit was dissapointing on so many levels we can surely sing many songs about those.. ;)
Honestly, I hate people who bitch about things when they haven't done their research into figuring out WHY they did it. The Del Torro version of The Hobbit that was years in progress got scrapped and Jackson was brought in at the last moment and given only 3 MONTHS of pre production. While the LOTR had 3.5 years of pre production. Go watch the Behind The Scenes of The Hobbit. Jackson is constantly stressed out and exhausted, always running against the clock. He was forced to rely on CGI because the studio was rushing him.
@Jubei Kibagami Hobbit was supposed to be shameless cash grab and that exactly what it was. It is a short story, very nice in what it is, but they made three movies out of it because it occured to THEM ;) that "Tolkien sells".
"This guy Torkien sells! Did he write anything more?
Yes, couple of things, for example this story for kids Hobbit or Bobbitt, I'm not sure. This is kind of childish and stupid with all those elves and trolls but you know what? It has a dragon!
OK. So let's make movie out of it. No wait! I meant THREE movies so we can earn three times as much. People love dragons, they will pay!"
;)
Ones shot with more traditional sfx and on 35mm. The other with shit cgi and on hd. 35mm is superior to hd Light is captured different in 35mm it burns itself in the image it feels more realistic it has no digital division. But it's also that much more difficult to work with amd far more expensive. If the audience is ok with weak cgi and hd. Then who cares more profit. Go watch some of Kubrick's 2001 sequences then remind you're self how old it is. And then go watch the new hd shit you will get it.
Partly disagree, outside of the balrog (which looks amazing) a lot of the cgi in LOTR looks terrible.
4 years later this is more true than ever
Hate that it's still so relevant
@@CenterRow It's more relevant today than when you first uploaded the video. Most new releases are completely unwatchable. I spend my time showing my kids how movies used to look better than they do today.
Remakes are terrible, especially lifelike remakes such as Lion King or Aladdin. My kids have lower quality movies than I did decades ago, it's really sad. Not just animation either, audio quality as well. Aladdin is a prime example of how the singing was so much better in the original than the remake.
Overall everything about cinematography these days is worse. Your video is more relevant than ever before, and it's going to become even more relevant as the years roll on.
And let's not forget about AI generated content. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if you told me that rings of power was bot generated. Cool vid
@@CenterRow and it's ven worse
@@Garybutonline They actually used AI generation on the Grand Theft Auto remasters. Absolute disaster. The laziness and greed are off the charts. They are trying to automate everything. Then they put their hands up in the air and wonder why there are no jobs and the quality of products is so bad.
You put everything I've been feeling about movies today in perfect words. I'm really trying to give the new movies that come out a chance, marvel, Dc, etc, it's just so difficult to get immersed. Not only that but the plots today feel repetitive or soulless. I wish I can enjoy new cinema the way I joined movies from the early 2000s, 80s and 90s. Even animation has gone down hill.
I thought i was alone.
Glad to see soo many others noticing this too.
I'm soo bored by movies and computergames now days i can't bother with either anymore.
The magic just isn't there.
PerfectionHunter I can understood u lol I am in the same boat too.and I am practically nitpicking everything while watching movies that my friends and sister is afraid of me and advising me'Can we take you to a therapist..?Because u simply can't enjoy anything.'But what can I do..?it's all showing up on the screen.the bad effects, bad acting,whatnot.
You may wanna get checked out for narcissism disorder, you'll never be alone in any action, thought, or idea. Someone else already came up with whatever you thought of.
Chill Dudie there's also only so many concepts in existence. No new concept can be created. Only the concepts which already exist can be manipulated, joined together with other concepts, etc.
I lost interest in movies and video games a long time ago. It was mainly due to what I thought unsatisfactory experiences at first but after a little reflection on it I realized that they were just reselling the same content just repackaged in a different form.
Same. I can't stand watching movies anymore. It's too fake, too predictable. Good guy vs bad guy, or guy wants girl, everything's working, climax point they breakup/goid guy gets beat up, then before the finale the guy wins over the girl, the good guy gets the help to beat the bad guy. Yawn...
And don't get me started on horror movies..
Fucking 5 minutes of cut scenes showing a chick walk down a ten foot hallway towards the sound you know isn't the killer cause he's been behind the woman the whole time...
😑
I hate movies.
In the Black Panther fight scene impossible camera angles also added a subconscious layer of unreality.
Yep. It's the same problem as with the Neo vs. army of Agents Smith in Matrix Revolution.
@@Eris_Norregard Still, look at the highway scene, it looks just awesome and holds up today, hell, I would say it's better than more of what was shown here. They highway scene is just perfect. And last but not least, look at the Heat shootout, it's the best shootout scene in all of movies, cause they used real guns with blank ammo and the sounds man! The sounds of these beautiful guns firing. Oh, and to be honest, I think Avatar looks fake, especially the blue aliens. They look just so out of place. I don't even like Avatar, cause the movie itself is unoriginal and you really don't know who to root for. Poor aliens, still, I am a human, humans first before anything.
@@belladonnahigh9206 Loved that Heat shootout! With action scenes and in particular fights, theyre choreographed and if taken too far just look stupid and unrealistic but with two real people it's believable. With CGI the fighters can literally do anything, defying the laws of physics which detaches any link with reality.
@@belladonnahigh9206 Oh don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Matrix trilogy. It's probably my favourite movie series. That's why that scene bugs me so much, it's just so bad compared to the rest. And you are right, subway scene is great. The fight choreography is insanely good, it's almost like a dance routine.
"We'll fix it in post"
Are you sure? Really, really sure?
lol I tell myself this almost all the time
Henrik Wenne I’m a videographer and sometimes DP for short films. The amount of times I’ve heard people say this, is a clear sign that a lot of filmmakers just don’t give a shit about doing it the best way possible. It’s depressing really because sometimes I feel like i care more about the project than the guy who wrote and directed it.
@@malachimatcho7583 At least there will always be people like you who truly care
David Martinez Thanks David! Your name will be forever attached to whatever you work on for everyone to see, so why wouldn’t you want to do your best?
Here’s another comment I hear from directors when I’m about to change the lighting and camera position to prepare for a close up: “You know... It’s 4K, so you don’t have to change the light and camera position. I can just crop it in post...”
Hahahaha! I do my best to not look perplexed, and respond, “Oh cool. But you know what? Since we have the time, If you don’t mind I’ll just make a quick lighting adjustment and move the camera. This way I can make sure I’m giving you exactly what you want.”
However, I’d rather say, “What??? That’s dumb, AND stupid! Not to mention, dumb.”
@@malachimatcho7583 Yeah, true. Well have a good one, and keep up that good work!
If you haven't gone back and watched Avatar and seeing how strange the CGI looks in regards to motion and human movement, you remembering it too fondly.
I still can't get over how realistic the cgi effects look in Rogue One, seems to be something to do with how they applied the lighting on all the assets but it looks so good even now
Maybe because they were _trying_ to make it look a bit retro, to capture the kind of aesthetic from the original trilogy. Which, if that's the case, means directors should continue to look to that for inspiration as well as the companies financing them.
The stark contrast between sunlight and shade that you get in space is a criminally underused aesthetic in sci-fi, and the Battle of Scarif absolutely _nailed_ it. For me, that's a major part of why the final battle looked so real.
No, that's just because Gareth Edwards is a genius.
They used models
@@JeanRausis Agreed. A great director makes a hell of a difference. Edwards has been on my radar ever since Monsters, which blew me away when I saw it. He is a director who understands how to use effects - because he started out as an effects man. His experience shines through.
2007 Transformers movie looks better and more realistic than all 4 of the sequels.
FinalBoss true. True
YES, OPTIMUS looks soo bad now.
that CGI is honestly outstanding in that movie, doesn't matter what you think of the actual movie the CGI is just really good
Even with all the contingency errors and over use of explosions it still leaves a way better impression.
FinalBoss I would like to disagree with you. The last knight sucked, but it looked gorgeous, and I could see the better cgi they used very clearly.
What about the lack of character development and stories that are original. Thats the real crisis.
Yeah, people are willing to forgive off CGI effects if the stories and characters are good enough to distract them from the bad CGI.
Netflix DC series.
I think character development is a lot more common now, since thats what people like, more and more movies and tv shows have character development
@@jarlbalgruuf7701 yeah, problem is major blockbuster movies are failing on both fronts as of late
@@luthien47 its only a matter of time until marvel also falls for that and then its game over for the viewers
This is such an interesting topic that becomes even more relevant as time goes by. I do agree with the reference point, but I would also add that many of the films you mentioned that have good CGI are films where our brain has little to no reference. Our brains don't really know how they should look or act like such as LOTR or Jurassic park. Plus older films have established some reference for us which leads to sequels being held to them. This is why the avatar was so successful we had no prior reference to what they should look or act like. I do somewhat disagree with the last point and I think it is more to do with art direction as many newer directors want to leave an impression of creativity and innovation which tends to completely break our prior reference for better or for worse.
same happened with Pirates of Caribbean
does someone remembered that Davy Jones was the best CGI creation
it never looked fake
and that slazar shit looks hilarious and many more mistakes in the movie
RKO 1718 omg yes! i’m still blown away by the work they done on davy jones! remember the scene where Orlando Bloom steals davy jones key from his tentacles? that looked absolutely realistic!
I still think Davy Jones is one of the best CGI creatures to exist on screen. Especially seeing as he's a main character and so gets a lot of screen time.
Salazar's hair was so confusing and annoying when I watched it. He didn't feel real for even a second he was on screen 😂
Also, my older sister told me I was terrified of Davy Jones as a kid, so take that as you may. I say it's coz his character and CGI was so believable.
Davy jones still scared the shit outta me.
Salazar was shit in every angle
Man, you definitely pinned what bothered me about the Black Panther scene.
Marvel took recognition from this though, Infinity War got an Oscar for VFX which it totally deserved. They didn't over do the CGI neither did they under do it - it was literally perfect.
@@yysto infinity war has shit cgi. just like every other modern super hero film
@@nanderlizernanderlizer684 if you think Infinity War has shit cgi then you have no idea what you're talking about. The level of detail they put into Thanos is amazing in every way. Better than most films nowadays, that's for sure. You can watch videos about how good the cgi is if you want, but calling it shit and equivalent to every other superhero movie is just plain ignorance. The level of attention they put in that film is better than most down to a technical level.
The bad plot taken from the Lion King didn't bother you?
@@NotHypnoEmpire no, there was plenty of cartoon overkill
Davy Jones CGI on Pirates of the Caribbean was FANTASTIC!
Yeah but the fifth movie doesn't offer same or better CGI. I think it is really sad. But I still like it
So good it fooled at least one reviewer who wrote that the prosthetics were amazing!
Agreeee
Maybe one of the best CGI ever made.
We all saw the video VFX artists react to bad cgi, fuck off you dumbass. Try to come up with an original thought.
I think a massive part of this is better quality images make it harder to get realistic CGI since everything else is so detailed. Older movies don't have this problem because they are maybe only shot in around 1080p while some new ones are in 4/8k and since the cgi has to match the surroundings it takes a lot more work to make good cgi
got it: if i want to make good cgi, use very very poor graphics that way the cgi looks amazing in comparison
I knew something was not right with the final fight in Black Panther. Thank you for pointing it out.
The final fight, the crowds in all the ceremonial fights, the grainy scenery, all sweeping motion shots, Disney was like hey it's got 'diversity' it's bullet proof.
As Ian Malcom said ""They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
"Then they patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunch box."
"Crappy cgi finds a way"
"When you gotta go you gotta go."
I find CGI works best when it complements the real life set or a character who is actually present in the shot.
💯
Exactly. The bear in Annihilation had more on screen presence than leading characters in most other films and it was literally just a guy in a black suit on set for one scene. But the model was amazing, the lighting was perfect, and the animation was pretty damn good so it worked. For the Alligator they went back to the Jurassic Park method and just intercut some CGI with a practical effect. Those shots were so good they actually take away from other parts in that film.
You're spot on like, 80% of the problem. I'm sure other people have said so by now, but as an animation school dropout, the rest of it is that CGI animators do not have a union. Practical effects people do. CGI animation is cheaper - not because it actually is cheaper to do in man hours, but because Disney can pay those people less. And the more they replace (including whole scenes, i.e. the frame of reference part), the more they save. The reason I dropped out of animation is less to do with lack of interest and more to do with this lol.
The suit in Black Panther was cringe vs suit in Civil War was impressive.
I hated black panther cus of that. CGI was so bad and the movie fell off the planet after kill monger became king. Why wouldn't they use the civil war black panther cgi as reference.
and it's such a simple fix. In Civil War, having that real suit there made ample difference. All they had to do was touch it up. They had the movement, the environment, the lighting... everything they needed, so the result was great. In Black Panther, they had no reference, just full CGI environment and CGI character creations, or the annoying habit of just having the actors in mocap suits. I really wish they'd give them *some* kind of suit to wear that looks similar, like they did in Civil War, that the CGI artists can have a better frame of reference for appearance/movement/lighting.
Full Frenzy they did have real suits if u see behind the scenes same with spider man but they completely cover it up with cgi which makes it looks seamless hence feel fake . If u compare homecoming to amazing u will see a difference amazing Spider-Man uses a flowing loose design. Same with iron man iron man had a real suit but look at infinity war the suit it self isn’t realistic it feels fake and unbelievable
Am I having a stroke reading this or what
@@christopherrapczynski204 Heh, sorry i was fucking tired as hell when i wrote that I fixed it...up on reading what I said.
100 percent correct. It's not that CG in movies is a bad thing, it is the CG effect companies that don't devote enough time or money to make it look perfect. Producers want more CG, faster and cheaper, and quality is suffering.
blames the CG companies - explains why it is the producer's fault.
It is not their choice to devote money on it, they just do not get paid the money and given the time by the studio which they need to make it good.
@@deamongimli you must be fun to hang out with.
In all industries. A smaller studio could do better if they had the rights to the properties.
Its the problem with the modern economy, you can only cut so much quality before you've ruined the market, you can eliminate your competition in other ways but in the end there is only a finite way you can cut costs while increasing profits.
A lot of companies are more focused on overpowering eachother rather than create something sustainable.
Nintendo is one of the few companies left that looks for that sustainability, its mostly an American problem.
@@TjaVideos what? I am just pointing out that maybe they are laying the blame at the wrong feet.
It's not that CGI is getting worse it's that it's being over used. CGI works best when mixed with practical affects.
*effects - not being a dick, just thought you'd rather know than not.
I agree, CGI will never look exactly like the real world, there's just too much detail in the real world to replicate. This becomes very apparent when entire scenes are made in CGI. In these cases, people usually start noticing irregularities, there's maybe too much reflection on that surface, or this huge monster is moving faster than what would be possible in the real world. I'm not against CGI, but it needs to be used selectively.
So Pixar movies should have practical effects then?
@@Tendoboy1984 Those movies aren't trying to look realistic, besides, every studio can do whatever they want to do. We're just saying that if they want to make their movies look realistic and believable, they should be more selective with using CGI.
@@independentthought3390 I definitely wouldn't say never. It's already a bit hard to tell the difference as it is and we're just scratching the surface of CGI. Tech demos for game engines are getting insanely detailed already, most people can't tell the difference with those. At the rate technology has been developing I say in 50-100 years it will be completely indistinguishable from reality.
Avatar: The Way Of Water looks stunning. It's proof that good cgi is still very much possible.
The CG of Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean still holds up beautifully today. Others worth mentioning are movies such as District 9, LOTR trilogy, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Terminator 2.
Mad Max was mainly practical effects
Live Die Repeat was good, too.
I'm pretty sure someone sold their soul for the Davy Jones CGI.
Terminator 2 along with Jurassic Park are the two original films that kicked off CGI
Davy Jones in Pirates looked insane. Only a small handful of movies from any era looked as good as he did.
Lord of the Rings CGI was way way beyond it's time
It was done in 2001 but CGI was so good!
It really was! However, there is one scene where the Rohirrim come to Helms Deep´s rescue and you can notice the bad quality. Other than that though I never noticed anything
Because it was more practical effects than cgi
@@tamarren6575 There are also a few places where you can see the motion tracking isn't perfect (e.g, when they exit the mines of moria after losing Gandalf). However this is only really obvious after watching the movie too many times.
Im still blown away by the Massive war scenes with thousands of combatants fighting at once, I know the program they used or something similar has been used many times since but it's still amazing they managed it back then.
alita battle angel
The issue is, CGI is getting lazy.
They are trying too hard to pump out more movies quicker and quicker.
Tyler thats an old problem which can also be seen in video games
@@mosasako4679 It's a problem that can be seen in a lot of stuff
Tyler yes. Sadly
Why do we put up with it? Do we not have an eye for quality anymore?
@@absolutelynot7236 Idk.. Personally this issue with CGI has been something that has been bothering me more and more over the past few years. It makes it impossible for me to sit and watch a lot of the movies. My biggest complaints go towards the newer Marvel movies, idky but they bother me so much I can't watch more than 10or15 min of them.
Sometimes I can excuse it with some movies, but with a lot of movies that rely heavily on cgi all throughout the movie , that looks like shit.. I can't.
And yes I understand a LOT of stuff is done cgi. Buildings, entire cities and cars and more. A lot of it is done really well, but I think EVERYTHING needs to be done really well or else it's ruined. And I also understand it's far easier for computers to render and use cgi for some stuff and harder for others. But still, with time and practice and people who know what they're doing, way more is possible than what's currently coming out.
4 years later and this video still hits the nail. CGI to improve real world: looks better and better. Pure CGI: looks worse and worse.
It's not the CGI that keeps getting worse, it's the effort and time they put in order to create something.
Therefore they put less effort into the CGI.... So the CGI is worse....
@@reuben3588 If someone made you a bad salad, would you say that salads are getting worse?
@@bigpingpongballshot2229 you guys are confusing the terms here. CGI, Computer Generated Imagery, is not getting worse, the technology has advanced so far in the last few years, an incredible amount in fact, but the resulting artistry has suffered because of time and budget constraints imposed on the CGI artists during projects. Give the artists the right tools and enough time, and you will be blown away. What we are able to create at home now is just so far beyond what was possible even 15 years ago in a studio. But the amount of CGI used in movies these days means that the sheer volume of work for the artists is just insane. They don't have the time to polish everything as much as they would like to.
@@aldobonaso3481 thats what i said in my initial comment, i agree
@@reuben3588 wrong
well the cgi with the balrog and the cgi on david jones is holding up today
I too just came from that video. I think the pirates of the Caribbean is extremely underrated. The first movie was great but the beautiful shots and CGI of the other two are absolutely amazingly stunning. Just looking into the background of the world they built with CGI. Too bad the story was pretty shit.
@@jasonhymes3382 IMO the story of the 2nd and 3rd where fine, it was just a huge detour from what the first one was. The first was just a great one off story about some getting some buckles swashed. No one expected them to dive into a huge war with Goddesses and Pirate Kings.
Another GREAT one is General Grievous from SW Revenge of the Sith. That movie came out forever ago and he still looks amazing! They didn’t give him very much screen time because of how difficult and expensive it was to make him look so good.
THE BALROG" IS THE BEST"
I think the problem is more the green screen insertion which is not that good
I work for a company in Belgium specialized in CGI / render . And All a can say about thoses bad cgi scene is the light is ruining the 3d model. The light is the key in 3D rendering ! i.imgur.com/1Golhyn.png
Just take a look at this kind of 3D render (yes all is in 3D), www.artstation.com/artwork/mGbny
the light is making all the realism in that scene, not the models or the materials. Light and color grading at the best :) !
Wow! That's so cool! Thank you so much for the insight!
i loved that clip... looked amazing ..
Hi, I'm from Belgium too. So, why can't these big budget movies just change the light ? Is it because of a lack of skills, underpaid artists or whatever ?
@@En_theo depends..its budget, and time.. if you want to render the most realistic lighting in a complex shot with a lot of real amd cgi stuff in it composited in the finale image... Its a tideous work, also truly absurd amount of time to render out the frames, even with a dedicated renderfarm at your disposal..... You have only so much time to finish the product...
So in short... movies producers are becoming more and more greedy. I find that really unfair for the artists, who sometimes make the magic of the movie more than the actors themselves.
I think what is making cgi worse is the lack of time and care studios are allowing for vfx artists to put into the projects at hand. Marvel is a prime example of a big budget studio that has the money to put the time in but instead are trying harder now more than ever to pump out projects as fast as possible. My buddy points to blade runner 2049 as an example of great cgi and said it because there was thought and time put into every shot about what was being presented on screen. Someone else here in the comments said dune had great cgi and from my understanding that project had alot of care put into its production.
Dude totally agree. Glad u used the example of the hobbit and lord of the rings. I remember when I first watched lotr I thought the orcs were so menacing and gruesome and scary, but in the hobbit they look so glossy and refined and fake, definitely didn’t feel the same
Same! Those terrible effects ruined the Hobbit for me. I just couldn't relate to the fake feeling world they had constructed.
The hobbit films were wrong on so many levels. Even their effect on NZ laws.... Look it up!
You absolutely pinpointed feelings I didn’t even know I had about black panther
I despised that movie due to the horrendous CGI it had, maybe the storyline was good? Idk, I was too distracted watching a balloon man skate around the city on a hot wheels car
@@festivebear9946 the story was a borefest, and people who compare killmonger to the joker make me cringe.
Delta Core the movie was actually really good with a great story that isn’t even tired or anything at all. It isn’t the best movie off all time but you can’t blame people for liking it. Killmonger was a great villain too and Michael B Jordan did an amazing job
@@alprazolam1446 yea thats cool man. If u liked it im not gonna contest that, i just dont feel the same way you do.
Festive Bear I’m not a fanboy just so you know. But I was wondering what the fuck a balloon man is
Ultimately, it's greed. Pump out as much product as fast as possible to the detriment of worker and product if need be.
Absolutely
Well I think t's the fact that CGI is now taken for granted and animators are given much less time. I also think that the horrible aesthetics are now fully accepted, since younger generations are so used to them. So let's play it safe and keep everything as it is. This happened with a LOT of artforms and many other things: we seem to have been stuck with things that look, sound and feel the exact same: lifeless, for at least 15 years.