Sultan Ali Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail cashbay20.com
+HungryCupcake That isn't really all that correct. The problem with CG is that no one ca really get the lighting right. If you actually look at any cg you will notice it is computer generated. But yeah, if it's done well, people won't notice if they try to.
Did... you use Dragonheart & Flubber during the "movies with storytelling so good they enchant us" montage? (Sorry, I nitpick... it's what I do). Regardless... f*cking awesome video. Bonus points for using a Frighteners clip.
@fastrally ≠ Negative bias. We're hardwired to remember negative memories better than positive memories. If you ran into a cave lion in the Pleistocene, your brain would help you remember how it looked like better than any cavewoman you had sex with.
This is nonsense because by definition it would be impossible to have ‘positive bias’ as you wouldn’t see it , good cgi blends into background & looks natural , whereas bad cgi stands out.
Sometimes it works in the other direction: People complain about how some CGI looks so fake and so unrealistic... but it turns out that it was an actual prop or practical effect. Oftentimes people see "bad CGI" where they want to see it, even where there is no CGI at all.
People don't know what to look for, in the Dark Knight's first trailer, people complained that Nolan was going to sell-out CgI realm or what ever, but the scene they were complaining about, a tumbler chase scene, was 100% 1/4 scale miniatures.
+MrFrostburner Star Wars trailer with BB-8 "Omg that looks so shitty there isn't even a dust trail I hope the whole movie isn't shitty cgi" BB-8 turns out to be a real effect in that scene.
+shmaveyea As someone who liked Episode 1, I often had a chuckle when people complained about all the CGI and cited the Trade Federation Viceroy as an example.
My friend works for one of the companies who do a lot of the big shots for Game of Thrones and he showed me the amount of work that goes into such shots, it's pretty amazing. So many people, so many hours to make these look so realistic and so great.
Lots of people underappreciate CGI, but you know what REALLY goes unappreciated? Sound engineering People largely don't understand how hard it is to get good audio on site and just how much audio is created in a studio. And I'm not talking about punching "thuds" or thunder... I'm talking steps in the mud, touching of skin, breathing, guns... sometimes actors can't get clear sound in the field, so they completely re-dub their voice... and completely re-do the ambience, birds, vehicles, weather... not to mention the score.
Foley artists will literally make or break a movie. However, I don't think I've ever seen a movie that had "bad" audio that wasn't some ultra b-list movie you can only find in a dying Movie Gallery.
Audio, in general, is the backbone of any good movie. You can have beautiful scenes with wonderful effects and wonderful acting, but if the audio is bad the entire scene is a big FAIL. While, you can take lackluster sets and even acting, but with brilliant sound the scene doesn't seem all that bad. Michael Mann understands this very well on his projects. That bank heist scene in "Heat" is cool for the action, but because of the incredible sound the scene has you holding your breath in anticipation or fear or excitement. The gun blasts sound exactly like they would in a real life downtown LA shootout. All the other little details are present too. The footsteps from running. The sounds of changing a magazine on the rifles. Superb.
True. Try sitting down people who disagree with you in front of a silent movie. No live music or any other sound. Less than a minute, suddenly they're open to agreeing with you.
Great video. Thank you, Freddie! I was pretty surprised with how much CGI there was in The Wolf of Wall Street once I saw that animation demo from the effects company. It's also true that animation companies are being treated very poorly. It's a shame what happened with the animators behind Life of Pi. Just as they were about to talk about their financial hardships at the Oscars they get cut off by the exit music. So sad.
I couldn't agree more with this guy. It's not the effects but the way Hollywood just Cut and paste story from other mediums and half ass's it. All about the quick buck more so then trying to make a good story. In away this is kind of a reason why I don't like marvel movies, it's easy and it's lazy. Not the effects but the story. It's using something that already has a fan base, will suck in kids and generate a large revenue from casual moviegoers. It's a cop out, a easy win. It's almost like Hollywood just wants to play it safe and only go with existing successes. "Original story? Phffff! No, we might not make money off that... But I heard there's a new teen book that just came out and is a best seller. We should get the rights to that."
This video blew my mind! Thanks for clearing up that misconception. I usually forgive bad cg anyway, but I never knew just how much cg was in our films today.
Fight Club's cgi still looks incredible today. I think the reason that the CG in his films is great is because of two reasons: 1. He used to work at ILM, so he knows the struggle of VFX artists. 2. He is one of the most collaborative filmmakers working today, so every technical and narrative aspect of his films is perfected through effort, precision, and care.
Sams ChanneI They need to go back and clean up a lot in that movie. The shots with the presidents and celebrities look horrible by today's standards. In particular, the shots of Lydon Johnson and John Lennon are terrible.
PowerRedBull It also Depends on the context. Someone might need plastic surgery because they were attacked by a mountain lion and there face is scared up. Just like CGI, it depends on the context. Using practical effects are cheaper and it costs less. But of theres no other way to achieve a successful effect with practical effects, you go with CGI.
FINALLY!!! A well written, well researched essay on the topic that is so crowded with people whining about bad CGI in basically the same 3 or so movies.
CGI can ruin a movie depending on how it is used. Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One was one of the best looking examples of CGI I've seen. But he partly ruined the movie because I know that actor is dead. So my eye can't be fooled. Backgrounds are easier to fake because they aren't the focus and my brain has no bias against them. But my brain has a bias against believing Grand Moff Tarkin is really in those scenes. No matter how good that CGI model was, it could never overcome what I knew to be true and real.
Tarkin partly ruined the movie for you because you're used to watching human beings for 99% of your life. So you instantly notice when nowhere near enough of his face reacts to when he talks - only his lips are on the spot, while the rest of his face looks like an unmoving leather mask.
@@MJesDK yeah that's my point. It's why practical effect dinosaurs look better (to me) than the CGI dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park. Me eye isn't just trained to recognize the human face, but everything that is real and has volume and weight. My eye less apt to question a practical fake dinosaur vs a computer generated one, when my brain is being told to focus on it. When my brain is not told to focus on it, it will accept all manner of CGI background tricks etc. Practical effects are better at mingling fantasy with reality than CGI monsters. It's why Jurassic Park feels like a movie about dinosaurs and Jurassic World feels like a movie about cartoon dinosaurs.
I'm a big proponent of at least mixing practical with CGI. Give the computer artists more time. Of course Jurassic Park CGI holds up. They only had 6 minutes of footage to work on rather than a whole hour or more. They had time to perfect it.
Chris, I love all of your content. You're my mentor and my idol and inspired me to become a "critical viewer" myself. Please never stop being as awesome as you are. I love you man.
@@strawhatoverlord9184 Yes and often times it's harder to feel for what's happening since you can tell it's full CGI. You just need 1 shot that doesnt look right to pull you out of a movie for a couple minutes
What he's saying this video is: You don't like obvious and bad cgi? Hah, that's because it's obvious and bad cgi. Off course we don't mind good cgi. It's just that often we see cgi that could have easily been practical effect or just plain looks bad. That's what we hate. It's not like we hate a movie because we read somewhere that it used cgi in one of the scenes.
Matotra Except it sometimes is a case of CGI bad, practical good in the opinion fest that is social media. I’m sure you, and probably most people who would watch this aren’t like that but I see it a lot on the ‘net. Sort of the modern version of ‘based on a true story’ somehow making a movie more authentic or deep. I really enjoy history stuff but when Winston Churchill is shown talking to he common man and woman on a tube train I cringe, it detracts from the experience if I know I’m being bullshitted and I feel the same way with directors who play up to the VFX=bad crowd, even when they are fully aware that just about nothing avoids the computer for additions, even if it’s just comping.
I do. And I easily spot it haha. Mostly. Not in Distrct 9. I mean, I know those aliens are CG, but it doesn't bother my eyes in the same way most CG in commercials, TV shows etc. does, not even background stuff that the actors are standing in front of, like skyscrapers in the distance. I can easily tell it's CG.
+Lukas Sprehn Commercials and TV shows? So you can tell what's computer generated in low-budget productions with tight deadlines? What impressive eyesight you have there, Sherlock.
That’s what overusing CGI in live action filmmaking does to some audience members I’m afraid. CGI is an amazing technology. It can create some brilliant images. CGI animated films can be visually stunning. But when it comes to live action filmmaking, CGI should only be used where it’s absolutely necessary. I plan to eventually become a filmmaker myself. And I will always use practical effects and miniatures where possible. If you can do an effect practically, DO IT PRACTICALLY. Save the CGI for scenes where there is ABSOLUTELY no other easy way to do those scenes. If you overuse CGI, the eye becomes too used to it and it starts to look phoney. James Cameron knew this, so he only used CGI for the T1000 in Terminator 2 where he simply couldn’t use Robert Patrick himself, or practical effects. All the scenes where the T1000 gets damaged are practical effects, yes even when the T800 fires that grenade into him and he explodes into that mangled metallic figure before falling into that tank of molten metal, that was a practical effect. Using CGI in live action filmmaking is fine, but you have to combine it with practical full scale and/or miniature effects, otherwise it begins to look phoney. I’m personally glad that practical effects have not become fully obsolete, but I’m hoping that my filmmaking career will start a renaissance in practical effects in mainstream film.
@@trainlover16 good points but I think James cameron is not a good person to use for an example of a director that uses limited cgi. Just look Avatar, James Cameron is the biggest culprit of the overuse of cgi lol.
With so many droll and negative attempts at 'criticism' on RUclips, it's so refreshing to watch something that it so enjoyable, informed and positive about modern filmmaking. A superb video.
Mr. Moreno-Melgar I don’t think some of you understand the argument made when people criticize CGI. It’s not that we hate cgi we just hate when it’s not done properly or over use it for no reason the way Zack Snyder does.
You sure they are not real? I've been praying to Raptor Jesus and he says they are real. "Nowhere in the bible does it say that jesus isnt a raptor." I know, I know...old meme joke :P A little FYI Jurassic park goof, Just before that part where the raptors come in, after they opened the door, you see someone's hand come in and hold the tale down. :D haha.
In other words, it all really comes down to how the effects are applied and executed. like how a car (or whatever) is shaded, how the camera is positioned, etc. CG effects can work really well in movies if done right.
CGI isn't ruining movies. Bad directors, audience expectation, and book adaptations are ruining MAINSTREAM movies. CG is fucking great in the hands of good directors, look what it can do for continuous shots(Birdman), or the scope of movies(Lord of the Rings).
+Dillon Jenings Book adaptations isn't killing movies. LotR is even a book adaptation. So are many great movies. I think it depends on the book they're adapting.
+badamski17 Kinda, but it depends more on the WAY they are adapting the book. The best book adaptations are stories contained in the book and modified to fit better into a film instead of trying to fit the whole book into a movie. If you are not planning to make a three hour long movie like Lotr, you will leave the audience with a rushed, dumb-downed version of the film, and even Lotr feels rushed and incomplete compared to the books, especially the first movie.
+Arcanineisthebest I think LOTR is one of a few exceptions, sure, there was some parts, especially the second and third film, wich in the books it was really a "mess" to put in into the big screen.
+badamski17 I meant like young adult adaptations. Like Hunger Games and fucking Maze runner and divergent and all that shit. LOTR was a fantasy novel with rich character and detail, and was put in the hands of a director who respected it. These YA movie adapts are just cash grabs.
+bamberstru That's an association fallacy. The fact that Citizen Kane or Psycho don't have any CGI and TMNT has, doesn't prove that CGI is bad. Citizen Kane and Psucho also didn't use 6k Red cameras, cine-drones, their soundtracks didn't contain large amounts of synthesized sounds like Hans Zimmer's do. But that doesn't mean any of those things are necessarily bad. There are many well-rated films with immense amounts of computer-generated imagery: Gravity, The Jungle Book (2016), Life of Pi, Mad Max: Fury Road, and most recently, Blade Runner 2049. BUT WAIT. Blade Runner 2049 has a better IMDB rating (8.3) than the original Blade Runner (8.2), which had little to no CGI. Does this mean that CGI is better than practical effects? No. That's like saying that a microscope is always better than a magnifying glass. They're different tools meant for different purposes.
No, but other than Citizen Kane and Psycho, I personally don't like any of those things. I find your Blade Runner 'point' to be nonsense. It's IMDb. Your point 1 "better rating" example is irrelevant, especially when it's made up of a biased user base that slaps 10/10 to everything they see, especially the latest and glitziest of Hollywood products... I'll agree in that they're different tools for different purposes, often unfortunate and useless purposes that primarily exist to stimulate you on the big screen (after you're done being force-fed advertisements, if your theater has those,) and I'm not saying there aren't films I haven't enjoyed at most, or tolerated at worst, and/or wouldn't watch with all of these things you mentioned (I've seen all of those very bad movies you brought up), but it's nothing that will be remembered and cherished as important, and significant. to sum up, I prefer film as a timeless statement or expression of the artist behind their work any day over pure box office entertainment. I know the majority seem to disagree with this, and that's ok, even if it's a little sad.
+bamberstru Regardless of whether or not you personally like them, they're very well rated by actual film critics, who tend to examine the film beyond its superficial characteristics. I'm not saying they were objectively good, as there's no way to say that when regarding art, however, they were clearly enjoyed by the majority of critics and the CGI wasn't brought-up as something that hindered their experience. Although, I don't think you addressed the main point of my comment: do you think CGI prevents a film from being great, and if so, why? If your point is _"Great films have little to no CGI, and bad films are filled with it. Therefore CGI prevents a movie from being great."_ then you're just making an association fallacy.
CG is like a ninja. You will notice a bad ninja...but you will never see a good ninja...because if people notice you then you've already failed. just like with CG
Actually I like to compare it with " The invisible man" CGI its like a protagonist that gets all the views even if his objective is that you will be looking through them.
I think what Peter Jackson did with his WETA special effects company in the LOTR trilogy was amazing, he used both cgi and lots of costumes and many extras.
Kool Doc Watching the behind the scenes on that was great. He used every tool he had available and combined them in a perfect way. The blending of setpieces with minatures and CGI as well as the clever ways of portraying the difference in size between the races is amazing.
Lord AJ I agree I watched all the extras on the LOTR trilogy, excellent! if you'll remember the roar of the Balrog it was quite creative just to give one example.
Sorry most of the lotr films looks like a video games. If you want to know how to incorporate cgi correctly, watch Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park. Movies should be movies, not video games.
Huuh... just no. LotR doesn't look like a video game at all, and the quality of CGI incorporation isn't better in JP or Terminator2 than in LotR, like not at all. You are just comparing movies that are really different : the movies you take as examples are in the real world while LotR is about a fantasy world. That's not a good comparison.
No, the effects are good, but they look terrible. They use the most generic color schemes, it's impossible to tell what is going on, the cinematography is banal, and none of this is helped by the fact that the editing treats the viewer like a goldfish with ADHD.
Gollum is the perfect mix, Andy's acting is sublime (Oscar now) and the animation on top brought a character not just to light, but good enough to hold the screen even when its just him in a scene.
Mark Fudge It was too early for the technology with all the CGI in Lord of the rings, gollum included. Scenery was only thing that was realistic, antything living was cartoonish, gollum included
Yeah. Also, Thor: Ragnarok has the most colorful CGI effects ever made, especially for that scene where Hulk standing in front of the window while watching the futuristic city as he continued talking with Thor.
Team6OWG It reminds me of the episode of Futurama where god tells bender that "when you've done it right, people won't know you've done anything at all".
Team6OWG Bad acting too. Bad screenwriting too. Bad directing too. Bad sets too. Bad cinematography too. Bad editing too. Bad wardrobe too. Your point is?
As an animator and VFX artist I thank you from the bottom of my heart for putting this out. I'm sick of hearing our craft derided by people with no idea about how much compositing and background creation is in even the most mundane shots. To be a competant CGI artist you need to know about: the physics of light and materials. Cinematography and camera setup, lighting, pacing, programming, acting, fine art. You have to be able to sketch AND program. It is one of the most intellectually and creatively demanding jobs around, and the people who do it (much better than me!) in mainstream movies and TV deserve credit for their work, not this ignorant derision we constantly hear from people who themselves, don't make films.
Thanos looks fake as shit lol its so obbious hes CGI. Also hes a dumb antagonis. Infinity war and Engame are shit and cant even compare to the comic version. The whole MCU is a mess. Its mediocre shit for the mainstream masses who dont know shit about the comics and characters.
@@KillyRR the comics are worse than the movies. thanos has a shitty ass edgelord reason for doing what he does in the comics. being a purist isn't cool kid
Shammo Hamid Im talking about the usual Holywood blockbuster good vs bad, guy rescues girl, knocks everybody out with 1 punch, exept the main bad guy which always takes 15minutes...THAT story line :)
+TredBobek Yeah, but even video games aren't safe from those who only focus on bad visuals. I've seen way to many people posting "shitty graphics=shitty game"
+Arthus850 Games can be a different frontier though... games are all about immersion, some more than others. Bad visual effects can knock the game out of pattern way more than any movie can. I am not talking about amazing high-end graphics either... Minecraft has great graphics, just not might be defined that way all the time.
I highly suggest watching some of the Corridor Crew channel. Those guys are CGI artists, and they can differentiate between good CGI that looks bad and bad CGI. Definitely worth a watch!
The shark at 03:10 is amazing! You never (or I, at least) think about how much artistry, craftsmanship and time goes into these effects, even though some are so subtle and no one really notices it. Amazing video, made me appreciate CG more :)
9 лет назад+4
+Sokarijo.Diaries must of taking months of work to do
Yea its impressive it was the best part of the video the people that makes these things are carzy talanted. Its kinda like the people that makes some of the stuff in games now days in assassianscrees unity that came out in 2015 they apperantly had people that worked over 1 year whit only creating one building since it was so detailed and well made (the building not the overall game)
So true. The real issue is people don't make good enough movies, and CG ends up being a scape goat. Great example, Jurassic World vs Jurassic Park. The real issue is lack of creativity.
agreed cgi should only be used when practical is either to dangerous or actually not practical and very hard to do example the running trex in jurassic park or any high motion movements. The less cgi you use the more budget money you have to actually make it great when you do use it.
guitarman0365, the money not spent on CGI would then be spent on practical effects. So you can't use it to increase the quality of the rest of the CGI.
@Hassan Syed everything can be overused. How is it a valid argument? Antibiotics are bad becuse alot of people use it. Don't you understand stupid that argument is??
6:10 The Death Star in Star Wars a New Hope in this transition from space into the tunnels and paths of the outer Death Star, is actually a painting done by John Berkey. Intact most of the space to Death Star transitions in a New Hope were!
Most CGI haters cite Kubrick as an example of how good movies can look without CGI. What they don't realize is that if Kubrick had access to CGI, he could bring his true vision to life without any technological restrictions. 2001 a space odessey was supposed to have the gate on saturn not jupiter but making saturn's rings was just too difficult. It isn't CG that sucks, it's always the directors. Cameron's avatar had amazing visuals but the story sucked so people assume it's nothing but a gimmick, and for avatar, that much is true. But 2001 a space odessey with CG actually enhances the experience because the acting is so spot on and the directing is amazing.
+Dingo D. Manhunter "What they don't realize is that if Kubrick had access to CGI, he could bring his true vision to life without any technological restrictions." I give you credit for your bravery in posting that comment. Soon the George Lucas hate groups will roll in to ridicule you for your words, and will subject you to the maturity of a prepubescent 12 year old PewDiePie fan.
+Dingo D. Manhunter I honestly actually thought Avatar's CGI sucked. Seriously, consider how long that movie was in development along with the budget. There is no excuse why the CGI already looks dated. Good CGI, as this video explained, isn't even noticeable. In Avatar, is there a single scene that makes you think "Yep, no WAY there is CGI in this scene!"?
SeraphAura I smoked alot of weed before even attempting to watch that film so it looked fine to me. But it was nowhere near as mind blowing as 2001 a space odyssey where the visuals looked too fucking real.
+Dingo D. Manhunter Honestly Avatar doesn't look real at all and the story is definitely a rehash but I get a tremendous sense of adventure when I watch it and that makes me incredibly happy. Only other recent movies that give me the same feeling are Inception, Cloud Atlas, Matrix, and Titanic (All widely recognized as some of the best films ever made). I would argue that Avatar is a good movie for most people, and it has a 7.9 on IMDB and near universal critical acclaim. So it's not a shit movie, and the only people that have that view are jaded internet dwellers. Talk to any normal person and they'll tell you they thought it was great. tl;dr: Avatar is not shit, the CGI was not a gimmick, and I'm sorry you have no sense of adventure to enjoy a great movie.
idk i thought his face wasn't lined up with his body and was moving funny idk my friends told me i was crazy but i can be very observant when it come to faces
***** Well no one ever said practical effects were perfect. (If they did they're just assholes or idiots, or both). The point is both CGI and practical effects can look bad. Which is why I respect James Cameron so much for brilliantly and masterfully combining the two in Titanic.
***** Exactly this, most people seem to ignore the bad or wipe it fro their memory, even iconic films like Alien has got some moments when you can blatantly tell it's just a guy in a suit. Or how about all the rear projection FX they used to use before computers and green screens which made it look like they were just standing in front of a cinema screen. The 80s and 90s were full of movies with extremly bad practical effects.
+Vijay Jayant No the effects are still fantastic. It only seems bad because there's so MUCH of it. Dark of the Moon Optimus looks just as good or even better than TF1. I will agree though that Age of Extinction, looked slightly bad for some reason.
A lot of people also think that they've replaced the magic and mystery of "how did they do that?" in the movies with "just do it in a computer." But anyone who actually does graphic design knows that there is no "just" about it. It's just that most laymen can't understand the technical aspects of rendering, shaders, etc and practical effects are much easier to explain, so they think that CG is as simplistic as waving a magic wand and making stuff happen.
yeah it irritates me people think of this way for a lot of professions. I compose music and record it on a computer, and they often think you can just magically press a button and the computer just generates the music itself or so
@@PowerRedBullTypology Having looked at Famitracker, a program that simulates how the NES sound hardware works, I can see how composers need to learn tricks with how to work with the hardware like this: ruclips.net/video/FpMUE9S1ll8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Jd6nyynuzio/видео.html
@Matthew Actually, some people DO oversimplify CG. Michael Lanteri, the visual effects supervisor for Jurassic Park said that people thought the CG used in the movie would "put everybody out of work" and that "the director would just sit at a computer and type 'D' for 'Dinosaur' or 'C' for 'Creature'...but it really ended up creating a lot of work for people." Second of all, I've been just as well trained to recognize "practical" effects just as much as CG. When I look at the AT-AT walkers in Empire Strikes Back, I can tell by the motion that it's stop motion. In Batman 1989, when the Batwing crashes into the ground, It's obviously a tiny model plane crashing into a model city with little toy matchbox cars. Godzilla movies continued to use practical effects long after CG replaced everything in American movies, and they are obviously actors in suits, puppets, and miniature city sets. Originally, Spielberg was planning to use "Go Motion," which is a more advanced version of stop-motion, but thought it looked "too jerky" so decided to go with CG. Jurassic Park used both CG and practical, CG for the wide shots with lots of motion, and animatronics for the close up action, especially when actors needed to touch the dinosaurs. But most audiences just saw dinosaurs, period.
Matthew, I've literally never seen a movie that has 100% practical effects and looks and feels better and more interesting than good CGI. As someone currently studying digital media, when I watch something like Avengers Endgame, I can feel effort and artistry and beauty and style and passion oozing out of every frame of the film.
@Matthew "And eyes can almost always, if not always, recognize CGI." that right there is absolute bullshit, I guarantee you you've watched dozens of movies and series where you didn't spot 99% of the visual effects. And you could tell in old movies when "real" effects were just miniatures or small on set explosions, don't pretend your eyes didn't catch THOSE.
I recently watched a video about the history of graphics in video games, which posed much the same question. I was born in '65, so I grew up at the beginning of the video game era. I've witnessed everything from black & white Pong, to virtually photo-realistic games, and have dealt with my children & grandchildren saying how primitive things were. Oh, yeah - they give me that, "How did you guys even live back then? But then, I've played some of their games & found some to be worse than useless. To me, the question is very simple: is the game fun to play? Super Mario Bros. is fun. It doesn't matter at all that Mario is just some little 2D sprite. The game is fun to play. I think a similar idea applies to CGI in movies. If it helps tell the story without getting in the way, then it's good. The question of how to tell the story is (or at least, should be) foremost in the mind of the director. And most movies that contain a fair amount of major effects are done with a blend of technologies, anyway. The trick is just to make it all come together to serve the characters & the story. That's all. tavi.
totally true. played the call of duty in PS4 or something, good grafics, but shit fun. it seems you are inside a loop of a bad movie and than you can only shot the bad guys.
@@luizcastellar Call of Duty is not what you should be judging the industry by. Games like The Witcher, The Last of Us, Red Dead Redemption 2, Dark Souls, Mass Effect are the ones that hold the bars in the industry, not Call of Duty.
@@BrashSoulstorm people have different opinion, I think personally (even though the latest CoD I've played is World at War, and maybe a little of modern warfare 2, can't really remember) CoD need to stay on the space theme, we got world war CoD now, even though we've already got world war BF, it seems like people just want the same things
Maybe it's the same case like in this video with bad CGI. I'm myself '72, I also used to play Galaxians, Super Cobra, Space Invaders, etc, later I had the Atari 800XL, and then the Amiga 500. But the good games of today are far far better than those of the old days (Final Fantasy series (overall many rpg games), Witcher 3, Metal Gear Solid series, Resident Evil series, After Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Origins, Dark Souls 1, 2, 3, Alien Isolation, Prey, and many many more).
It's not that CG is bad. The bad thing is today (because we can show more) stories are being designed around big effects instead of effects being designed around story. I agree, the best effects are when you don't notice. And the best films are still the best stories. Effects are the icing story is the cake.
The Prequels to Star Wars is a prime example of that. The story was so bloody bland, along with awful acting, yet the entire films were dominated and relied heavily on CGI sets and characters. Which I think is why they received such negative feedbacks. But if it's balanced with great story then it'll be praised. Hence why the new Episode 7 was so well received, cause it balanced both of those elements.
Another good example, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. When I watched the movie the second time, sure the visual effects does look kinda nice and there were only two characters that I like but it feels so fake when you see actors that are obviously standing in front of green screen. Also, the characters were bland, the story is too generic, and I didn't cared what happens to any characters throughout the movie. I really hated what Burton did to Alice; it's like he tried so hard to make her into an independent woman who needs no man that it felt forced. Speaking of force, this movie was forcing its unsubtle feminist message down in my throat. I think the point of Alice was that she was supposed to be the straightman to the strangeness and surreal world of wonderland and its inhabitants. Lastly, am I the only one who noticed how unnaturally pale Alice is compared to the other people at the wedding?
Alex D, also there's the "enhanced" versions of the original trilogy which was mostly just there to show off CGI effects. Also the reason Episode 7 was so well received is mostly because of pandering. It was mediocre but people overlooked that because it reminded them so much of the original trilogy, granted it also did a fairly good job of blending new and old elements. I mean for one thing, Takodana is obviously not Dagobah and Maz is fairly different from Yoda but is somewhat similar and is equally likeable but on the other hand you have -the pokeball shaped bigger death star- Starkiller Base and -Not R2- -token kid appeal droid- -token astromech- BB-8.
It seriously blows my mind how lifelike CGI can get when done well. The scene with the woman walking into the glass booth, explosions lighting up the landscape, never would I think that it can all be done by computers. Damn.
While I'm sure CGI was used as well, a lot of Brad Pitt's old age in that movie was makeup. I saw the prosthetics on display at that year's Oscars makeup symposium.
Dimitri Sanchez This video is just saying CGI isn't inherently bad. It's not saying it can't be done bad or that Star Wars didn't do parts badly. I don't see how this video itself can be named in favor of the prequels themselves.
It baffles me how people can say the CGI in the Star Wars prequels is bad even though the effects were amazing when the movies came out and were way ahead of its time. The CGI effects in the prequels made some effects which are praised in this video possible in the first place. Sure they look dated now but so do all effects over time and guess what, the effects in the original trilogy (and i mean the versions without the changes of course) don't hold up very well today too. But that doesn't mean they are any less amazing.
+PoweredByFlow Two words: Jurassic Park. The CGI in JP was well used and well made, probably some of the best looking I've ever seen. 1993 compared to 1999-2005. Way ahead of its time, eh?
+ParaChomp There was plenty of CGI in JP. The first dinosaurs you see are completely CG. Most wide shots of dinos were CG, like the scene at the end with the raptors and the t-rex. The point is, the filmmakers didn't overuse or abuse the tool, and they actually used certain techniques to hide the effects, just like any practical effect would need. Most modern films don't attempt to hide the special effects nearly as much as in the past, because these days, the average viewer just wants a crystal clear image with zero film grain, hence the use of DNR or shooting digitally. The reason the CGI in Jurassic World looks so much more fake than in Jurassic Park, is because the filmmakers didn't use proper techniques to there advantage, such as shooting and printing with a grain structure that helps hide the computer effect, adjusting the lighting and contrast to help hide the effect etc. They just went for a clean image, using fine 35mm and 65mm film stock, and most theaters projecting digitally doesn't help these symptoms one bit.
+FrostBitey10 I realize that point, but I think, though it was released after the first two prequels, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow did a much better job with that idea. It was an experimental film from 2004, and the idea was to take real actors, and put them in a world made completely of CGI. They succeeded in accomplishing that, albeit some really bad CGI. The problem with the prequels, is that Star Wars was a previously established and completed series, and George just decided to continue it by telling the backstory behind the original films. Because the universe and style had been established already, experimenting with these kinds of things isn't a smart move. Sky Captain worked as a stand alone film, but the prequels just don't hold up to the same feeling that the OT had. Another thing that Sky Captain has is that it's actually a reasonably good film, and does a much better job paying homage to it's inspirations than the PT did. I mean, the PT didn't really pay any homage to anything that the original Star Wars was based on.
+PoweredByFlow Oh..the films look great but very static and not very dynamic..Not saying he should michael bay the fuck out of it but, its very soap opera in how the dialogue is shot..The action scenes are fine (though the droid factory scene was horrible in my opinion).
I've no problem with film makers using CG, as long as they use it right. What I don't like is when they over use it for things they don't need to, which then takes away some of the experience. Like if Mad Max: Fury Road's explosions were all CG then you wouldn't look at it in awe since you'd know it's fake and it didn't happen live on set. The industry is constantly evolving, people need to go along with it, but that doesn't mean they can't find the perfect blend of CG and practical, which is what I like to see. Movies were you can't even tell the difference.
Batman Jr. Exactly. Looking at the comments, and the video itself, you would think that the argument against CG is that it should never be used. In reality, 95% of the people who argue against CG are arguing against the OVERUSE of it, not the use of it in general. Seeing an enormous explosion that doesn't even ruffle the leaves of a tree that's right next to it is just lazy filmmaking. Which is why I don't understand why the maker of this video included the Transformers movies as positive examples of CG. I agree with the argument this video is making, CG is a tool that can be used to either positive or negative effect. It just seems like dude thinks that proponents of practical effects think that CG is always worse than practical, and I just don't think that's true. I'm not against the use of CG, but I will always prefer practical effects for movie monsters, blood and gore, explosions, and fight scenes.
First Last transformers example was to show the parts when they use both practical effects and cg like explosions since thats his thing and the textures on the transformers arent bad and dont look like animated characters put into the real world or the opposite like star wars 1-3 or the mummy i do agree with fights gore and explosions being real i think if they can avoid cg they should or if the cg would look better they should use it instead of trying to make something that looks worse then bad semi textured cg
A fun fact though: The first Jurassic Park movie isn`t only practical effects, it`s partly practical. Most of it is CGI. It`s the first movie with proper CGI and the movie is known for it.
You can always see what is CGI back then, everytime it looks bad it's CGI, that's that! If I'm not mistaken I think they made a CGI version of the T-Rex Break Out Scene and scrapped it completely because it simply looked much worse than the actual practical effects, allthough the running at the end might have been CGI I don't remember but it looked less pleasing!
the absolute BEST looking CG always contains real elements in it--real textures from nature, real plates from real photos, real leaves, and even physically based cameras, global illumination, IES lighting and bokeh. thats because it is all about power over your domain, the trick to having ultimate control over your story while maintaining photorealism is not to synthesize the entire thing from scratch (although there are some very amazing zbrush artists or matte painters that can do this) but to source from reality and synthesize by sourcing and mixing and manipulating them to fit your needs. that way you can create a tree that fits the exact shape you want with a real life consistency from whatever actual environment inspired you, and even those who do work from scratch will tell you that reference, or at the very least inspiration, is necessary.
take this for instance. everyone thinks its some kind of mask but it was actually sculpted in zbrush. i then shot some global illumination from a real jungle at it and took the resulting image and applied real texture to it from salamanders and lizards and recomposited it. i0.wp.com/www.flightspace.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BPR_Render-Alien-head.jpg this one was made almost entirely from projected photographs onto 3D geometry i0.wp.com/www.flightspace.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Back-Alley-Street.jpg this one was sourced almost entirely from textures i shot at the getty specifically for this purpose i2.wp.com/www.flightspace.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cliff-720.jpg with these kind of tools i can take from real life, and using it piece together whatever i dream up, down to the last detail. sort of like piecing together your ideal girl from magazine clippings only having the end result not look like sloth from the goonies
"Real"/photo textures from nature are very very bad and need cleaning, especially because of all the static lighting/shadows captured by the camera that you have to clean up out of there. Photos make for good reference material though.
Felix Kütt well thats more the photographers issue. you need to shoot your textures at midday with an overcast sky and the sun right overhead. shadows are not inherently bad, you just want to avoid cast or form shadows, try to light it very evenly so you get only the contact shadows and ambient occlusion. if you do keep shadows, its good practice to match it to the lighting you know you're going to use. its always best for the artist to shoot their own textures if they can because they know what they need.
the alternative of course is procedural textures but there is always going to be something missing or artificial in that. i have been seeing a lot of procedural stuff in my linkedin feed, which is impressive for something ultimately created with a series of fractal noises, but ultimately falls short. take this procedural wood: s3.amazonaws.com/forums.content.luxology.com/images/poster/9179d6284978926de3d5cb42d57d1c40_p.jpg versus this which is based on real wood. s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/96/92/f1/9692f161806492edc94eb0472812fd0c.png neither is completely realistic, but the second is more naturalistic, detailed, and takes you much farther faster. thats not to say you can't use them in tandem which is very powerful indeed.
I never said they have to be purely procedural. :) Things missing from purely procedural textures are the things best created/painted by hand. If you're experienced enough this is not hard.
Jurassic Park had several special effect shots that blew my mind because I had it completely wrong. When the T-rex steps on the car and starts to attack the tires I always thought it was CG T-rex and practical car. Turns out the car was CG as well but so were the PEOPLE in the car. Then in the next shot it switches to practical T-rex and actual people in a real car and it is genuinely hard to tell the difference. I also had no idea that the stunt when Lex is dangling from the ceiling with the camera looking straight down as the raptor falls and is slowly getting back to its feet and jumps up to try and bite here as they pull her up... turns out that was not the actress for Lex it was a stunt double and they put an image of Lex's face over the stunt double's with CG.
Really wish Freddie or Matt would make more video essays like this one - I feel like they’d be able to bring a lot of perspectives and experiences to the table of modern movie criticism that other content creators couldn’t
+Jun Moreno Stick with it bud, there are haters in every line of work. Even hate within the industry. Movies are panacea for the masses after all, so there is just more opinions out there. But from what I've seen, students like you, bring in the fresh ideas, and are the future of better cg.
Visual effects, in themselves, are not ruining movies. The way in which many directors consider special effects to be a replacement for good storytelling however definitely is.
Keep in mind: there also awful practical effects. People are so selective about the practical effects they mention, it's always Jurassic Park and Lord of the Rings... Not going to talk about all those old b-movies or the obvious puppets in Star Wars eh? It's like the video says: CGI and practical effects are tools, they can end up being amazing or awful depending on how they are used. Oh also, Jurassic Park and Lord of The Rings themselves used a ton of awesome CGI. So in the end holding them up as paragons of practical effects is itself a misnomer.
Sure, but B-movies are kind of meant to be bad. They embraced their lack of budget rather than trying to hide it. So your complaint more completely misunderstands the entire metagenre of the B-movie. One of the benefits of practical effects is even bad practical effects look real. It's a lot easier to buy an ugly puppet when it looks like it's really there than a good looking CGI add in that doesn't.
No, B-movies are movies that tried to cash in on something using a shoestring budget or people who have no idea how to make films tried to make a film... Sometimes a combination of both things. It looks real because it is real, but that does not mean it feels real. Bad CGI can be distracting, but it can look pleasing and keep you in the world. Bad practical effects more often than not look truly fake and quickly remind you that you are looking at a studio set and that there is someone manipulating the sorry excuse for special effects.
Like seriously, can I reiterate how stupid the "it looks real" argument is? It looks real but it does not FEEL real! The stupid puppet is indeed real but that doesn't mean it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb and reminds people there is a set! CGI at least does not imply a set, which is why a lot of people will prefer it over practical effects.
Bad cgi is not pleasing, that is why it's bad. If something is obviously fake when done with cgi then it is distracting. Practical puppets in movies like star wars are great for the most part because they add to the charm of the movie and the overall feel of knowing how much love went into it, not saying that CGI is bad though, in fact when it's great it's awesome. Also there are plenty of puppets that feel real, such as Yoda, feels much more real and lifelike than the cgi version in the prequels.
@@isaywhateveriwantandyougot7421 yes the movie is done purely for spectacle. I dont want a good story from transformers. I want robots RKO ing each other. Sure a good story would help but that is not the point
@@diadokhoi5722 The story is 60% of what makes a movie good! There are no exeptions, let alone Transformers, if you don't have a good story, than the chance of it still being a good movie is very small. If a movie was all about the fight scenes and effects as you say it is, then Batman Begins would be terrible (spoiler alert: it's not)
yes, but also blowing up 4 real cars is expensive.....with CG they just blow up 175 trucks in one scene...because they haven't learnt that more isn't always more....
Before you start bitching about the fact that way too many movies use CGI, please consider that many of these movies could probably not have been made in first place if not for CGI. Practical effects are expensive and going full practical is not something most movies can afford.
Rowgue51 Mostly because CGI was extremely expensive back then and couldn't be merged with normal footage. The point is, regardless of whether large parts of tron were done with practical effects the film still wouldn't have been possible without CGI.
Some of the best CG i've ever seen in any movie i'd say goes to Pacific Rim. I noticed he talked on the physics/weight behind the materials being presented. The first Pacific Rim i'd say for the most part did an excellent job portraying hulking behemoths of mech's.
In 2021, I'm still sending this video as a response to people who ask why CG looks bad nowadays, I still show this video every year to my students at film school, and I still start tearing up on 5:55.
Can I offer my opinion? CGI is an amazing technology. It can create some brilliant images. CGI animated films can be visually stunning. But when it comes to live action filmmaking, CGI should only be used where it’s absolutely necessary. I plan to eventually become a filmmaker myself. And I will always use practical effects and miniatures where possible. If you can do an effect practically, DO IT PRACTICALLY. Save the CGI for scenes where there is ABSOLUTELY no other easy way to do those scenes. If you overuse CGI, the eye becomes too used to it and it starts to look phoney. James Cameron knew this, so he only used CGI for the T1000 in Terminator 2 where he simply couldn’t use Robert Patrick himself, or practical effects. All the scenes where the T1000 gets damaged are practical effects, yes even when the T800 fires that grenade into him and he explodes into that mangled metallic figure before falling into that tank of molten metal, that was a practical effect. Using CGI in live action filmmaking is fine, but you have to combine it with practical full scale and/or miniature effects, otherwise it begins to look phoney. I’m personally glad that practical effects have not become fully obsolete, but I’m hoping that my filmmaking career will start a renaissance in practical effects in mainstream film.
@@trainlover16 Well... Yeah. This isn't a discussion, that's how every VFX supervisor thinks and it's exactly what's explained in the video. So thumbs up for the right opinion ;)
Dusk Legend Mate it's overused and looks cheap as hell. Only very few cgi artists can do an actually good job of it. The early movies with cgi were far better than today's video game like trash.
Soo... Basically they're really dang realistic? Because that's the point in which video game graphics lie right now. Seriously. Look at the upcoming Metro Exodus. It might have been a bit pre-rendered or something like that. But it still looks beautiful as hell. If you wanna compare bad CGI with something. Compare it with Plastic. Because that's what they look like.
southlondon86 I believe I get where you're coming from. If it can be accomplished using practical effects then it probably should be done using practical effects. Nine out of ten times even poor practical effects will end up looking better than half-arsed in CGI. As 8-Bit Knight says, poor CGI usually just ends up looking plastic, rubbery and as you said cheap and tacky. With that said, typically the best CGI in a film is the CGI that goes unnoticed by the viewer.
The problem with big cg creatures is that they don't take mass in count. Especially if they fly. For example Smaug from the Hobbit trilogy is just too agile for the size of the creature. Especially The 90 degree turn from a straight nose dive was just stupid and absolutely impossible under almost any circumstance. The other thing that usually bothers me in cgi is the fact that complex things are just too big. There's a certain point where an animal etc. just can't support its own weight and they've already gone way over it. Just my opinions though. Also cgi can really be used well, but the video already showcases how that can be done, and I don't just want to repeat the same points again.
8-Bit Knight You must be joking! Aside from the sky and sunlight, NOTHING else in video games actually looks realistic. We are far, far away from games looking real. Not even close. Don’t kid yourself. Most CGI is shit.
THANK YOU. Very informative, and very reasonable. Side note: you mention bad CGI and show us Jar Jar and Boss Nass, so I felt the need to drop this fun fact: Jar Jar (love him or hate him) was the first ever mo-cap character in film, and the CGI in Ep I actually (mostly) still holds up rather well today. We can’t knock Jar Jar without first conceding that without him we wouldn’t have Gollum, Smaug, Caesar, the Hulk, Doomsday, the Thing, or any of the other countless mo-cap characters we’ve gotten since.
You know that video games were using it extensively LONG before Phantom Menace, right? It's extremely unlikely that motion capture would have been forgotten. Plus, a bunch of other movies were released in that very same year or the year following that used mo-cap, which suggests to me that Jar Jar was entirely unnecessary for it's adoption.
This same thing applies to 3D in anime. Some of the best 3D in animation can be found in Guilty Gear Xrd (game), Promare, Ghost in the Shell: Innocence, Spider-Verse, etc. It all comes down to how well the artist understands the tools and utilizing it towards his vision.
This speaks for all the great VFX artists out there who work their asses off, despite the thousands of narrow-minded movie goers that talk shit on CG, without ever noticing the craft's best. Awesome video RJ :D
No way. The CGI in this movie was so bad. They should have hired real, human actors with facial expressions. Those protagonist things they got there look and sound unbelievable.
Well, _cheap_ movies are. Even films that are critically shat upon like the Transformers movies have excellent CG. Even if you don't like the robot designs, you have to marvel at how ILM made those robots look like they're actually in the shot. That is, when the director remembers to have them in the shot.
romxxii Have you seen old Jackie Chan movies? They had a low budget but they could make it good. Nowadays almost every action movie is CGI but some of Jackie’s movies still uses stunt mans and cardboard boxes to fall on instead of using CGI and the movie become automatically realistic.
Albert Moisan. I love when people like you try to be smartasses, there is a difference between bad grammar and accidentally pressing the wrong letter, which is clearly what happen...
bernardo luis Wow, mate, let's not Jump to pitchforks yet. I'm not trying to start anything, am certainly not a smartass nor someone like you think the someone like me is like. I just saw an Opportunity for a Joke and took it. PS: On a sidenote, I was actually reffering to "SyFy" wich is spelled "Sci-Fi" if that's what you were going for.
That point about good CGI being so good we don't see it is ultimately the point. I think the problem is more that *some* directors/studios tend to be of the "fix it in post" mindset and just hope that CG will cover the cracks in a bad movie. It won't and we see it time after time. Really great video though. I'm firmly of the belief that a great story will cover pretty much anything except bad acting (because that destroys the storytelling). Jason and the Argonauts is still a great film for example, despite the use of stop motion practical model effects from the godfather himself.
I do agree about Bay even tho a lot of people meme it on how he's gonna blow up the universe the next transformers the man knows how to combine practical and cg effects
IseeUmadtho i personally dont like CGI, im not a hater saying it needs to be eliminated infact I appreciate CGI it truly is ground breaking, my problem comes in because its over used, and yes, I am going to suggest looking at Jurassic park and Jurassic world, the reason jurassic park on its own is scary is because you know the t. rex and velociraptor are there, the only reason jurassic world did so well was because it had explosions and a dark setting in general jurassic park dosent even need that just because you know the animals are there and thats wow enough
Davone Doyle only when it needed to though, for instance there was a scene were the t. rex had to break through a log, thats acceptable, the producers couldnt risk getting the animtronic broken, theres another scene where the raptor has to jump on a table, that couldn't physically be done with that animtronic weighing nearly 400 pounds
You sure you seen the hobbit? The CG for the series was actually awful and the reason why because the movie had to be made quickly apperantly. You can even see BTS where you see Peter Jackson tired and stressed
Fantastic essay that I fear was (unfortunately) necessary in today's climate. Never really understood the argument that CGI is "bad" for Hollywood - it has given us some truly fantastic new environments to explore, unique characters, and really opened up the possibilities for fiction. Great work as always Freddie - thanks for the video!
Jogwheel Hey Jon, do you think one day our technology will become so advanced that it will make CGI so pitch perfect that it can match real life physics and imagery?
Jogwheel Well I think the stigma against CGI comes from the a period around 2005-2010 where we just had a flush of crappy movies that seemed to be trying to substitute Good Story with Special effects. I think the CGI Hype train for a time was bad for Hollywood, but I think like a fad the Movie Industry got out of it and have been taking the Peter Jackson approach of using as much practical effects one reasonably can and then using CGI when needed.
ShamanMcLamie So, in other words: 5-year-old news? Haha :-) But yeh, I can agree with that assessment... although there are some features from that period that had great CGI as well. Just watched "Mission: Impossible 3" last night, in fact.
No?,what about treebeard then...the cavetroll?...lmao i hope you didnt think i actualy ment that :-D in that case ,you should buy a sarcasmdetector lol
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I've always been telling people to stop comparing good practical effects to bad CGI.
Now I can just direct them to this video. Thanks Freddie!
***** You took this words out of my mouth! :P
***** Exactly, that's why I love Neverneding story o Dark Crystal movies (not nostalgic effect) is just they're a full of good practical eefects
.ابباببةيتبوبياالي
P
Sultan Ali Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail cashbay20.com
'If they do their job well, no one even notices it,'
Damn, never thought about it that way, another reason to respect CG artists.
CG artists are the bass players of movies.
+HungryCupcake 'If they do their job well, no one even notices it' it counts to everything in life though...
+HungryCupcake Reminded me of futurama
+Xenthera When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
+HungryCupcake That isn't really all that correct. The problem with CG is that no one ca really get the lighting right. If you actually look at any cg you will notice it is computer generated. But yeah, if it's done well, people won't notice if they try to.
Did... you use Dragonheart & Flubber during the "movies with storytelling so good they enchant us" montage? (Sorry, I nitpick... it's what I do).
Regardless... f*cking awesome video. Bonus points for using a Frighteners clip.
CinemaSins
Because it is fake
Woo cinema sins
CinemaSins 4mil wow
CinemaSins Random ellipses, ding!
intresting
0:44 - "...the reason we think the CG looks bad is because we only see bad CG." - Exactly, man! You nailed it!
@fastrally ≠ Negative bias. We're hardwired to remember negative memories better than positive memories. If you ran into a cave lion in the Pleistocene, your brain would help you remember how it looked like better than any cavewoman you had sex with.
This is nonsense because by definition it would be impossible to have ‘positive bias’ as you wouldn’t see it , good cgi blends into background & looks natural , whereas bad cgi stands out.
I see both. What a one sided statement.
Sometimes it works in the other direction: People complain about how some CGI looks so fake and so unrealistic... but it turns out that it was an actual prop or practical effect. Oftentimes people see "bad CGI" where they want to see it, even where there is no CGI at all.
A good example of this would be the domino scene in V for Vendetta.
People don't know what to look for, in the Dark Knight's first trailer, people complained that Nolan was going to sell-out CgI realm or what ever, but the scene they were complaining about, a tumbler chase scene, was 100% 1/4 scale miniatures.
+MrFrostburner Star Wars trailer with BB-8 "Omg that looks so shitty there isn't even a dust trail I hope the whole movie isn't shitty cgi"
BB-8 turns out to be a real effect in that scene.
+shmaveyea As someone who liked Episode 1, I often had a chuckle when people complained about all the CGI and cited the Trade Federation Viceroy as an example.
***** I cared more about it in Attack of the Clones.
A solid note to add is Game of Thrones. The amount of CG in that show is insane but can be hard to pick out.
He has several example clips from there in this video
two, but yeah
My friend works for one of the companies who do a lot of the big shots for Game of Thrones and he showed me the amount of work that goes into such shots, it's pretty amazing. So many people, so many hours to make these look so realistic and so great.
Eli No its so awesome❤
True! It has won the VES award for "Outstanding Visual Effects in a Broadcast Program" every year since it started!
Lots of people underappreciate CGI, but you know what REALLY goes unappreciated?
Sound engineering
People largely don't understand how hard it is to get good audio on site and just how much audio is created in a studio. And I'm not talking about punching "thuds" or thunder... I'm talking steps in the mud, touching of skin, breathing, guns... sometimes actors can't get clear sound in the field, so they completely re-dub their voice... and completely re-do the ambience, birds, vehicles, weather... not to mention the score.
Foley artists will literally make or break a movie. However, I don't think I've ever seen a movie that had "bad" audio that wasn't some ultra b-list movie you can only find in a dying Movie Gallery.
Audio, in general, is the backbone of any good movie. You can have beautiful scenes with wonderful effects and wonderful acting, but if the audio is bad the entire scene is a big FAIL. While, you can take lackluster sets and even acting, but with brilliant sound the scene doesn't seem all that bad. Michael Mann understands this very well on his projects. That bank heist scene in "Heat" is cool for the action, but because of the incredible sound the scene has you holding your breath in anticipation or fear or excitement. The gun blasts sound exactly like they would in a real life downtown LA shootout. All the other little details are present too. The footsteps from running. The sounds of changing a magazine on the rifles. Superb.
True. Try sitting down people who disagree with you in front of a silent movie. No live music or any other sound. Less than a minute, suddenly they're open to agreeing with you.
Audio is 51% of a movie.
The really unappreciated job, Sound mixing
Being a CG artist is like being a true magician. Bad magic is ones that you can see and look terrible but great magic goes on completely unseen
I wouldn't say completely unseen. Most of it is glaringly obvious. Mostly in the movement. It looks animated and there's no disgusing that.
Exactly.
It is due to CGI that new movies are so bad.
@@Siegfried5846 did you even watch the video?
@@akirasearer356 Yes. New movies only focus on effects. Movies were better in the 80s.
Great video. Thank you, Freddie! I was pretty surprised with how much CGI there was in The Wolf of Wall Street once I saw that animation demo from the effects company. It's also true that animation companies are being treated very poorly. It's a shame what happened with the animators behind Life of Pi. Just as they were about to talk about their financial hardships at the Oscars they get cut off by the exit music. So sad.
I couldn't agree more with this guy.
It's not the effects but the way Hollywood just Cut and paste story from other mediums and half ass's it.
All about the quick buck more so then trying to make a good story.
In away this is kind of a reason why I don't like marvel movies, it's easy and it's lazy.
Not the effects but the story.
It's using something that already has a fan base, will suck in kids and generate a large revenue from casual moviegoers.
It's a cop out, a easy win.
It's almost like Hollywood just wants to play it safe and only go with existing successes.
"Original story?
Phffff!
No, we might not make money off that... But I heard there's a new teen book that just came out and is a best seller.
We should get the rights to that."
YourMovieSucksDOTorg Cool Cat thanks you too!
***** yep... i hope we can start to make more original content soon
***** Well this guy has a pretty damn cool and funny channel I can honestly recommend you watching if you're this into movies.
YourMovieSucksDOTorg I really like you :)
This video blew my mind! Thanks for clearing up that misconception. I usually forgive bad cg anyway, but I never knew just how much cg was in our films today.
Ditto in my case.
ditto
Dildo
This video is one that every fan of cinema MUST watch. Fantastic work, Freddie.
Baylor Linn Wait what have you seen me from?
Oh hahaha thanks got it
King Richard I Lol refreshingly comical
FrostuR AHAHAHHAHA THIS IS THE BEST COMMENT OF ALL TIME
FrostuR I'm going to say "refreshingly comical" whenever I hear a joke for the rest of my life.
People: CGI is ugly and sticks out.
David Fincher: Hold my beer
Fight Club's cgi still looks incredible today. I think the reason that the CG in his films is great is because of two reasons:
1. He used to work at ILM, so he knows the struggle of VFX artists.
2. He is one of the most collaborative filmmakers working today, so every technical and narrative aspect of his films is perfected through effort, precision, and care.
"Forrest Gump" won as Oscar in 1995 for its Visual Effects. Think about that.
Sams ChanneI what do you mean ? Forrest Gump have a lot of CGI.
Sams ChanneI They need to go back and clean up a lot in that movie. The shots with the presidents and celebrities look horrible by today's standards. In particular, the shots of Lydon Johnson and John Lennon are terrible.
MasterJediDude It's understandable, considering the rotoscoping was done entirely on a piece of software that will eventually become Photoshop.
Sams ChanneI Don't lie, we all thought Gary Sinese had no legs in real life.
Nathan Berry Poor Lieutenant Dan.
Same as plastic surgery. You only notice the bad outcomes..
LMFAO
Unless you’re a plastic surgeon, then you do.
@@CoolKid-ym3vo but they did!
no, plastic surgery are bad
PowerRedBull It also Depends on the context. Someone might need plastic surgery because they were attacked by a mountain lion and there face is scared up. Just like CGI, it depends on the context. Using practical effects are cheaper and it costs less. But of theres no other way to achieve a successful effect with practical effects, you go with CGI.
FINALLY!!! A well written, well researched essay on the topic that is so crowded with people whining about bad CGI in basically the same 3 or so movies.
ةـ
CGI doesn't ruin movies, never has never will...
Extremely lazy and/or cheapskate creators ruin movies. Effort in, Quality out.
that's true
CGI can ruin a movie depending on how it is used. Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One was one of the best looking examples of CGI I've seen. But he partly ruined the movie because I know that actor is dead. So my eye can't be fooled. Backgrounds are easier to fake because they aren't the focus and my brain has no bias against them. But my brain has a bias against believing Grand Moff Tarkin is really in those scenes. No matter how good that CGI model was, it could never overcome what I knew to be true and real.
Tarkin partly ruined the movie for you because you're used to watching human beings for 99% of your life. So you instantly notice when nowhere near enough of his face reacts to when he talks - only his lips are on the spot, while the rest of his face looks like an unmoving leather mask.
@@MJesDK yeah that's my point. It's why practical effect dinosaurs look better (to me) than the CGI dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park. Me eye isn't just trained to recognize the human face, but everything that is real and has volume and weight. My eye less apt to question a practical fake dinosaur vs a computer generated one, when my brain is being told to focus on it. When my brain is not told to focus on it, it will accept all manner of CGI background tricks etc. Practical effects are better at mingling fantasy with reality than CGI monsters.
It's why Jurassic Park feels like a movie about dinosaurs and Jurassic World feels like a movie about cartoon dinosaurs.
I'm a big proponent of at least mixing practical with CGI. Give the computer artists more time. Of course Jurassic Park CGI holds up. They only had 6 minutes of footage to work on rather than a whole hour or more. They had time to perfect it.
As a VFX Artist, I'm glad someone was finally kind enough to make a video such as this.
So that WETA Effect video pissed you off too, huh?
Well done. Glad you made this.
Every Frame a Painting
At first I thought you guys made this video :D
Every Frame a Painting You guys working together? This one was good but you are still the king of video essays about cinema :)
Every Frame a Painting love your videos man, for anyone who doesn't know this dude and liked this video, I would highly recommend subbing to him
Rhys Clark Interactive Media I mean he made an entire video about chairs that he somehow made interesting ffs
What Rhys Clark Interactive Media said.
Brilliant video!
Chris, I love all of your content. You're my mentor and my idol and inspired me to become a "critical viewer" myself. Please never stop being as awesome as you are.
I love you man.
+Chris Stuckmann Yet you can't stop to complain about cgi in the sw prequels.
Lol 69 likes
+CESSKAR Because that CGI just looked like sh**
+CaptainnTedd Looks fine to me, but hey, that's just my opinion.
CGI is like spices... Its necessary you add them, but you cant make an entire dish out of them.
hmm
This is one of the wisest quotes I ever heard.
👏
There are all CGI movies though.
@@strawhatoverlord9184 Yes and often times it's harder to feel for what's happening since you can tell it's full CGI. You just need 1 shot that doesnt look right to pull you out of a movie for a couple minutes
What about cg animated movies.
good CGI = you dont know it is CGI
basically why people hate CGI
xD
What he's saying this video is: You don't like obvious and bad cgi? Hah, that's because it's obvious and bad cgi.
Off course we don't mind good cgi. It's just that often we see cgi that could have easily been practical effect or just plain looks bad. That's what we hate. It's not like we hate a movie because we read somewhere that it used cgi in one of the scenes.
The problem is in fact when people confuse reality with CGI.
Sometimes it's practical sets and actual props that is taken to be CGI.
Matotra Except it sometimes is a case of CGI bad, practical good in the opinion fest that is social media. I’m sure you, and probably most people who would watch this aren’t like that but I see it a lot on the ‘net. Sort of the modern version of ‘based on a true story’ somehow making a movie more authentic or deep. I really enjoy history stuff but when Winston Churchill is shown talking to he common man and woman on a tube train I cringe, it detracts from the experience if I know I’m being bullshitted and I feel the same way with directors who play up to the VFX=bad crowd, even when they are fully aware that just about nothing avoids the computer for additions, even if it’s just comping.
please some one give me an opinion on the new venoms cgi I need answers is the cgi good or baD??
Dener Witt Yes, it's freaky.
Finally someone with brains! CGI is freaking everywhere, it's just that people often don't even realise that it's CGI!
I do. And I easily spot it haha. Mostly. Not in Distrct 9. I mean, I know those aliens are CG, but it doesn't bother my eyes in the same way most CG in commercials, TV shows etc. does, not even background stuff that the actors are standing in front of, like skyscrapers in the distance. I can easily tell it's CG.
Lukas Sprehn want a medal?
dan I'm allergic D:
ToTallyFX Gaming feat DaRRiion it's because the use a cgi tool
+Lukas Sprehn Commercials and TV shows? So you can tell what's computer generated in low-budget productions with tight deadlines? What impressive eyesight you have there, Sherlock.
I don't know why I was recommended this video, but I am glad I stumbled upon it. This is was awesome!
Same here
ik same but its such a good video
I second that motion
Same here, well done. I would love to see you analysis of Photo Chemical vs. Digital film.
And it was will be again once upon a time. ;)
Sometimes, I get so used to CG, that when I see real stuff in a movie, I think "wow, that looks fake... Wait it's real?!"
That’s what overusing CGI in live action filmmaking does to some audience members I’m afraid. CGI is an amazing technology. It can create some brilliant images. CGI animated films can be visually stunning. But when it comes to live action filmmaking, CGI should only be used where it’s absolutely necessary.
I plan to eventually become a filmmaker myself. And I will always use practical effects and miniatures where possible. If you can do an effect practically, DO IT PRACTICALLY. Save the CGI for scenes where there is ABSOLUTELY no other easy way to do those scenes. If you overuse CGI, the eye becomes too used to it and it starts to look phoney. James Cameron knew this, so he only used CGI for the T1000 in Terminator 2 where he simply couldn’t use Robert Patrick himself, or practical effects. All the scenes where the T1000 gets damaged are practical effects, yes even when the T800 fires that grenade into him and he explodes into that mangled metallic figure before falling into that tank of molten metal, that was a practical effect.
Using CGI in live action filmmaking is fine, but you have to combine it with practical full scale and/or miniature effects, otherwise it begins to look phoney. I’m personally glad that practical effects have not become fully obsolete, but I’m hoping that my filmmaking career will start a renaissance in practical effects in mainstream film.
@@trainlover16 good points but I think James cameron is not a good person to use for an example of a director that uses limited cgi. Just look Avatar, James Cameron is the biggest culprit of the overuse of cgi lol.
It is due to CGI that new movies are so bad.
@@Siegfried5846Not true, its the failed planning, but hey.
@@xxxpyrosxxx No, effects can't make up for lack of story and characters.
and that's why I love this art, this animation, this industry. When it's done well, it's incredible
JD Marshall then the director ruins everything by bad camera angles and editor cuts all the fun.
Richard Decker CG is most often applied after the final cut is done.
I'm interested in doing CG, I'm a senior in High School, any tips for me?
JD Marshall the only one hating this beautiful art is the idiot who made the video
Did you watch it??
With so many droll and negative attempts at 'criticism' on RUclips, it's so refreshing to watch something that it so enjoyable, informed and positive about modern filmmaking. A superb video.
@ArmyAnts Studios #FAIL (You lose The Game!)
Mr. Moreno-Melgar
I don’t think some of you understand the argument made when people criticize CGI. It’s not that we hate cgi we just hate when it’s not done properly or over use it for no reason the way Zack Snyder does.
Wait...the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park weren't real?
For the more rapid movement scenes or scenes in tight spaces the used cgi. They used practical effects when it worked, and CG when it didn't
They were real, THEY just want you to think they weren't. o.O
dinosaurs still exist in africa
You sure they are not real? I've been praying to Raptor Jesus and he says they are real.
"Nowhere in the bible does it say that jesus isnt a raptor."
I know, I know...old meme joke :P
A little FYI Jurassic park goof, Just before that part where the raptors come in, after they opened the door, you see someone's hand come in and hold the tale down. :D haha.
+Farine ziq
Dinosaurs still exist right outside your home.Unless you're living in an area that doesn't have any birds .that is.
In other words, it all really comes down to how the effects are applied and executed. like how a car (or whatever) is shaded, how the camera is positioned, etc. CG effects can work really well in movies if done right.
CGI isn't ruining movies. Bad directors, audience expectation, and book adaptations are ruining MAINSTREAM movies. CG is fucking great in the hands of good directors, look what it can do for continuous shots(Birdman), or the scope of movies(Lord of the Rings).
+Dillon Jenings Book adaptations isn't killing movies. LotR is even a book adaptation. So are many great movies. I think it depends on the book they're adapting.
+badamski17 Kinda, but it depends more on the WAY they are adapting the book. The best book adaptations are stories contained in the book and modified to fit better into a film instead of trying to fit the whole book into a movie. If you are not planning to make a three hour long movie like Lotr, you will leave the audience with a rushed, dumb-downed version of the film, and even Lotr feels rushed and incomplete compared to the books, especially the first movie.
+Arcanineisthebest I think LOTR is one of a few exceptions, sure, there was some parts, especially the second and third film, wich in the books it was really a "mess" to put in into the big screen.
+Dillon Jenings Lieutenant Dan!
+badamski17 I meant like young adult adaptations. Like Hunger Games and fucking Maze runner and divergent and all that shit.
LOTR was a fantasy novel with rich character and detail, and was put in the hands of a director who respected it.
These YA movie adapts are just cash grabs.
you can't lie , District 9 looked badass
It may never happen,but I am waiting for District 10 or something of the sort...
Man, District 9 is so fucking good
Shame the story was complete shit.
+ouncy it wasn't
Clubber Lang ...entertaining.
CGI like other forms of art, is simply a tool. It matters how it's used and who uses it, rather than defining it by the tool itself.
True
agree to an extent.. fact is the best films ever made, and that will live on forever as art, don't have any CGI in them.
+bamberstru That's an association fallacy. The fact that Citizen Kane or Psycho don't have any CGI and TMNT has, doesn't prove that CGI is bad. Citizen Kane and Psucho also didn't use 6k Red cameras, cine-drones, their soundtracks didn't contain large amounts of synthesized sounds like Hans Zimmer's do. But that doesn't mean any of those things are necessarily bad.
There are many well-rated films with immense amounts of computer-generated imagery: Gravity, The Jungle Book (2016), Life of Pi, Mad Max: Fury Road, and most recently, Blade Runner 2049. BUT WAIT. Blade Runner 2049 has a better IMDB rating (8.3) than the original Blade Runner (8.2), which had little to no CGI. Does this mean that CGI is better than practical effects? No. That's like saying that a microscope is always better than a magnifying glass. They're different tools meant for different purposes.
No, but other than Citizen Kane and Psycho, I personally don't like any of those things.
I find your Blade Runner 'point' to be nonsense. It's IMDb. Your point 1 "better rating" example is irrelevant, especially when it's made up of a biased user base that slaps 10/10 to everything they see, especially the latest and glitziest of Hollywood products...
I'll agree in that they're different tools for different purposes, often unfortunate and useless purposes that primarily exist to stimulate you on the big screen (after you're done being force-fed advertisements, if your theater has those,) and I'm not saying there aren't films I haven't enjoyed at most, or tolerated at worst, and/or wouldn't watch with all of these things you mentioned (I've seen all of those very bad movies you brought up), but it's nothing that will be remembered and cherished as important, and significant.
to sum up, I prefer film as a timeless statement or expression of the artist behind their work any day over pure box office entertainment. I know the majority seem to disagree with this, and that's ok, even if it's a little sad.
+bamberstru Regardless of whether or not you personally like them, they're very well rated by actual film critics, who tend to examine the film beyond its superficial characteristics. I'm not saying they were objectively good, as there's no way to say that when regarding art, however, they were clearly enjoyed by the majority of critics and the CGI wasn't brought-up as something that hindered their experience.
Although, I don't think you addressed the main point of my comment: do you think CGI prevents a film from being great, and if so, why? If your point is _"Great films have little to no CGI, and bad films are filled with it. Therefore CGI prevents a movie from being great."_ then you're just making an association fallacy.
CG is like a ninja.
You will notice a bad ninja...but you will never see a good ninja...because if people notice you then you've already failed. just like with CG
Yeye all the comments are about this already bud
This one has levels
l a y e r s
Yea like ninja hatori
Actually I like to compare it with "
The invisible man"
CGI its like a protagonist that gets all the views even if his objective is that you will be looking through them.
I think what Peter Jackson did with his WETA special effects company in the LOTR trilogy was amazing, he used both cgi and lots of costumes and many extras.
Kool Doc Watching the behind the scenes on that was great. He used every tool he had available and combined them in a perfect way. The blending of setpieces with minatures and CGI as well as the clever ways of portraying the difference in size between the races is amazing.
Lord AJ I agree I watched all the extras on the LOTR trilogy, excellent! if you'll remember the roar of the Balrog it was quite creative just to give one example.
brandon baerga I thought the Hobbit was 48 FPS?
Sorry most of the lotr films looks like a video games. If you want to know how to incorporate cgi correctly, watch Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park. Movies should be movies, not video games.
Huuh... just no. LotR doesn't look like a video game at all, and the quality of CGI incorporation isn't better in JP or Terminator2 than in LotR, like not at all. You are just comparing movies that are really different : the movies you take as examples are in the real world while LotR is about a fantasy world. That's not a good comparison.
Sure, the films are terrible. But the Transformers themselves look fucking awesome.
Tru dat. I remember buying the first Transformers movie on Bluray specifically because of the audio and visual effects.
The only reason to own this film is Megan Fox wasn't CGI. Action, Explosions Transforms. Jada Jada. Nice to have.
Actually, the first one received a positive critical reception.
jacoblgames Transformers 1 was the only decent/good one, on average the whole franchise is terrible.
No, the effects are good, but they look terrible. They use the most generic color schemes, it's impossible to tell what is going on, the cinematography is banal, and none of this is helped by the fact that the editing treats the viewer like a goldfish with ADHD.
Gollum is the perfect mix, Andy's acting is sublime (Oscar now) and the animation on top brought a character not just to light, but good enough to hold the screen even when its just him in a scene.
Gollum looked like animation to me. A lot of the CGI in lord of the rings was crap, especially the last one with those elephants
djksketch it did go a little to far, but look into gollums eyes, there is such depth.
Mark Fudge It was too early for the technology with all the CGI in Lord of the rings, gollum included. Scenery was only thing that was realistic, antything living was cartoonish, gollum included
+djksketch Lord of the Rings was great.
Luciano it was, but shame it didn't come out now, would have been so much better with todays CGI
the visuals in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is absolutely stunning and I have high respect for the team who created the surroundings and details
sirtaylorsir the color grading is beautiful
Yeah. Also, Thor: Ragnarok has the most colorful CGI effects ever made, especially for that scene where Hulk standing in front of the window while watching the futuristic city as he continued talking with Thor.
Fantastic video essay!
Sneaky Zebra ...essay?
BakedMrPotato Found the idiot who didnt watch the entire video
Love sneaky zebra
TheColfud Carmichael That.... that was the premise of the video.
Andrew Williams i did watch the video, i apologize for apparently not finding some hidden reference in the video.
p.s. calm down
Good CG is CG you cant even tell its CG
Bad CG is unpleasant to look at, its quite obvious.
Team6OWG
Hi Horo.. fancy to meet you here.
Team6OWG i agree, but sometimes even good CGI can't save the movie, such like Transformer for example.
Team6OWG It reminds me of the episode of Futurama where god tells bender that "when you've done it right, people won't know you've done anything at all".
Team6OWG towerthreads.com/pages/artwork-by-jared-rank
Team6OWG Bad acting too. Bad screenwriting too. Bad directing too. Bad sets too. Bad cinematography too. Bad editing too. Bad wardrobe too. Your point is?
As an animator and VFX artist I thank you from the bottom of my heart for putting this out. I'm sick of hearing our craft derided by people with no idea about how much compositing and background creation is in even the most mundane shots. To be a competant CGI artist you need to know about: the physics of light and materials. Cinematography and camera setup, lighting, pacing, programming, acting, fine art. You have to be able to sketch AND program. It is one of the most intellectually and creatively demanding jobs around, and the people who do it (much better than me!) in mainstream movies and TV deserve credit for their work, not this ignorant derision we constantly hear from people who themselves, don't make films.
Chelfyn Baxter As a "creative," I find those who are not creative in the least are the ones who complain the loudest about what they do not know.
+Chelfyn Baxter same man
@@digitalintent what do you mean? Who complains? The creative VFX artists or the anti-CGI snowflakes?
Yeah they should've just hired a real Thanos
/s
Yeah it's a shame Josh Brolin's purple half brother is so busy at the moment but hey, Marvel can use Josh.
BuT THanOs DoEsn'T ExIst...
Thanos looks fake as shit lol its so obbious hes CGI. Also hes a dumb antagonis. Infinity war and Engame are shit and cant even compare to the comic version. The whole MCU is a mess. Its mediocre shit for the mainstream masses who dont know shit about the comics and characters.
@@KillyRR the comics are worse than the movies. thanos has a shitty ass edgelord reason for doing what he does in the comics. being a purist isn't cool kid
VirusRonsen82 found the edgelord
"may be the problem lies in the story line not on the CGI" good point in there!!
What story line?...they're all the same the past 30years :)
+XHALE303 I don't know what movies you've been watching then sir.
Shammo Hamid Im talking about the usual Holywood blockbuster good vs bad, guy rescues girl, knocks everybody out with 1 punch, exept the main bad guy which always takes 15minutes...THAT story line :)
+XHALE303 that's a premise, not a plot. It's hardly a good criticism on movies.
Zoronii Criticism? lol, it was more a joke, u should try, its more fun then nitpicking on others :P
TURN ON CC//SUBTITLES FOR MOVIE TITLES
*Flies away
thanks captain
Had me for a second there
Glad to be of service :D
lol "flies away" wait what
9gag joke
It's like game graphics, if the graphics are a bit bad, the game might be still good.
+TredBobek Yeah, but even video games aren't safe from those who only focus on bad visuals. I've seen way to many people posting "shitty graphics=shitty game"
+Arthus850 Games can be a different frontier though... games are all about immersion, some more than others. Bad visual effects can knock the game out of pattern way more than any movie can. I am not talking about amazing high-end graphics either... Minecraft has great graphics, just not might be defined that way all the time.
Yep, Fallout's graphics aren't good and look at it's ratings
+Arthus850 aka pc master race
+Rusty Nugget yup. They are notorious for that.
I highly suggest watching some of the Corridor Crew channel. Those guys are CGI artists, and they can differentiate between good CGI that looks bad and bad CGI. Definitely worth a watch!
The shark at 03:10 is amazing! You never (or I, at least) think about how much artistry, craftsmanship and time goes into these effects, even though some are so subtle and no one really notices it. Amazing video, made me appreciate CG more :)
+Sokarijo.Diaries must of taking months of work to do
Yea its impressive it was the best part of the video the people that makes these things are carzy talanted. Its kinda like the people that makes some of the stuff in games now days in assassianscrees unity that came out in 2015 they apperantly had people that worked over 1 year whit only creating one building since it was so detailed and well made (the building not the overall game)
***** Nah, I don't man. I was looking that up too, but I couldn't find it.
***** Appsessed Looked it up for you the movie is named Kon-Tiki www.imdb.com/title/tt1613750/
So true. The real issue is people don't make good enough movies, and CG ends up being a scape goat.
Great example, Jurassic World vs Jurassic Park. The real issue is lack of creativity.
agreed cgi should only be used when practical is either to dangerous or actually not practical and very hard to do example the running trex in jurassic park or any high motion movements. The less cgi you use the more budget money you have to actually make it great when you do use it.
I kinda liked Jurassic World. Especially when that fat guy got his hand bitten
guitarman0365, the money not spent on CGI would then be spent on practical effects. So you can't use it to increase the quality of the rest of the CGI.
@Hassan Syed everything can be overused. How is it a valid argument? Antibiotics are bad becuse alot of people use it. Don't you understand stupid that argument is??
6:10 The Death Star in Star Wars a New Hope in this transition from space into the tunnels and paths of the outer Death Star, is actually a painting done by John Berkey. Intact most of the space to Death Star transitions in a New Hope were!
thanks for making this vod. Really annoying to watch people talk about how CGI doesnt matter, tired of it. This is good stuff.
Most CGI haters cite Kubrick as an example of how good movies can look without CGI. What they don't realize is that if Kubrick had access to CGI, he could bring his true vision to life without any technological restrictions. 2001 a space odessey was supposed to have the gate on saturn not jupiter but making saturn's rings was just too difficult. It isn't CG that sucks, it's always the directors. Cameron's avatar had amazing visuals but the story sucked so people assume it's nothing but a gimmick, and for avatar, that much is true. But 2001 a space odessey with CG actually enhances the experience because the acting is so spot on and the directing is amazing.
+Dingo D. Manhunter "What they don't realize is that if Kubrick had access to CGI, he could bring his true vision to life without any technological restrictions."
I give you credit for your bravery in posting that comment. Soon the George Lucas hate groups will roll in to ridicule you for your words, and will subject you to the maturity of a prepubescent 12 year old PewDiePie fan.
+Dingo D. Manhunter I honestly actually thought Avatar's CGI sucked. Seriously, consider how long that movie was in development along with the budget. There is no excuse why the CGI already looks dated. Good CGI, as this video explained, isn't even noticeable. In Avatar, is there a single scene that makes you think "Yep, no WAY there is CGI in this scene!"?
SeraphAura I smoked alot of weed before even attempting to watch that film so it looked fine to me. But it was nowhere near as mind blowing as 2001 a space odyssey where the visuals looked too fucking real.
I literally just watched 2001 yesterday. It STILL looks real!
+Dingo D. Manhunter Honestly Avatar doesn't look real at all and the story is definitely a rehash but I get a tremendous sense of adventure when I watch it and that makes me incredibly happy. Only other recent movies that give me the same feeling are Inception, Cloud Atlas, Matrix, and Titanic (All widely recognized as some of the best films ever made). I would argue that Avatar is a good movie for most people, and it has a 7.9 on IMDB and near universal critical acclaim. So it's not a shit movie, and the only people that have that view are jaded internet dwellers. Talk to any normal person and they'll tell you they thought it was great.
tl;dr: Avatar is not shit, the CGI was not a gimmick, and I'm sorry you have no sense of adventure to enjoy a great movie.
Missing: Captain America's CGI turning Chris Evans into a 88 lb weakling was extremely well done.
that's weird I'm 15 and I'm skinny as hell but even I'm over 115Ib.
the imperial system strikes again, plzzzz
Actually at some pints it was terrible. Like really obvious.
yehp
idk i thought his face wasn't lined up with his body and was moving funny idk my friends told me i was crazy but i can be very observant when it come to faces
Absolutely amazingly put together and explained Freddie... I had to pause and re-watch so many scenes I couldn't believe they weren't real... Thanks!
It still amazes me that some CGI of classic movies could stand out even in this era.
Have you seen Warcraft. Those orcs look so realistic, it made the humans look cgi
Ruine Marie pretty sure the humans actually were cg. The SW soldiers
person main humans.. smh
I loved Warcraft, they brought my nostalgia of the games to life.
I rather if they use real orcs instead of cg
Syafiq Ibrahim Orcs want too much money.
How sad that something so obvious needs to be pointed out.
***** Well no one ever said practical effects were perfect. (If they did they're just assholes or idiots, or both). The point is both CGI and practical effects can look bad. Which is why I respect James Cameron so much for brilliantly and masterfully combining the two in Titanic.
***** Exactly this, most people seem to ignore the bad or wipe it fro their memory, even iconic films like Alien has got some moments when you can blatantly tell it's just a guy in a suit. Or how about all the rear projection FX they used to use before computers and green screens which made it look like they were just standing in front of a cinema screen. The 80s and 90s were full of movies with extremly bad practical effects.
DukeofBlasphemy towerthreads.com/pages/artwork-by-jared-rank
***** They're not. They are saying that practical effects, if done right, are always better. And honetly I think that's true.
+Vijay Jayant No the effects are still fantastic. It only seems bad because there's so MUCH of it. Dark of the Moon Optimus looks just as good or even better than TF1. I will agree though that Age of Extinction, looked slightly bad for some reason.
A lot of people also think that they've replaced the magic and mystery of "how did they do that?" in the movies with "just do it in a computer." But anyone who actually does graphic design knows that there is no "just" about it. It's just that most laymen can't understand the technical aspects of rendering, shaders, etc and practical effects are much easier to explain, so they think that CG is as simplistic as waving a magic wand and making stuff happen.
yeah it irritates me people think of this way for a lot of professions. I compose music and record it on a computer, and they often think you can just magically press a button and the computer just generates the music itself or so
@@PowerRedBullTypology Having looked at Famitracker, a program that simulates how the NES sound hardware works, I can see how composers need to learn tricks with how to work with the hardware like this:
ruclips.net/video/FpMUE9S1ll8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Jd6nyynuzio/видео.html
@Matthew Actually, some people DO oversimplify CG. Michael Lanteri, the visual effects supervisor for Jurassic Park said that people thought the CG used in the movie would "put everybody out of work" and that "the director would just sit at a computer and type 'D' for 'Dinosaur' or 'C' for 'Creature'...but it really ended up creating a lot of work for people." Second of all, I've been just as well trained to recognize "practical" effects just as much as CG. When I look at the AT-AT walkers in Empire Strikes Back, I can tell by the motion that it's stop motion. In Batman 1989, when the Batwing crashes into the ground, It's obviously a tiny model plane crashing into a model city with little toy matchbox cars. Godzilla movies continued to use practical effects long after CG replaced everything in American movies, and they are obviously actors in suits, puppets, and miniature city sets. Originally, Spielberg was planning to use "Go Motion," which is a more advanced version of stop-motion, but thought it looked "too jerky" so decided to go with CG. Jurassic Park used both CG and practical, CG for the wide shots with lots of motion, and animatronics for the close up action, especially when actors needed to touch the dinosaurs. But most audiences just saw dinosaurs, period.
Matthew, I've literally never seen a movie that has 100% practical effects and looks and feels better and more interesting than good CGI. As someone currently studying digital media, when I watch something like Avengers Endgame, I can feel effort and artistry and beauty and style and passion oozing out of every frame of the film.
@Matthew "And eyes can almost always, if not always, recognize CGI." that right there is absolute bullshit, I guarantee you you've watched dozens of movies and series where you didn't spot 99% of the visual effects.
And you could tell in old movies when "real" effects were just miniatures or small on set explosions, don't pretend your eyes didn't catch THOSE.
Everyone: Does CG suck?
This guy: Well yes, but actually no.
Memetastic
2019: unoriginality
You're the least original human being on earth. Congratulations.
I recently watched a video about the history of graphics in video games, which posed much the same question. I was born in '65, so I grew up at the beginning of the video game era. I've witnessed everything from black & white Pong, to virtually photo-realistic games, and have dealt with my children & grandchildren saying how primitive things were. Oh, yeah - they give me that, "How did you guys even live back then? But then, I've played some of their games & found some to be worse than useless. To me, the question is very simple: is the game fun to play? Super Mario Bros. is fun. It doesn't matter at all that Mario is just some little 2D sprite. The game is fun to play. I think a similar idea applies to CGI in movies. If it helps tell the story without getting in the way, then it's good. The question of how to tell the story is (or at least, should be) foremost in the mind of the director. And most movies that contain a fair amount of major effects are done with a blend of technologies, anyway. The trick is just to make it all come together to serve the characters & the story. That's all. tavi.
totally true. played the call of duty in PS4 or something, good grafics, but shit fun. it seems you are inside a loop of a bad movie and than you can only shot the bad guys.
@@luizcastellar Call of Duty is not what you should be judging the industry by. Games like The Witcher, The Last of Us, Red Dead Redemption 2, Dark Souls, Mass Effect are the ones that hold the bars in the industry, not Call of Duty.
@@BrashSoulstorm people have different opinion, I think personally (even though the latest CoD I've played is World at War, and maybe a little of modern warfare 2, can't really remember) CoD need to stay on the space theme, we got world war CoD now, even though we've already got world war BF, it seems like people just want the same things
Maybe it's the same case like in this video with bad CGI. I'm myself '72, I also used to play Galaxians, Super Cobra, Space Invaders, etc, later I had the Atari 800XL, and then the Amiga 500.
But the good games of today are far far better than those of the old days (Final Fantasy series (overall many rpg games), Witcher 3, Metal Gear Solid series, Resident Evil series, After Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Origins, Dark Souls 1, 2, 3, Alien Isolation, Prey, and many many more).
@@dacsus What are you talking about, witcher 3 is literally just overhiped movie full of cutscenes with rudimentary gameplay.
It's not that CG is bad. The bad thing is today (because we can show more) stories are being designed around big effects instead of effects being designed around story. I agree, the best effects are when you don't notice. And the best films are still the best stories. Effects are the icing story is the cake.
The Prequels to Star Wars is a prime example of that. The story was so bloody bland, along with awful acting, yet the entire films were dominated and relied heavily on CGI sets and characters. Which I think is why they received such negative feedbacks. But if it's balanced with great story then it'll be praised. Hence why the new Episode 7 was so well received, cause it balanced both of those elements.
Another good example, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. When I watched the movie the second time, sure the visual effects does look kinda nice and there were only two characters that I like but it feels so fake when you see actors that are obviously standing in front of green screen. Also, the characters were bland, the story is too generic, and I didn't cared what happens to any characters throughout the movie. I really hated what Burton did to Alice; it's like he tried so hard to make her into an independent woman who needs no man that it felt forced. Speaking of force, this movie was forcing its unsubtle feminist message down in my throat. I think the point of Alice was that she was supposed to be the straightman to the strangeness and surreal world of wonderland and its inhabitants. Lastly, am I the only one who noticed how unnaturally pale Alice is compared to the other people at the wedding?
Alex D, also there's the "enhanced" versions of the original trilogy which was mostly just there to show off CGI effects. Also the reason Episode 7 was so well received is mostly because of pandering. It was mediocre but people overlooked that because it reminded them so much of the original trilogy, granted it also did a fairly good job of blending new and old elements. I mean for one thing, Takodana is obviously not Dagobah and Maz is fairly different from Yoda but is somewhat similar and is equally likeable but on the other hand you have -the pokeball shaped bigger death star- Starkiller Base and -Not R2- -token kid appeal droid- -token astromech- BB-8.
Which is why he said the movies themselves are the problem. Pay attention next time.
It seriously blows my mind how lifelike CGI can get when done well. The scene with the woman walking into the glass booth, explosions lighting up the landscape, never would I think that it can all be done by computers.
Damn.
Benjamin button won an Oscar for best makeup..
It also won an Oscar for Best visual effects
While I'm sure CGI was used as well, a lot of Brad Pitt's old age in that movie was makeup. I saw the prosthetics on display at that year's Oscars makeup symposium.
This video is spectacular. Thank you for making this.
Do you know where I can get a Hillary Clinton Mesh (BLENDER) head? Thanks
Gene Wyatt Sorry I don't know where you could get that. Your best bet is to probably try to use a MakeHuman head and customize it to look like her.
Sounds good...
+Dimitri Sanchez (08Cheeseits) A lot of the bashing for the prequels has to do with the writing and the acting.
Dimitri Sanchez This video is just saying CGI isn't inherently bad. It's not saying it can't be done bad or that Star Wars didn't do parts badly. I don't see how this video itself can be named in favor of the prequels themselves.
It baffles me how people can say the CGI in the Star Wars prequels is bad even though the effects were amazing when the movies came out and were way ahead of its time. The CGI effects in the prequels made some effects which are praised in this video possible in the first place. Sure they look dated now but so do all effects over time and guess what, the effects in the original trilogy (and i mean the versions without the changes of course) don't hold up very well today too. But that doesn't mean they are any less amazing.
+PoweredByFlow
Two words: Jurassic Park.
The CGI in JP was well used and well made, probably some of the best looking I've ever seen.
1993 compared to 1999-2005. Way ahead of its time, eh?
+ParaChomp
There was plenty of CGI in JP. The first dinosaurs you see are completely CG. Most wide shots of dinos were CG, like the scene at the end with the raptors and the t-rex. The point is, the filmmakers didn't overuse or abuse the tool, and they actually used certain techniques to hide the effects, just like any practical effect would need.
Most modern films don't attempt to hide the special effects nearly as much as in the past, because these days, the average viewer just wants a crystal clear image with zero film grain, hence the use of DNR or shooting digitally. The reason the CGI in Jurassic World looks so much more fake than in Jurassic Park, is because the filmmakers didn't use proper techniques to there advantage, such as shooting and printing with a grain structure that helps hide the computer effect, adjusting the lighting and contrast to help hide the effect etc. They just went for a clean image, using fine 35mm and 65mm film stock, and most theaters projecting digitally doesn't help these symptoms one bit.
+PoweredByFlow The prequels were some of the first movies at that time to try to make new worlds with CGI.
+FrostBitey10
I realize that point, but I think, though it was released after the first two prequels, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow did a much better job with that idea. It was an experimental film from 2004, and the idea was to take real actors, and put them in a world made completely of CGI. They succeeded in accomplishing that, albeit some really bad CGI.
The problem with the prequels, is that Star Wars was a previously established and completed series, and George just decided to continue it by telling the backstory behind the original films. Because the universe and style had been established already, experimenting with these kinds of things isn't a smart move. Sky Captain worked as a stand alone film, but the prequels just don't hold up to the same feeling that the OT had.
Another thing that Sky Captain has is that it's actually a reasonably good film, and does a much better job paying homage to it's inspirations than the PT did. I mean, the PT didn't really pay any homage to anything that the original Star Wars was based on.
+PoweredByFlow Oh..the films look great but very static and not very dynamic..Not saying he should michael bay the fuck out of it but, its very soap opera in how the dialogue is shot..The action scenes are fine (though the droid factory scene was horrible in my opinion).
I've no problem with film makers using CG, as long as they use it right. What I don't like is when they over use it for things they don't need to, which then takes away some of the experience. Like if Mad Max: Fury Road's explosions were all CG then you wouldn't look at it in awe since you'd know it's fake and it didn't happen live on set.
The industry is constantly evolving, people need to go along with it, but that doesn't mean they can't find the perfect blend of CG and practical, which is what I like to see. Movies were you can't even tell the difference.
Batman Jr. Exactly. Looking at the comments, and the video itself, you would think that the argument against CG is that it should never be used. In reality, 95% of the people who argue against CG are arguing against the OVERUSE of it, not the use of it in general. Seeing an enormous explosion that doesn't even ruffle the leaves of a tree that's right next to it is just lazy filmmaking. Which is why I don't understand why the maker of this video included the Transformers movies as positive examples of CG. I agree with the argument this video is making, CG is a tool that can be used to either positive or negative effect. It just seems like dude thinks that proponents of practical effects think that CG is always worse than practical, and I just don't think that's true. I'm not against the use of CG, but I will always prefer practical effects for movie monsters, blood and gore, explosions, and fight scenes.
First Last transformers example was to show the parts when they use both practical effects and cg like explosions since thats his thing and the textures on the transformers arent bad and dont look like animated characters put into the real world or the opposite like star wars 1-3 or the mummy
i do agree with fights gore and explosions being real i think if they can avoid cg they should or if the cg would look better they should use it instead of trying to make something that looks worse then bad semi textured cg
Batman Jr. Didn't realize Mad Max was a documentary.
جديد
.
ج ط
ج
د
Batman Jr. Again, it doesn't even matter how often CGI is used, it matters how well it is practiced.
A fun fact though: The first Jurassic Park movie isn`t only practical effects, it`s partly practical. Most of it is CGI. It`s the first movie with proper CGI and the movie is known for it.
However the practical effects were not half bad either they even made full dino suits. It is truly the best of both worlds
wait which parts are CGI, cuz the only practical thing i know is that some of the dinosaurs are puppets
You can always see what is CGI back then, everytime it looks bad it's CGI, that's that! If I'm not mistaken I think they made a CGI version of the T-Rex Break Out Scene and scrapped it completely because it simply looked much worse than the actual practical effects, allthough the running at the end might have been CGI I don't remember but it looked less pleasing!
the absolute BEST looking CG always contains real elements in it--real textures from nature, real plates from real photos, real leaves, and even physically based cameras, global illumination, IES lighting and bokeh. thats because it is all about power over your domain, the trick to having ultimate control over your story while maintaining photorealism is not to synthesize the entire thing from scratch (although there are some very amazing zbrush artists or matte painters that can do this) but to source from reality and synthesize by sourcing and mixing and manipulating them to fit your needs. that way you can create a tree that fits the exact shape you want with a real life consistency from whatever actual environment inspired you, and even those who do work from scratch will tell you that reference, or at the very least inspiration, is necessary.
take this for instance. everyone thinks its some kind of mask but it was actually sculpted in zbrush. i then shot some global illumination from a real jungle at it and took the resulting image and applied real texture to it from salamanders and lizards and recomposited it.
i0.wp.com/www.flightspace.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BPR_Render-Alien-head.jpg
this one was made almost entirely from projected photographs onto 3D geometry
i0.wp.com/www.flightspace.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Back-Alley-Street.jpg
this one was sourced almost entirely from textures i shot at the getty specifically for this purpose
i2.wp.com/www.flightspace.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cliff-720.jpg
with these kind of tools i can take from real life, and using it piece together whatever i dream up, down to the last detail. sort of like piecing together your ideal girl from magazine clippings only having the end result not look like sloth from the goonies
"Real"/photo textures from nature are very very bad and need cleaning, especially because of all the static lighting/shadows captured by the camera that you have to clean up out of there. Photos make for good reference material though.
Felix Kütt well thats more the photographers issue. you need to shoot your textures at midday with an overcast sky and the sun right overhead. shadows are not inherently bad, you just want to avoid cast or form shadows, try to light it very evenly so you get only the contact shadows and ambient occlusion. if you do keep shadows, its good practice to match it to the lighting you know you're going to use. its always best for the artist to shoot their own textures if they can because they know what they need.
the alternative of course is procedural textures but there is always going to be something missing or artificial in that. i have been seeing a lot of procedural stuff in my linkedin feed, which is impressive for something ultimately created with a series of fractal noises, but ultimately falls short.
take this procedural wood:
s3.amazonaws.com/forums.content.luxology.com/images/poster/9179d6284978926de3d5cb42d57d1c40_p.jpg
versus this which is based on real wood.
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/96/92/f1/9692f161806492edc94eb0472812fd0c.png
neither is completely realistic, but the second is more naturalistic, detailed, and takes you much farther faster. thats not to say you can't use them in tandem which is very powerful indeed.
I never said they have to be purely procedural. :)
Things missing from purely procedural textures are the things best created/painted by hand. If you're experienced enough this is not hard.
Wow, I was definitely one of those people who liked to say they use CG too much, but man, consider my mind changed. Great video
Jurassic Park had several special effect shots that blew my mind because I had it completely wrong. When the T-rex steps on the car and starts to attack the tires I always thought it was CG T-rex and practical car. Turns out the car was CG as well but so were the PEOPLE in the car. Then in the next shot it switches to practical T-rex and actual people in a real car and it is genuinely hard to tell the difference. I also had no idea that the stunt when Lex is dangling from the ceiling with the camera looking straight down as the raptor falls and is slowly getting back to its feet and jumps up to try and bite here as they pull her up... turns out that was not the actress for Lex it was a stunt double and they put an image of Lex's face over the stunt double's with CG.
Really wish Freddie or Matt would make more video essays like this one - I feel like they’d be able to bring a lot of perspectives and experiences to the table of modern movie criticism that other content creators couldn’t
Ty. As a VFX student it hurts constantly hearing all the hate.
+Jun Moreno Stick with it bud, there are haters in every line of work. Even hate within the industry. Movies are panacea for the masses after all, so there is just more opinions out there. But from what I've seen, students like you, bring in the fresh ideas, and are the future of better cg.
+Trancor I just wanna hug you.
Hah, feel free if we meet in the future at some point, haha.
+Trancor This guy is amazing,you Willly Wonka,m8?
You asking if I'm Willy Wonka? Cause, shit, I'd love me some Oompa Loompas to break into song and dance every time I fuck up a project I'm working on!
Visual effects, in themselves, are not ruining movies. The way in which many directors consider special effects to be a replacement for good storytelling however definitely is.
VFX have to count for something. I mean if all I wanted was a story and no vfx, I could just read a book.
Keep in mind: there also awful practical effects. People are so selective about the practical effects they mention, it's always Jurassic Park and Lord of the Rings... Not going to talk about all those old b-movies or the obvious puppets in Star Wars eh? It's like the video says: CGI and practical effects are tools, they can end up being amazing or awful depending on how they are used.
Oh also, Jurassic Park and Lord of The Rings themselves used a ton of awesome CGI. So in the end holding them up as paragons of practical effects is itself a misnomer.
Good for you, but most people actually have standards
Sure, but B-movies are kind of meant to be bad. They embraced their lack of budget rather than trying to hide it. So your complaint more completely misunderstands the entire metagenre of the B-movie.
One of the benefits of practical effects is even bad practical effects look real. It's a lot easier to buy an ugly puppet when it looks like it's really there than a good looking CGI add in that doesn't.
No, B-movies are movies that tried to cash in on something using a shoestring budget or people who have no idea how to make films tried to make a film... Sometimes a combination of both things.
It looks real because it is real, but that does not mean it feels real. Bad CGI can be distracting, but it can look pleasing and keep you in the world. Bad practical effects more often than not look truly fake and quickly remind you that you are looking at a studio set and that there is someone manipulating the sorry excuse for special effects.
Like seriously, can I reiterate how stupid the "it looks real" argument is? It looks real but it does not FEEL real! The stupid puppet is indeed real but that doesn't mean it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb and reminds people there is a set! CGI at least does not imply a set, which is why a lot of people will prefer it over practical effects.
Bad cgi is not pleasing, that is why it's bad. If something is obviously fake when done with cgi then it is distracting. Practical puppets in movies like star wars are great for the most part because they add to the charm of the movie and the overall feel of knowing how much love went into it, not saying that CGI is bad though, in fact when it's great it's awesome. Also there are plenty of puppets that feel real, such as Yoda, feels much more real and lifelike than the cgi version in the prequels.
I believe the big problem most people have is that a lot of modern movies replace a competent story with bad CGI.
*cough* michael bay *couch*
@@isaywhateveriwantandyougot7421 yes the movie is done purely for spectacle. I dont want a good story from transformers. I want robots RKO ing each other. Sure a good story would help but that is not the point
@@diadokhoi5722 The story is 60% of what makes a movie good! There are no exeptions, let alone Transformers, if you don't have a good story, than the chance of it still being a good movie is very small. If a movie was all about the fight scenes and effects as you say it is, then Batman Begins would be terrible (spoiler alert: it's not)
@@diadokhoi5722 What is your age demographic?
yes, but also blowing up 4 real cars is expensive.....with CG they just blow up 175 trucks in one scene...because they haven't learnt that more isn't always more....
There's a kind of twisted irony in the fact that when a CGI artist is doing his job best, you aren't supposed to notice.
kinda like covert ops serving their country's interests
I think It'd be super fun to list off jobs that when done well go unnoticed. I shall start :)
Thief
Kyran Wilson accountant
Michael Otis Nuclear power plant operator
Michael Otis Well this, has escalated quickly.
Fuckit; being the Devil
Before you start bitching about the fact that way too many movies use CGI, please consider that many of these movies could probably not have been made in first place if not for CGI. Practical effects are expensive and going full practical is not something most movies can afford.
and some films can't be done with practical effects like tron
Except they did tron with practical effects back in the 80's.
WTF are you talking about ? Tron 1982 was full of CGI.
Brock McClain
There was some, but it was mostly practical effects.
Rowgue51
Mostly because CGI was extremely expensive back then and couldn't be merged with normal footage.
The point is, regardless of whether large parts of tron were done with practical effects the film still wouldn't have been possible without CGI.
Some of the best CG i've ever seen in any movie i'd say goes to Pacific Rim.
I noticed he talked on the physics/weight behind the materials being presented. The first Pacific Rim i'd say for the most part did an excellent job portraying hulking behemoths of mech's.
In 2021, I'm still sending this video as a response to people who ask why CG looks bad nowadays, I still show this video every year to my students at film school, and I still start tearing up on 5:55.
Can I offer my opinion? CGI is an amazing technology. It can create some brilliant images. CGI animated films can be visually stunning. But when it comes to live action filmmaking, CGI should only be used where it’s absolutely necessary.
I plan to eventually become a filmmaker myself. And I will always use practical effects and miniatures where possible. If you can do an effect practically, DO IT PRACTICALLY. Save the CGI for scenes where there is ABSOLUTELY no other easy way to do those scenes. If you overuse CGI, the eye becomes too used to it and it starts to look phoney. James Cameron knew this, so he only used CGI for the T1000 in Terminator 2 where he simply couldn’t use Robert Patrick himself, or practical effects. All the scenes where the T1000 gets damaged are practical effects, yes even when the T800 fires that grenade into him and he explodes into that mangled metallic figure before falling into that tank of molten metal, that was a practical effect.
Using CGI in live action filmmaking is fine, but you have to combine it with practical full scale and/or miniature effects, otherwise it begins to look phoney. I’m personally glad that practical effects have not become fully obsolete, but I’m hoping that my filmmaking career will start a renaissance in practical effects in mainstream film.
@@trainlover16 Well... Yeah. This isn't a discussion, that's how every VFX supervisor thinks and it's exactly what's explained in the video. So thumbs up for the right opinion ;)
What a fantastic video, I was so into it that I didn't even realize the video already ended haha
I've always said this - I'm not a big movie guy in the first place but I hate complaints about CGI
Dusk Legend Mate it's overused and looks cheap as hell. Only very few cgi artists can do an actually good job of it. The early movies with cgi were far better than today's video game like trash.
Soo... Basically they're really dang realistic? Because that's the point in which video game graphics lie right now.
Seriously. Look at the upcoming Metro Exodus. It might have been a bit pre-rendered or something like that. But it still looks beautiful as hell.
If you wanna compare bad CGI with something. Compare it with Plastic. Because that's what they look like.
southlondon86
I believe I get where you're coming from. If it can be accomplished using practical effects then it probably should be done using practical effects. Nine out of ten times even poor practical effects will end up looking better than half-arsed in CGI.
As 8-Bit Knight says, poor CGI usually just ends up looking plastic, rubbery and as you said cheap and tacky.
With that said, typically the best CGI in a film is the CGI that goes unnoticed by the viewer.
The problem with big cg creatures is that they don't take mass in count. Especially if they fly. For example Smaug from the Hobbit trilogy is just too agile for the size of the creature. Especially The 90 degree turn from a straight nose dive was just stupid and absolutely impossible under almost any circumstance. The other thing that usually bothers me in cgi is the fact that complex things are just too big. There's a certain point where an animal etc. just can't support its own weight and they've already gone way over it. Just my opinions though. Also cgi can really be used well, but the video already showcases how that can be done, and I don't just want to repeat the same points again.
8-Bit Knight You must be joking! Aside from the sky and sunlight, NOTHING else in video games actually looks realistic. We are far, far away from games looking real. Not even close. Don’t kid yourself. Most CGI is shit.
THANK YOU. Very informative, and very reasonable.
Side note: you mention bad CGI and show us Jar Jar and Boss Nass, so I felt the need to drop this fun fact: Jar Jar (love him or hate him) was the first ever mo-cap character in film, and the CGI in Ep I actually (mostly) still holds up rather well today. We can’t knock Jar Jar without first conceding that without him we wouldn’t have Gollum, Smaug, Caesar, the Hulk, Doomsday, the Thing, or any of the other countless mo-cap characters we’ve gotten since.
I often feel like the only person in the world that doesn't hate Jar-Jar.
You know that video games were using it extensively LONG before Phantom Menace, right? It's extremely unlikely that motion capture would have been forgotten. Plus, a bunch of other movies were released in that very same year or the year following that used mo-cap, which suggests to me that Jar Jar was entirely unnecessary for it's adoption.
I don't hate Jar Jar. I hate Lucas for bitching out and not making him a sith.
This same thing applies to 3D in anime. Some of the best 3D in animation can be found in Guilty Gear Xrd (game), Promare, Ghost in the Shell: Innocence, Spider-Verse, etc.
It all comes down to how well the artist understands the tools and utilizing it towards his vision.
This speaks for all the great VFX artists out there who work their asses off, despite the thousands of narrow-minded movie goers that talk shit on CG, without ever noticing the craft's best. Awesome video RJ :D
I clicked on this video because it popped up on my homepage and didnt even know that it was Freddy Wong until the end at 7;20 LMAO
District 9 have amazing cgi for his year, u can compare it whit a cgi movie of 2016. a totally underrated movie
Imagine Infinity War without CGI
Josh Brolin in a big purple suit is a thought I never knew I needed
Imagine Star Wars without CGI. Just a bunch o peeps runnin around hitting each other with sticks
Nothing would be left
@@decidiousrex Basically A New Hope.
The dark knight trilogy is 5 times better and those have almost nothing in CG
But Birdemic tho
Naiuhz :))
Naiuhz No food fight.
Yeah that movie had fantastic CGI
No way. The CGI in this movie was so bad. They should have hired real, human actors with facial expressions. Those protagonist things they got there look and sound unbelievable.
CGI isn't ruining movies. Crappy movies are.
Well, _cheap_ movies are. Even films that are critically shat upon like the Transformers movies have excellent CG. Even if you don't like the robot designs, you have to marvel at how ILM made those robots look like they're actually in the shot. That is, when the director remembers to have them in the shot.
romxxii Have you seen old Jackie Chan movies? They had a low budget but they could make it good. Nowadays almost every action movie is CGI but some of Jackie’s movies still uses stunt mans and cardboard boxes to fall on instead of using CGI and the movie become automatically realistic.
basically what he says but thanks for participating
cody fox wow great opinion! wonder where you got it
Why not both?
CG doesn't suck. But when Syfy uses CG it's fuckinf terrible
Asylum makes shit films.
Albert Moisan. I love when people like you try to be smartasses, there is a difference between bad grammar and accidentally pressing the wrong letter, which is clearly what happen...
bernardo luis Wow, mate, let's not Jump to pitchforks yet.
I'm not trying to start anything, am certainly not a smartass nor someone like you think the someone like me is like.
I just saw an Opportunity for a Joke and took it.
PS: On a sidenote, I was actually reffering to "SyFy" wich is spelled "Sci-Fi" if that's what you were going for.
www.syfy.com/
He didn't spell it wrong, because he wasn't trying to say Sci-fi in the first place.
TileWonder Welp, I stand corrected then.
This actually was really frickin great. Well done man, and thanks.
That point about good CGI being so good we don't see it is ultimately the point. I think the problem is more that *some* directors/studios tend to be of the "fix it in post" mindset and just hope that CG will cover the cracks in a bad movie. It won't and we see it time after time. Really great video though. I'm firmly of the belief that a great story will cover pretty much anything except bad acting (because that destroys the storytelling). Jason and the Argonauts is still a great film for example, despite the use of stop motion practical model effects from the godfather himself.
This was needed!
I'm so happy that this video is viral
I do agree about Bay even tho a lot of people meme it on how he's gonna blow up the universe the next transformers the man knows how to combine practical and cg effects
in short, there's good CGI and bad CGI
Yet CG gets too much hate?
IseeUmadtho i personally dont like CGI, im not a hater saying it needs to be eliminated infact I appreciate CGI it truly is ground breaking, my problem comes in because its over used, and yes, I am going to suggest looking at Jurassic park and Jurassic world, the reason jurassic park on its own is scary is because you know the t. rex and velociraptor are there, the only reason jurassic world did so well was because it had explosions and a dark setting in general jurassic park dosent even need that just because you know the animals are there and thats wow enough
That had CGI too.
Davone Doyle only when it needed to though, for instance there was a scene were the t. rex had to break through a log, thats acceptable, the producers couldnt risk getting the animtronic broken, theres another scene where the raptor has to jump on a table, that couldn't physically be done with that animtronic weighing nearly 400 pounds
The problem isn't the CGI. If it is overused, the problem isn't the CGI, but the one who is overusing it.
Probably one of the best most unbiased videos I've ever seen
do people think pirates had bad CG? because I thought it was beautiful.
You mean Pirates (2005)?
Am I the only one who thinks that CG+practical effects is the way to go??? Just look at lord of the rings and the hobbit.
You sure you seen the hobbit? The CG for the series was actually awful and the reason why because the movie had to be made quickly apperantly. You can even see BTS where you see Peter Jackson tired and stressed
The Hobbit good CG? Not really..
eh?! Six of the worst films ever made!
LOTR yes, the Hobbit no... one fourth of the shots in the first Hobbit were 100% CG.
The Sharknado movies had really good CG effects, you should watch those.
Fantastic essay that I fear was (unfortunately) necessary in today's climate. Never really understood the argument that CGI is "bad" for Hollywood - it has given us some truly fantastic new environments to explore, unique characters, and really opened up the possibilities for fiction.
Great work as always Freddie - thanks for the video!
Jogwheel Hey Jon, do you think one day our technology will become so advanced that it will make CGI so pitch perfect that it can match real life physics and imagery?
Trunkalunx - Yes. The year was 2009.
Jogwheel Ah, yes. When James Cameron's Avatar hit theaters. :)
Jogwheel Well I think the stigma against CGI comes from the a period around 2005-2010 where we just had a flush of crappy movies that seemed to be trying to substitute Good Story with Special effects. I think the CGI Hype train for a time was bad for Hollywood, but I think like a fad the Movie Industry got out of it and have been taking the Peter Jackson approach of using as much practical effects one reasonably can and then using CGI when needed.
ShamanMcLamie So, in other words: 5-year-old news? Haha :-)
But yeh, I can agree with that assessment... although there are some features from that period that had great CGI as well. Just watched "Mission: Impossible 3" last night, in fact.
Please dont tell me smeagol was cgi...he was real right?
smh
No?,what about treebeard then...the cavetroll?...lmao i hope you didnt think i actualy ment that :-D in that case ,you should buy a sarcasmdetector lol
oh yeah treebeard is 100% real, they employed a real life ent to play him
In that case,i want one :-)
ptf I was shocked to hear the movie Anaconda was CGI too. lol
Someone needs to show this to Chris Hardwick...He shits on CGI every chance he gets on his podcast.
Tiaan Engelbrecht who?
Zing!
Didn't even know this channel existed. Thank you for existing.
Thanks for watching!
@@RJFilmSchool my pleasure!
_Did they actually just respond to me?!_