Why Modern Movies Suck - CGI Overload
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ย. 2024
- CGI is everywhere now. Its tough to think of a single big budget film that doesn't have some kind of digital effects shot in there somewhere. And well, it's starting to get pretty tiresome.
Want to help support this channel?
Check out my books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Will-Jordan/e/B00BCO7SA8/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_ebooks_1
Subscribe on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker
Subscribe on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the-critical-drinker
Jurassic Park was great. 300 killed CGI for me. On a different note. Were you waiting for the show to end with Obi-Wan thing to make a video about it? Or you're done with Star Wars? Or it's too painfull to even watch? Yeah I know all the jedi mass shooting is pretty triggering. Some escaped...
You don't mind computer-generated images for Transformers
It's not CGI, it's how it's used th-cam.com/video/bL6hp8BKB24/w-d-xo.html
Quick question, how do we contact you if we have movie suggestions or recommendations?
Shoulda done ya boy vomiting after your Natalie Portperson bit. I know I did.
It's ironic how CGI is so overused in live-action yet the medium of animation itself is so undervalued
mad facts
Damn right! Imagine the kinds of animated movies we could get if you took a CGI-heavy live-action movie and stripped out the live-action.
I wish I could like this a 1000 times.
Sure. But what's ironic is that you yourself separate them. It IS animation in the live-action films. The only real difference is sometimes the level of detail but mostly how it's rendered/the aesthetic. Hell even the same programs are used for both live action/hybrid films, and animation. But we're stuck in this old/myopic mindset. Lion King is a good example. The new one, while being completely redundant and pointless, is an animated movie. But marketed as live action, because the rendering is photoreal. But both movies were completely hand/keyframe animated. No mocap. because duh.
And semantics but notsomuch overused as misused. An important distinction. Anyway my 2c.
@@halfvader8015 Your right dude , Live action film is just animation, there is a reason they use to call it moving pictures lol.
“Terminator 2” is the perfect example of how to use CGI properly and efficiently. The CGI in that movie is still respectable, by today’s standards. The fact that they relied mostly upon real life effects and used CGI, only when necessary is what makes it great.
Always love that they flew a real helicopter under a bridge.
Definitely
@@doomkeepercanada it has badass written all over it
i think it all plays into that "uncanny" effect that comes with CGI the more "realistic" it becomes. we have evolved as a species to spot when something is off or unnatural.
And Linda Hamilton got herself JACKED for that movie. No CGI on her.
Watching Top Gun: Maverick reminded me just how visually impressive movies can be without a constant barrage of CGI nightmares. CGI can be incredibly useful, but I've really gotten sick of it over the years.
Tom Cruise is one of the last movie stars not to fall completely to the woke mind virus
*TH-cam link*
Finally, it’s here.
Cgi in movies is like pronouns in artist's bios: It used to be a novel concept, but now it's inescapable.
@@strategery101 no,,he just believes evil alien spirits are inhabitanting our bodies
Also Dunkirk?
Possibly the saddest side effect from overuse of CGI is that audiences are so ruined by CGI that they don't trust actual effects and aren't in awe the way they should be.
That car flip initially seemed fake to me, and I thought the scene was lame, but then he said it was real. My jaw dropped at the talent and danger that went into it!!
@@matthew8505 For another insane 70s vehicle scene, watch Sorcerer if you haven’t seen it.
@@matthew8505 you seriously couldn't tell that was real?
I'm so glad I grew up in the day of practical effects
Critical! I saw you mentioned Aberdeen and on the tiny chance you read this please reply cos I live in Aberdeen and I barely get to see anyone even mention them.
Tom Cruise is one of the very few left in Hollywood purely interested in making entertainment instead of lectures. And willing to work hard.
Shame about the cult stuff.
Its just that his involvement in the scientology cult
has utterly ruined his reputation the man is a great actor tough
@@Unapologeticweeb ruined what !? , Man's reputation still intact and still one of the biggest movie stars to ever live and had the highest box office grossing movie ever, over the past weekend.
@@weiSane Terrible people are successful all the time.
do you know him?
This is one of the reasons the first Iron man, Mad max fury road, Mission impossible franchise, Indiana Jones trilogy, Terminator 2 & Jurassic park has aged so well. They used also great practical effects
Practical effects for the win.
Your brain instinctively knows cgi is not physically there in the scene. It holds no weight the way practical effects do
The first iron man is a perfect example for how to do CGI. Most of the time the suits were animated, but the actors were wearing an actual costume made of metallic materials so that the CGI artists knew what the lighting and reflections would look like
Don't forget Aliens and Predator.
@@strategery101 you think that, but it's because you're looking for it. Most non-snobs aren't going to notice well done CGI, especially with today's tools. I had a surprising number of people remark how much the actor for Tarkin in Rogue One looked like Peter Cushing, not even realizing it was a digital face, and that effect is a favorite for "muh uncanny valley!" CG haters to point to.
I missed when movies actually pushed the boundaries of film making and weren’t just cgi objects hitting cgi objects
In a cgi location
Ah yes, I aldo think that Transformers was terrible
@@Rexog90 the first one was good
@@Deicide777 With cgi weather
tbf watching the behind the scenes of Avatar paints a whole different picture…it’s a miracle nobody died doing that and it’s actually inspiring.
I find it interesting that in the same movie you had Natalie Portman, who couldn't be bothered to even get a little toned for her role, and Christian Bale who goes to absolute extremes to match his physical appearance to the role he is playing. Goes to show that some people really don't care about the product they are putting out and others REALLY care.
I've been saying it for years, Natalie Portman is just a poor man's Keira Knightley.
That's why Dennis Quaid's portrayal of Doc Holliday was the closest you'll ever come to seeing the real Doc. He lost 40 pounds for that role and nailed it. Val Kilmer's version was a clown show, a puffy sweaty actor in makeup.
Natalie *Portperson
Actors take a lot of steroids to get in shape. Natalie Portman would have had to train for years in order to look the way she does in the film. Chris Hemsworth did months of training, and also steroids, and he is a man. The same result cannot be expected from anyone.
Keanu Reeves literally trained months with Taran tactical to film the crazy action scenes in John Wick while everyone else just does cgi bullets and cut every 5 seconds to hide the fact they didnt train anything and just try to make it look half convincing
dont get me started with Tom Cruise, mofo has broken the most dangerous scene filmed ever record twice
As the saying goes, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Fits perfectly for what studios do with CGI
Thing is: it's clearly not ALL the studios have, it's more like ALL they chose to consider amongst their tools
Maybe I'm nit-picking... but that's now how the saying goes. Close enough to get the gist of the message, though.
@just i c e let's report you as spam
The thing I noticed is that you can become desensitized to CGI, as in the awe-factor diminishes after a while, but good practical effects always look amazing, no matter how many times you've seen them.
Disagree. Plenty of practical effect that impressed me years ago now look just as fake as a CGI effect that aged poorly. CGI is definitely overused in recent movies but saying that practical effects don't age/are timeless is just straight up false.
Facts
@@naunau311 For those, they probably weren't that good to begin with, but you didn't have much of a frame of reference to compare them to back then
exactly...thats why everyone likes james bond movies
Practical effects will always be better the only impressive cgi I've seen to come out of the modern age is Prehistoric Planet
As someone who was a decade-long and top-level stuntman in the industry, its nice to see the public understands what we've been dealing with. We consider the entire process of "talent and skill being replaced by CGI when its not necessary or beneficial" as a steady downfall of the action industry no matter if its a martial arts flick or a new fantasy film. Its been decades long and we've watched our roles dry up for real talent as more and more "mo-cap, greenscreen, and wire proficiency" roles have been demanded. Our industry is already mostly dead and anyone who has been at the top of the coordinator/producer level of this industry without being placed there or fking people to get there for at least 20-30+ years knows this.
That’s sad to hear. I think about John Wick, which should’ve told the industry that folks love great, practical stunts done well.
It's really sad that such a valuable asset to the film industry has been cast aside in the quest for profit.
I hope for the sake of you and your co-workers this trend in dull cookie cutter films full of CGI ends very soon.
@@danielcohn-bendit701 yeah until the next chapters where they started again to rely on unrealistic looking effects and over the top action sequences. to me the original john wick will forever be the best in the series.
@@scrappydoo7887 I hope Hollywood withers and dies so a Phoenix can rise from the ashes
You have a vested interest though, I could give less of a shit about real stuntmen if the CGI is good enough to replicate it.
Although we all know that even today CG takes a mostly supplementsry role, stunt workers are still doing amazing things.
Regarding CGI-enhanced Natalie Portman, it makes you all the more appreciative of the work and dedication of Linda Hamilton to get in shape to portray one of the all time great REAL strong female characters in Terminator 2
Only a movie. Portman still turned in the performance.
Ghost busters all over again
And T-2 is one of the greats action movie of all time the actors and James Cameron really cared the special are some of the greatest ever I mean when it came out it was so unique I remember when that movie came out I was young but it was one of my favorite movies and it holds up today but I could. See Natalie not wanting to go all out for that movie that she didn't even really. Want to be in that's why Jane died at the end I've seen her put in effort for movies she actually wanted to be in like. When she shaved her head for that one movie I know Christian Bale and Hemsworth went all out her acting wasn't bad but Tikia wanted to very much tried to make a bad movie and he all but said it and it's a shame he had 4 major actors and stars
that flat chested lady? no thank you,nathalie is better.
Seems like one of the main effects of the Mary Sue phenomenon is to turn Linda Hamilton and Sigorney Weaver into legends among the "misogynists" who hate the modern trend.
Practical effects with a bit of CGI where necessary is the best approach for film and television.
The Thing had zero cgi, and its better than anything in modern times with cgi
wise movie making in one sentence
I think the risky scenes can be CGI but every thing else can be practical effects.
Exactly. CGI isn’t evil, it’s just overused and often poorly utilized. It’s a tool, like anything else
the exception is where you absolutely cant do it with sets i.e. Avatar (when you want to show something where your not just confined to a space or scene but the entire movie is set in an impossible to reach place [and is not new zealand/some desert or arktis])
I am never going to forget how Ian McKellan, a LEGEND in the acting profession, practically CRIED on the set of The Hobbit because he was forced to act alone with some puppets and green screen in the back instead of a real human being and some practical effects and how he thought he was total shit and didn't deliver a believable performance.....that's one of those cases where CGI hurts the production more than helping it.
For real?
Do you have a link or something?
Old school actors often came from theaters or otherwise had to work their way up. Modern actors' performances though can often just be "enhanced" with effects. They're probably used to green screens. Doesn't make them better actors, but likely easier to work with than people who've been doing this shit for decades.
Yes, it definitely damages acting.
@@pyromaniac709 there’s a video we’re the director modified his room to make him comfortable, Ian became depressed from the green screens
@@pyromaniac709: Just go watch the behind-the-scenes mini-movies from "The Hobbit" Blu Rays...specifically, "An Unexpected Journey".
The crew decorated his trailer with unused set pieces from LOTR in the hopes of cheering him up again.
Interesting fact from that Lord of the Rings fight. The most memorable part of that is where the Orc throws the knife at Aragon and he parries it with his sword. With special effects that would never have happened. The Orc guy was supposed to throw it off to the side of Vigo, but because of poor vision due to the prosthetic, he threw it straight at him instead. Vigo just reacted and deflected it for real. Bad ass. So, obviously, Jackson put it into the film.
I mean it could have happened. There are cases where artists just do something unexpected in CGI which gets left in. It also happens in animation.
Great. We should throw knives at people in real life to entertain the audience. Spartacus? Terrible CGI. Would of been much better if the actors were REALLY fighting to the death.
FUCK THE OTHER REPLIES!! i completely agree with you LOTR is legendary!!
@@IMCJODAN I think what he means is that for instances like that, where it was by total accident but it looked awesome and is real, it’s more worth it to leave it like that rather than butcher it with a cgi alternative.
@@IMCJODAN th-cam.com/video/FR976PhMbDM/w-d-xo.html
It's like the time when Sir Ian McKellen cried in the set of The Hobbit because 'everything was greenscreen and that wasn't the reason he became an actor'.
I totally feel him now, and although the crew cheered him up by decorating the set, it's heartbreaking that it is still the norm.
You can't cgi a bond between people and at the end of the day, the actors are the emotional core of any movie, if they can't feel the magic, how can you invest on it
Films like Aliens and Predator still look amazing decades later.
They look far superior than anything out today. They hold up completely while movies from 10 years ago look terrible
The Thing still looks amazing.
I couldn't agree more. I have a coworker that loves Alien Covenant, but refuses to watch Aliens because "it looks so old." Frustrating beyond belief.
@@antgto Weird. I love Aliens, and refuse to watch Alien Covenent because it looks so shit.
The Thing..... the old one with Kurt Russel still looks bether than the cgi follow up
"It's basically just a live action cartoon at this point." And therein lies the sad irony. Disney, Dreamworks and other studios purposefully killed 2D animation to replace it with live action and 3D animation. And then they started focusing so much on CGI that whole movies are now done with every frame having some form of CGI on it. They killed one form of animation to replace it with...animation. Just a lot more expensive and unrealistic looking animation. And despite the claims from Hollywood, CGI is not cheap or efficient. Cost for CGI has only risen as time went on. So many of these movies like Avatar or Lion King "Live Action" ended up costing $200 million to produce. Where their 2D counterparts would have been done for half that (or less). But since Hollywood has spent the last 25 years pushing CGI as the most important thing and linking 2D animation to "kiddy shit", they can't go back to 2D animation. Then they go full Pikachu face when some Japanese anime destroys them in profit because it was made for under $40 million AND sells more copies.
Also, the original physical models from Star Trek still look better than any of the CGI ships. The "stealing the Enterprise" scene from Star Trek III is still the best looking special effects from the series. And makes JJ Abrams "throw as much junk on the screen possible" look like a Michael Bay film.
I miss Disney 2D animated films.
I think Michael Bay is way better than JJ Abrams.
I couldn’t agree more.
Yep, and the actors probably take all the credit 😒
CGI is not more expensive. Not 90s anymore. It's used for a reason. Make it fast and on the cheap. Stated price is BS.
The sadder part: the Matrix fight scene WAS shot in a studio green screen room, they were smart and would 360 photograph locations and layer it onto green matting. And it still looks more real than films 20 years later, including its own re-boot 👀
You would think they would stick to shit that looks more realistic and lifelike ! CGI doesn’t even look real!
@@Lordperson3 tell me Smaug doesn't look real?
@@Lordperson3 maybe it’s cheaper? It seems like all they care about is profit now
@@ChickenJoe-tq6xd I’m sure it is cheaper
@@zanido9073 Smaug isn’t just cgi
One thing that should be mentioned: the reason a lot of CGI looks terrible is because film producers couldn't be bothered to consult the visual effects studios they employ. A lot of the realism of CGI depends on very controlled conditions and decisions during filming. However, producers tend to just film what they want, hand over the tapes to the studios, and expect them to magically finish the movie. They do the best they can with what they're given (and are often overworked and underpaid), but are limited by the material they're given. It's a shame the CGI artists are often the first to blame, when it really comes from the top down.
How do you know this?
Yeah pretty much CGI isn't bad because it's overused as he says it's bad but because it's either used as a last minute bandaid during post-production or it's rushed like off course people always bring up stuff like thor love and thunder, she-hulk or the flash movie to sh*t on CGI but always ignore the ones that rely on it and look fantastic like bayformers, Godzilla and avatar. Don't get me wrong I'm not sh*tting on practical effects all I'm saying is that CGI is bad because producers don't know how to use it properly
Honestly, this makes me appreciate directors like Christopher Nolan even more. Say what you want about his movies, but in the era of CGI overload, he still devotes as much to practical effects as he can.
That comes at a cost though, like in Dunkirk the movie didn't really show you theres hundreds of thousands of British troops waiting, it just looked like a couple hundred, maybe like a battalion or two, because Nolan wanted to stick with practical effects. Other than that, Dunkirk was a fucking masterpiece.
ugh
@@eazymethod01 till this day i can't believe how bad (mostly) those choreograph are
Tarantino as well.
Which is awesome, except that Nolan outright lies about those things though. And doesn't admit when he messes up, or spends much much more on practical approaches when he knows full well the audience wont notice.
The correct attitude to the use of CGi is to remember that it is one more tool in the tool box - it is not the entire tool box. You need the right tool for each job, and there certainly are situations where CGI is that right tool - usually when it would be entirely impractical or too heinously dangerous to achieve the effect any other way - but much of the time CGI works best in a supplementary role, helping to enhance a practical effects based scene by subtly tweaking the odd variable here and there when it is needed in an unobtrusive manner. When it comes to CGI, the old saying that 'less is more' generally holds true.
Blade Runner 2049. That’s perfect example how well practical and cgi can mix
I think that's what makes Christopher Nolan so respected, especially around TDK era he did as much as he could in frame.
The other thing to consider that older movies had to deal with is "Should this scene exist?" If the scene is too costly and dangerous to do without CGI, does it really fit the movie? Far to often CGI is used to make Trailer bait "epic scenes" that have very little to do with the actual movie. Just look good on screen.
CGI is to cinema what 3D printing is to making : people tend to overuse it and tend to forget it is a tool. Like people are genuinely 3D printing regular plastic boxes with kinda standard dimensions one would be able to buy in any hardware store (junction boxes, for example).
Modern CGI works alright in portraying stuff like ships in space or large machines in certain environments. When it comes to portraying humans, animals, and related biological things like blood, it blows.
Honestly, all this CGI overload just makes me thing "If you wanted a movie focused on computer generated graphics, just make an 100% animated movie so it doesn't stand out".
I know animation suffers the stigma of being lesser than live-action, but if your main appeal is the CGI, you might as well go all in!
Yep. A lot of movies might as well be animated. CGI breaks me from the movie if it is live action but if it is all animated/CGI then I can be fully in the story and not break out of it. Animated Ninja Turtles movie...fine it is all the same so my brain lets me into the world and it seems "real", Ninja Turtles with live action and CGI turtles? Nope brain just goes "that isn't real"...old Ninja Turtles something about the suits lets my brain go..."real" and I can let myself into the movie.
it is not only the CGI though - often the scenes are just bloated. Maybe they put so much $$$ into the CGI, the producers may feel, a fight scene or action scene should go on and on and on and one... like the Matrix 3. Maverick on the other hand had the timing down! The other thing I have not seen in a long time is several scenes were quiet and the audience in my theater were also really quiet during those scenese - its not 90+ minutes of everything dialed up to 11, which can also take away from the movie, unless it is the Rockumentary about Spinal Tap (half joking)!
Bro that’s what I’m saying. Some of these movies might as well be fully animated with how much CGI they use lmao.
reminds me of something I saw in the behind-the-scenes of Ender's Game: they initially did the null-g scenes with the actors on wire rigs in space suits, but ended up deciding they didn't like that, so they just rotoscoped out the actual actors and replaced them with CGI bodies. Literally the only thing that was left of the original footage was the actors' faces inside of the visors. by the end, There was no reason for the live action scenes to be shot in the first place, and they wasted a shitload of money when they could have just done the entire scene in CG with projection mapping (which is significantly better nowadays than back when The Mummy movies were relevant). And after a certain point, the entire movie might as well just be CG with mocap'd actors.
Hell, video games are going that direction, and while I think it's a terrible choice for that medium, I would be 100% okay with doing the same Norman Reedus treatment they did for Death Stranding in a fully linear movie format.
I was thinking the same, exact thing ! If people love computer animated effects so much, then just do the whole damned thing in CGI 🙄 !
That's why I love the pirates of the carribean movies, the original 3 at least, the cgi was only implemented when absolutely necessary and they still went into extreme lengths to get all of the real sceneries and movements they could before adding the cgi
Don't forget that the cgi that was in the movies was done outstandingly. Just take a long look at Davy Jones' beard.
Exactly, it makes it so much more immersive and you can connect with the characters when you know that they’re actually human and pirates of the Caribbean did that perfectly, and the fact that it was actually shot in the Caribbean again makes it so immersive
Huh? A ton of the footage from these 3 movies was shot in the studio. I agree that the CGI was good, but there was a SHIT-TON of it. When you look at the making-of, all you see are dressed-up actors in green rooms. Except maybe in the first movie.
In the 4th, however, they actually dragged all these actors to Hampton Court in England to shoot one scene. That's impressive.
@@trinelangohr6661 Either way, the first 3 movies (specially 2nd and 3rd) had some of the best aging cgi. 4 was real to me too while somehow they fucked up the cgi in 5.
Davy Jones is fking great
One of the best cgi i have ever seen
What's also strange is that some old movies have better CGI than the ones we get today. The Lord of the Rings trilogy with the battle against the mumakil still looks incredible, and the T-Rex in the original Jurassic Park holds up really well.
The trex wasnt really cgi was it?
CGI is the cheap option, that's why. A lot of modern CGI heavy movies, if forced to forego the CGI, would turn out like the sort of thing Ed Wood made. So I think the use of CGI may be unfairly demonized.
The main problem I think is suits believing that CGI gives them a licence to cut corners.
@@Theycallmethek3 some things are, like when it first appears after climbing out of its enclosure, and also at the end when it roars after fighting the velociraptors.
@@Theycallmethek3 The shots where the T-rex was partially on screen were practical, using a giant animatronic head.
The shots where the T-rex is fully on screen are CGI or at least partial CGI.
But the visuals are done well to hide the fact it's CGI, by using atmospheric effects and such.
it's not that strange when you consider that people will turn up to the cinema and watch any old shit so long as it has "Marvel" in it.
I still remember finding out about the latest LOTR hobbit films... and how Ian McKellen broke down and stated " I never became a actor for this... ". As he sat in a green-screen room with his head in his hands... CGI has it's merits, but has become a cancerous monster as of late.
Wow is that true? Did they really break Gandalf's heart with CGI? Bastards
Good gods, that makes me so sad.
I can imagine that his idea of what an actor is is quite different from what acting has become.
Remind me now.....did he still take the money? And did he have a big smile on his face as he walked off with it? Truth is McKellen knew exactly what he was in for and did it for the cash, just like everyone else who earns a living.
i would also break down crying if someone cut my head then made me hold it in a green room
In the Hobbit, yes. Not LOTR.
One thing that makes CGI feel unreal is the freedom it gives the director to employ all sorts of unnatural camera shots and sweeps. It messes with the audience's sense of scale and perspective when the camera is doing all sorts of wild movements and changes of angle that a real life cameraman would never be able to feasibly capture. That's one reason why much of the best uses of CGI are when the CGI is featured within a grounded, on-set shot, because the director is restricted by real life physical constraints and is forced to keep the camera movements consistent and in-tone with the non-CGI parts of a movie.
Another important factor is the use of real life objects and sets to give CGI artists invaluable reference material, so that they can create CGI that matches the director's desired lighting conditions for a scene, for example. One of the reasons LOTR looks so great with its CGI, despite being so old, is the wealth of miniatures, physical locations and costume work that allowed the CGI team to seamlessly reconcile the lighting and texture of CGI elements with the physical aspects of a scene.
In a sense, the freedom of CGI can be seen as a curse because the artistically beneficial constraints of real life film making are taken for granted and not always understood.
I am reminded of Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun’s cutscenes. They were not all that big still after EA bought Westwood, even with the expanded budget. They used a lot CGI and green screen, that is all they had. They did use a full on set for the respective command centers. The Philadelphia’s command center was all green screen, but it was all modeled and the actors had something to react to, all the CGI did was “paint” the scene. Particularly when it came to backgrounds, the green screen CGI had a atmospheric effect to it. The actors did a good job acting in the cutscenes.
True love = the love of God!
*God himself went to the cross for you out of love for you as a human being*
Philippians 2:5-8
@Flare He does have a point, but I don’t think he had that much disdain for it. The Duel of the Fates was awesome all the CGI did was just give a background. Fun fact, the actors actually practiced swordsmanship before shooting, Christopher Lee and Liam Neeson were swordsmen. Unlike the Prequels, they just pretty much threw their lightsabers around.
Denis Vileneu (or however you spell his name) does CGI right.
@Flare
"dud _baiting in TH-cam comments is better than Reddit . I'm also a trap in Final Fantasy_ 14"
literally his channel description
Don't take him seriously everyone , he just loves creating arguments
Remember when the cgi in Jurassic park was absolutely mind blowing? It was limited use and the animatronics were fantastic
But even then they made models for dinosaurs. But god fuckng damnit that T-rex roar still terrifies me
It was so well done that 20 or more years people still milk it
And the CGI dinosaurs were designed and animated by a stop-motion animation expert using computer graphics...
I appreciate you including Davy Jones as an example of CGI done fairly well, he's got to be one of my favorite digitally created characters of all time
The actor and the character were perfectly timed
People give Dead Man's Chest a lotta guff but I loved that as much as the first. Third got weird af and was more confusing than intriguing.
@@bozbozman1575 Had they taken any other actor, davy jones would not have been as succesfull. The CGI and the actor, Bill Nighy, melted together and created the perfect dish.
@@SirEpifire agreed. The second movie is probably my favourite
Another good thing about the movie is that not everyone of the Dutchman’s crew was CGI a couple of them still had makeup and outfits only the really deformed characters were CGI over grey suits.
Another thing that has been lost to CGI: Matte painting has become a lost art. Many of the breathtaking scenes in pre-CGI films were painstakingly painted on glass, backlit, and carefully filmed.
Agreed
Business Idea: Matte paintings in computer generated environments
Blade Runner for example. That movie is still more visually stunning that most modern movies
@@Wellington-nl7vm You know the matte paintings with problematic perspective have been updated/replaced, right?
Practitioners of what was called "the invisible art" do it so well now you don't even think of the good stuff, because you don't notice it. Which is the point. You only notice the bad stuff. Which was always the case with traditional matte painting anyway. I understand you're probably talking about slapping paint down on a bit of glass and you're absolutely right about that even if the most important aspects of the process are still there, but if that's more important to you than not bastardising the filmmaking process it's meant to support, then it's backwards logic.
The paint/tools were never as i important as the illusion and freeing the storytelling. People often miss the forest for the trees. And again lazily saying lost to cgi instead of cg being misused/bad use of that tool, blames the tool not the implementation. Which is ironically what you're doing if you're talking about paint on glass not the storytelling intent and final context. No-one ever howls about how traditional matte painting ground everything to a halt and forced still shots and changed pacing into films that otherwise had a different and dynamic style, especially genre stuff. Fair's fair...
My real problem is when they use CGI on stuff they can do practically, or when they just use CGI instead of mixing practical and digital effects. Don't get me wrong, a good CGI effect is a good CGI effect, no matter how much it is used. But, look at the first 2 Iron Man films. They used a mix of practical effects and CGI for the Iron Man suits, and they look amazing and realistic to this day.
Yeah I kind of miss the clunky old Iron Man suits that had a bit of weight to them.
Another example is the Remake of The Thing where they had practical effects for the monster until they decided to use purely digital monster. Sigh...
I think they eventually swapped them out for 100% CGI Iron Man suits which, of course, feel less real.
CGI is over used now days.
Top Gun is a great example of real world stunts and effects. CGI has its place but they need to go back to more realistic effects.
@@greenarrow219 Exactly, that was one of my favorite things about that film.
You could also mention Jackie Chan here. God, he is like from a different world, a true hero who broke so many bones and risked his life just to make what he loves
Jackie Chan-No Fear, No Stuntman, No Equal!
I'm a pretty average film consumer and never really noticed what people were talking about when they complained about CGI, it all looked fine to me yet I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt so disconnected. But seeing your LOTR comparison shots between the orcs really opened my eyes to it. Thank you for giving me a missing puzzle piece as to why I keep finding myself preferring old movies to new (aside from them not openly displaying "the message")
Nope. It's the message alright.
You may not have noticed...but your brain did.
Watch everything everywhere all at once, if you want your movie juices flowing again
@@_ripVanWinkle_ One CG-related thing I loved about Everything Everywhere was seeing actual fight scenes...Like actual choreographed great fights, without 15 cuts a second and all kinds of CG characters running around. The movie had lots of CG in it, but the important parts that make you care about what's going on were generally using real people and things. I say this as someone who's been into CG art for decades, and who still loves it - I stop caring about characters the second I see them flying around through CG worlds - I get completely detached from what's going on because there are no stakes to what's happening and the actors stepped out for 6 months while the CG artists like animators, lighting people, hair people, particle people, texture people and everyone else worked on it.
I recently re-watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and while I was watching one of my favorite childhood films. I realized something, the mix of live action and animation looked more convincing than most CGI these days. That movie was made back in the 80s, using hand drawn cartoons, and it looked better than most of the shit Hollywood is putting out now.
Look behind the scenes at that movie and it becomes even more spectacular that Disney was able to pull off that movie. Mixing 2D and live action wasn't new at that point but to do it that well was probably something only Disney could achieve as a studio thanks to their amazing animation department and work behind the scenes. I hate that studios like Disney rarely take risks like that when producing a movie as experimental as Who Framed Rodger Rabbit.
You've given a great example of filmmaking at its best. The craftsmanship in that movie of its hand-drawn animation and marrying it with the live-action was painstakingly done a single FRAME-by-freaking-frame at a time. And it was so entertaining and a great movie experience too!
That's a great, timeless movie!
A good example of a consistent style trumping realism. If it's silly but consistent, it'll end up believable.
You’ve just mentioned one of the greatest films of all time. That movie is a master class in immersion and concept.
This is another reason I adore a certain part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, specifically the part where Aragorn, Legolas and Gimly are chasing the Uruk Hai horde across the Rohan steppes. All of that was done in real time, in real place, with some real stakes on the line. Hell, all 3 actors had a serious injury at some point in the production of that sequence and they still performed to their absolute limit, with it culminating with the group reaching the border of the forest and Viggo (actor for Aragorn), making the best damn cry of frustration, sadness and anger ever and paying for it with his toe. Yes, the cry you see from him in the movie in that situation is actually him breaking his toe from the kick.
I remember watching a behind the scenes of LOTR and they built the set for weathertop months in advance and just let it sit in the elements so everything looked old and grown in. They also inscribed poems on the inside of the helmets of the Rohan riders for no other reason than to inspire the actors to be more immersive.
Ah that kick! Virgo had a moment. lol true story: Viggo thought the cameras were off and the were done so he ran up to the first thing he saw and went to punt a 15 yard goal...and hit a real helmet.
@@gorkskoal9315 Wouldn't have liked to have been an extra next to him that day once someone yelled cut. Guess it was lucky no one was and the actor paid for his anger immediately.
Recently rewatched the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and the CGI used for Davy Jones is still some of the best I have ever seen.
Oh, for sure. Honestly surprised how well they hold up when everything released today looks so… bad. Movies today just aren’t worth seeing.
@@ohapplesaucethis
If you think that the Revenge of the Sith fight was bad, it still had highly trained actors doing real stunt with real choreography work. The Star Wars sequel trilogy, especially Abrams's films, really lacked in giving us good lightsaber fights.
There is nothing redeeming about Disney Wars anyway
Drinker may not be a big fan of the 2005 Anakin vs Obi Wan duel but that contained 2 developed characters fans continue to love.
It's one of the awkward things about having a female main protagonist vs an obviously stronger, faster, highly trained male antagonist, especially for what is a male-targeted audience. They're not really an even match, so it feels very contrived to have a long, drawn-out duel between the protagonist and antagonist. In the end there's no feeling of danger and the audience is left feeling very unsatisfied.
@@prince-solomon Disney Star Wars is the Van Hagar of Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Yeah and I feel the drinker's point about the duel between Luke and Vader being focused on the emotions of the characters doesn't work against kenobi and anakin, since the latter's duel very clearly shows this emotion too. Anakin is filled with rage and hatred, and so is reckless, whereas kenobi doesn't really wamt to kill his padawan and so often draws back and is defensive.
About "CGI is cost-effective": How can movies like Top Gun, where they used REAL fighter jets or Dune, where they shot on location in the jordanian desert, be cheaper than something like WW84 or The Eternals AND they both look visually much better, that these CGI-dumpsterfires?!
EDIT: I'm not talking about *marketing* budgets, I'm talking about PRODUCTION budgets.
*PRODUCTION BUDGETS*
Dune-Part 1: production Budget 150-160 Million $
Top Gun Maverick: production budget also around 150-160 Million $
WW84: production budget 230 Million $
(All numbers estimated via IMDb)
Probably because of marketing and the actors paychecks
I'm gonna paraphrase your question
"Why does the real thing look realer than the fake thing?"
Like I get what your intent was to talk about cheaper cost and cheaper quality, but honestly the wording was hilarious.
The answer is that franchises like Marvel are primarily built upon marketing and prefer to outsource a lot on their movies rather than focusing on making the best technical project they can.
Building a brand and focusing on the characters and the jokes and the memes while having a fuckton of CGI is what loads of people actually want, and is a lot more risk averse than making a movie with a great storyline.
Navies and for that matter, air forces and armies are normally only too happy to get some real flying time in and given an opportunity to show off. It's great P.R and an advert for the aeroplane manufacturers, while the taxpayer is fitting the fuel bill.
Dune had over 2200 VFX shots, more than in many Marvel movie.
"The absence of limitation is the death of creativity."
- George Orson Welles
Sky’s the limit, buddy.
that Terminator 2 scene with the helicopter was easily one of the greatest practical stunts ever filmed - the pilot was just like “oh yeah i can definitely get this under the bridge” 😂
The problem with CGI is its lack of limitations, or rather that is a problem for people who overuse it. What makes a shot obviously CGI is the fact that there is literally no way it could have been filmed practically. In my opinion, the most convincing CGI mimics or enhances practical footage.
CGI is one of my big problems with Marvel. They seem to be addicted to CGI; best example being some action hero's suit, they CGI'd it. Are they seriously telling us they couldn't make an outfit? Also their CGI doesn't look good and it ages like milk.
especially Marvel movies are so lazy. They dont even film outside of Atlanta anymore except for Eternals. So we know NYC is CGI and it takes you out of the story.
@@SpareSomeChange8080 Blaming CGI in general seems a bit lazy. Ultimately, the fault is on the producers, directors, and writers. If the story were actually engaging, no one would care how much CGI it used. Since you’re already taken out of the story, spotting mistakes becomes infinitely easier.
@@thevfxwizard7758 I don't blame bad or rushed CGI entirely, I give it partial blame. My biggest fault with the MCU is it's now the McDonalds of the film industry, just formulaic crap.
@@SpareSomeChange8080 Fair enough. I enjoy it from time to time but, like a McDonalds cheeseburger, it’s not the most substantive of cinema.
The first pirates of the carribean comes to mind when it comes to blending practical effects and cgi perfectly. Yeah the skeleton pirates are obviously computer animated but everything else from the ships, sets, swords, and action sequences are all real and have a sense of weight to them
Wish Disney would go back to making movies like that
Say what you want about the original Pirates of the Caribbean but that movie knew 100% what it was and played up to that full stop.
I agree completely. When I think back to the Matrix Trilogy, I remember the story, characters, and live action set pieces over the CGI ones. The enchancements worked great there though since that was its world. Like with the Pirates
That tv show Black Sails takes the weight and realism of pirate scenes even further.
I am still amazed by the CGI they used to bring Davey Jones to life.
It's still extremly convincing and beautifully made.
I was just talking about this very subject over the weekend. The most overlooked thing in CGI is dirt. All too often, everything looks super clean and pristine. Trying to make things - rooms, vehicles, starships - look used and lived in takes work. Look at some of the models in the original Star Wars movies - that's some outstanding craftsmanship. They've got dirt around fuel and exhaust ports, damage from previous battles, they look like ships that have seen some action. They are simply exquisite. Don't get me started on the art of matte paintings, we'll be here all day!
Reminds me of the inverse in the Transformers movies how they go from clean, shiny sports cars to scraped, dented robots lmao
That's why I adore pacific rim, and subsequently why the sequel looks so bad. In the 1st one there's always rain or debris giving the mechs and monsters so much more texture
@@cabnbeeschurgr6440 Don't forget the weight that movie pulled off ... the sequel felt like a Transformers movie ... and I even kinda like the Transformers movie as a guilty pleasure ... PR 2 though was a disaster I still refuse to include in my collection, but I'll happily watch the 1st one again and again. Probably time to stock up on good, old movies on Blu-Ray now. Most modern stuff just isn't worth it anymore.
That's what's funny about period piece movies where the cars, streets, and clothes all look pristine. It's not CGI but they're not doing that little bit of extra effort to help suspend disbelief.
That's why I love the FX in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The starships looked and moved like giant grimy metal boats floating in space. I never want to see those re-done.
Christopher Nolan is one of those few good directors who doesn't rely on CGI and actually does most of his effects using elaborate sets and mock ups. No wonder his movies look so real and gorgeous.
Nolan hits the exact middle ground between looking great and terrible, due in part to his insistence in using interpositives for his 35mm footage. 70mm always looks great. 35 is hit or miss, and it's a great demonstration of how much better off he'd be if he gave up on film entirely.
Oh yeah BM really did fly that nuke out and drop it at sea.
@@GalanDun I think his BM films look mostly terrible.
This is why I loved the older James Bond movies…. When you saw crazy stunts you kinda knew it wasn’t the actual actors but you knew it had actually been done by some crazy ass stuntmen and that added so much.
Poor Blofeld's cat didn't like the practical effects th-cam.com/video/H0FcOPb-9rE/w-d-xo.html
There’s lots of stunt work in the new Bond movies as well
James bond movies still rely on practical effects and stunts
I still regard 1982's "The Thing" as one of the greatest horror masterpieces out there. Almost entirely done with practical effects. The only "CGI" was five seconds in the beginning when the UFO crashed into Earth.
Yes I was just now saying this I was really hoping he brought that movie up
The UFO at the start is practical effects, a woman made that spaceship
Yikes, that movie looked so bad.
It was so obvious that the aliens were just plastic, with some jello painted over them.
Though tbh I don't even get why people like that movie in general, it's just really boring.
@@janisir4529 you have impossibly high standards and might be dead inside. Leme guess - you also think transformation scene is bad in American Werewolf in London
@@grantous67Nah, the Thing just happens to be something that would have looked much better with CGI.
Also yes, but I don't see how that's connected to 40+ years old movies.
And I didn't watch that movie, never even heard of it.
Master and Commander, a great demonstration of using CGI to enhance real world effects and achieve scenes that would cost just too much money to recreate 100% in reality
Three bots on one comment, someone grab the flamethrower
The 2.3 seconds after you see the flashes in the fog and all absolute hell breaks loose on the ship is still one of the most amazing moments in cinema.
Yes! CGI works when it supports rather than replaces the plot.
You've absolutely nailed the reason I almost never choose to watch an action movie.
The CGI is over-the-top and unbelievable 95% of the time.
CGI should only be used:
1) To enhance or improve a visual effect
2) When you can't afford to do it practically
3) Or when the shot can't be achieved otherwise
"Bu-but, underpaying and overworking the animators instead of putting in the money and risks is not as cost efficiant, we lose money over this"
"Who tf cares about you getting a bit more or a bit less money, make the movie good and the money will come by naturally over time"
Or if the entire story is supposed to be in a CGI world like TRON or READY PLAYER ONE that fits the story your trying to sell.
Completely - used as a tool upon many, rather than the only tool
Thank God that John Carpenter made 'The Thing' before CGI. A true master class in practical effects.
Couple of decades later and we get a taste of cgi the thing. Did you see the remake/sequel or whatever it was. Just horrible
@@noobdave It was a Prequel but it actually used practical effects but the studio made the director use CGI in the final product.
@@dericjames2018 in a way it’s good that’s it’s a prequel. That way we get a far superior sequel. Even though it came a long time before😂
@@noobdave Yeah that's true
I see two issues with modern cinema:
1 - Bottomless Disney Budgets: Back when you had a limited budget, you were forced to get creative, with your set design, with your narrative elements, and with your camera angles. This ultimately made for a more artistic and creative vision, true movie magic. Instead now we get CGI on CGI and this means there is no creativity (CGI creativity sure but I mean restriction enforced creativity)
2 - Ideological writers: Instead of writing a story and creating a world for the audience to indulge in, they instead priorities "The message" first, and the story second. It doesn't matter what the story is, we must enforce our ideology first, even if it completely diverts the narrative flow and even if it runs counter to everything else about the fantasy adventure we are taking the audience on.
Good points. It reminds me of what it was like to produce records before the digital era. I mean, digital tools are amazing, but many sound engineers rely on them too heavily. In the old days we didn’t have a literal infinite number of tracks with infinite non-linear editing abilities. In fact, we had to commit to pre mixes to mix down into fewer tracks. Don’t like the sound of the cymbals? Snare isn’t sounding quite right? Too bad, you’re stuck with your L/R mix of the kit. Proper planning and focus is clear in the final product. Our modern tools don’t hurt the quality directly. It’s when we rely (no, *depend*) too heavily on these tools, we inadvertently lose the discipline that is required without them. This lack of discipline had had a horrible impact on the quality of our media.
On the ideological writers, is that they do indeed prioritize message over story when there have been countless movies that have a message that are also enjoyable. Happy Feet was an environment lecture dressed like an animation, The Bee Movie (which wasn't amazing but still pretty decent) has a story beyond "Save the bees"
I’ve felt this for a long time. That’s partly why I loved Maverick so much. Tom Cruise insisted on no CGI. Good for him. It’s so lazy to constantly resort to using it, and far more impressive to me when it’s done for real or with clever camera trickery. I miss the days when you really were impressed with CGI before it became so overused, like in 1993 with Jurassic Park. That was jaw dropping when I saw it. Now CGI is so prevalent, it just doesn’t impress anymore.
Yeah a massive amount of Maverick was CGI
Jurassic Park look so real. I first saw it when I was a kid.
Fun fact: Even a lot of the planes in the new Maverick movie were completely replaced with CG except the cockpit in a lot of scenes. It disappointed me a bit. I mean of course the stealth fighters were clearly CG because there is no such thing. But even if I didn't notice I feel cheated. No matter if it looks the same if you really risked your life for something it inherently hits differently.
You loved maverick coz it was well made. It was exactly as 'lazy' (or even more so) as every other blockbuster movie. You may be more impressed, when it is done for 'real', but without telling you, you would not be able to tell what is done for 'real' and what is fully cgi.
I honestly like these videos a bit more than reviewing a movie. Don't get me wrong, when Drinker analyzes a movie, he does it like no other and it's great, but this content sees the bigger picture and I'm absolutely here for it
I agree. The Drinker's reviews are very well done but it's interesting when he shows some features that films share; some good, some not so good.
Personally, I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy has a near perfect balance of practical effects and CGI. The overuse of CGI has really taken the heart out of films.
yes yes totally agree
@@h.a.edinburgh7879 he cherry picks bad cgi movies, look at the mission impossible franchise, nobody, capt America and the winter soldier, civil war , the batman, Nolan movies, Jason bourne, they’re all action films that use cgi well, there are mainly only a few standouts like the other marvel movies and justice league.
Imagine if I cherry picked the prequel trilogy,the mummy, the Christopher reeves superman franchise, Spider-Man action scenes as examples of bad overused cgi.
If you haven't already seen them, the Drinker has done some excellent videos about the "bigger picture," in that we have heroes that no longer have to overcome any obstacles in order to achieve greatness, and we have villains that are very watered down versions of their "inspiration." In 3 movies, Kylo Ren never had anything close to the malevolent screen presence of Darth Vader. Compare Kylo's Force grab of an officer and having him spin on a conference table as if this was the set of _Breakin' 3: The First Order Boogaloo of the Next Generation,_ to Vader simply raising a hand and saying "I find your lack of faith disturbing." Real power and menace doesn't have to be over the top and theatrical to get the point across.
@@righthandwolf306 Star Wars and Star Trek were goofed up by the same person JJ abrams, it didn’t have wokeness, just had bad writing. Even marvel and dc movies are a sliver of modern Hollywood.
Imagine pretending Michael bay films were a representative of modern Hollywood ignoring great directors like Michael Vaughn, Christopher Nolan and franchises like mission impossible, Jason bourne, kingsman and pretending they’re not modern movies. Every year has a stand-alone action film that is extremely good like nobody, too gun maverick, mission impossible, kingsman, baby driver, free guy and many more that I haven’t seen yet.
The drinker casually ignores modern movies even made by Hollywood legends like Martin scorese, m night Shyamalan, Francis ford coppola, instead pretending marvel movies dc and Charlie’s angels are the only majority that exists.
I really miss that golden age when CGI was only just getting functional and you had to pick and choose what you used, and where. And it *was* used, but only when and where you literally couldn’t make it work with practicals and still get that photo-realistic vibe.
The era of Lord of the Rings, Terminator 2, The Undiscovered Country, and the Hunt for Red October.
Star wars
Iron Man 1 and 2 (surprisingly practical movies)
@@ksander1779 Which is why Iron Man 1 is my favorite Marvel movie
@@tastyfalcon1788 OK so which leg was real and which leg CG? That's an in-joke but you get the point.
The 90s to mid 00s maybe?
Well then CGI was not great so definitely they couldn’t use too much of it.
Now they can do loads with if but its definitely ruining movies, not just because of how it looks but i feel rather than have good story, they try to impress with a wow factor- bigger, more explosions etc.
Cgi, can look ok but it can’t replace the gritty feeling from traditional good special effects
To be fair with Obi Wan vs Anakin part of a complain I had with the original Trilogy is that they did a pretty poor job of showing how Jedi and Sith could be considered more effective than a squad of guys with guns considering how difficult it was for them to move stuff with the Force and their lightsabers while effective weapons were almost exclusively close range. The Prequels better showcased that Force Wielders were lethal combatants capable of feats of physical ability that were beyond impressive even in a setting full of aliens with all kinds of different abilities and skills. It really helped sell the Jedi and Sith as legit one man armies you'd be terrified to fight even if you were armed to the teeth with all kinds of guns and explosives.
This is a very good point and I think it shows the main point that drinker missed when he talked about cgi overload. While cgi overload is problematic for the movie industry overtime, cgi is a tool that is not only used by directors, but writers as well. Cgi inspires laziness as writers do not need to worry about details, settings, or physical limitations when creating scenes. In some examples, like the ROTS fight you mentioned, cgi can greatly enhance the plot significance of certain items, people, or settings, by making them immensely more capable to an inhuman degree. Meanwhile other movies like the recent matrix sequel, use cgi as a contrivance to simulate visual power with no real justification other than flashy spectacle.
To be real, Obi Wan was old, Vader was a lumbering cyborg, and Luke wasn't fully trained, so there was room for improvement on the fight choreography, but the prequels went too far into choreography and lost some of the realism compared to the OT fights.
In real fight, there are going to be pauses, not just to stare someone down or catch one's breath but to also feel out the situation and test the opponent's abilities before working out what approach you're going to commit to.
Hell, the lack of natural pauses for various purposes really can kill a lot of fights because it's just rapid fire movement where everyone doing it is just going through transitions to a set destination. It's not organic, so it feels off even if you're not sure why.
I agree there isnt really way of showcasing a force users full might without cgi
also george lucas was one if not the Person who revolutionized the use of CGI creating with his team new ways for CGI to push the boundaries. he unfortunaly did it too well and many used his achievements to not use practical effects or even further develop CGI
I’m a CG artist and some of my favorite VFX are the ones that combine practical and visual effects. Take Titanic for example, the shots of Titanic leaving port from Southampton are some of my favorites of all time and looking into it, they filmed a physical model of the ship and composited everything else around it. The people, smoke, water, background and birds are all fake or comped into the shots but the main focus, the ship, is real and it looks stunning in the final result. Keep in mind, this was in 1997, when CGI was still in it’s infancy in regards to cinema. They did this throughout the whole movie. Hell, a lot of the sinking scenes were done on a 500 foot sectional replica of the ship. People were actually standing on a set as they lowered it into a huge water tank and what did they CG in those shots? Stars.
CGI was reasonably mature by 1997 although obviously it was limited by computing power to a much greater extent than today. The first use of CGI in a movie was Westworld in 1973 and the first all-CGI character in a film was used in Young Sherlock Holmes in 1985 so there was a decent amount of industry experience by the time Titanic was being made. That said, Cameron did a great job of using enough CGI but not too much, and relied on actual sets and practical effects as much as possible.
@@trolleriffic Photorealistic CGI in cinema didn’t come around until the 90’s. The Abyss, Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 were pioneers in this field. Young Sherlock Holmes looked great for 1985 but as far as 3D animation goes, there were like 20 polygons going on in the stain glass knight scene and the tracking and shadows were definitely wonky. James Cameron knew they couldn’t pull off a full 3D computer animated model ship in 1997, not one as complicated/detailed for hero shots. I’ve modelled this ship myself in 3ds max, you need millions of polygons.
Its crazy how the first Jurassic Park films CGI is still better than CGI used today almost 30 years on!
Its even more baffling how The Thing still holds up 40 years on!
The Thing has become a cult classic because it is in equal weights pant-soiling horror and gut-wrenching hilarious. The effects are so grotesque that you could legitimately either laugh at the absurdity of it or shit your pants at the terror of it all. Its in limbo, neither point of view wrong or right.
Ots not baffling its because the dinosaurs were practical effects enhanced by cgi whereas nowadays its fully cgi monsters
No the original Jurassic Park CGI is not better than todays. It do look good mostly because of how tasteful it's implemented, but it's still easy to spot it's flaws.
@@gurratell7326 yet nothing in the new jurassic movies can top THAT T Rex scene. The reason is because its a mix of practical but also clever CGI which masks the capabilities of that yime. Issue is with CGI progress, dinosaurs in full daylight still look off...
It also helps when the movie and script are good. Many of the films made today are too formula and diversity driven. The stories suck and even well executed CGI doesn't save them...
I always thought The Lord of the Rings was a perfect blend of CGI and practical effects. Especially for a fantasy movie full of otherworldly monsters.
lord of the rings? yes.
the hobbit triology? no, too much CGI in the wrong places.
I remember watching that one scene where Sauroman is wiping the floor with Gandalfs face and how weird that looked
@@piggynatorcool668 weird, but i'm pretty sure that was all practical effects and stuntwork, not CGI.
@@xerxeskingofking , the only CGI I really enjoyed out of the entire Hobbit movie was Smaug. He was a dragon, so of course you're going to have to do something amazing with him. Although to be fair, the 80's movie Dragonslayer did some awesome practical effects on Vermithrax. But some of the action sequences with Smaug went too far: for example when he got covered in molten gold and was plated. In addition to that never happening in the books, it was unnecessary and the way he just shrugged it off with a few flaps of the wings made me wonder if gold in Middle Earth weights as much as feathers on real Earth? And why didn't the molten searing metal cause any problems with his missing scale or running up his nose or into his eyes? Liquid gets everywhere and molten gold is hot! We should've had partially cooked dragon.
@@xerxeskingofking you’re completely right, the Hobbit movies were so disappointing. The Lord of the Rings movies were just amazing, so beautiful even now.
I really miss the feeling of wonder and saying "wow, how did they do that??" when watching a movie. It's something that really struck me while re-watching 2001 Space Odyssey. Sadly, even when a movie does go beyond and use practical effects, I still can't have that feeling anymore because I just assume it was done digitally.
Get your eyes tested mate.
well the average movie goer can spot CGI nowadays. I just takes you out of the movie when you know they are just in front of a green screen.
@@purefoldnz3070 it doesnt bother me at all personally, what bothers me is when its all blatantly CGI. We have the technology to make CGI look almost indistinguishable from whats real.. but it obviously takes a lot more time/$$$. Directors need to realize that the "consoomers" will generally like a movie will like quantity>quality as much as quality>quantity.. but us more "serious" movie fanatics are likely to only enjoy quality>quantity.
Like the beginning of the new Obi-Wan show, i lost almost all hope in the first 5 damn minutes because as awesome as it was seeing the order66 prequel scene with modern CGI, watching the damn clones run into the Jedi to die, not even shooting, takes ALL the excitement out of the action. (Unrelated i guess, just venting lol)
@@purefoldnz3070 I disagree. I honestly believe that if you showed many younger people old Bond movies (they are just the best example) they would simply *assume* certain shots to be some kind of digital trick.
they wouldn't really have a stuntman ski of a mountain cliff, right?
(and don't get me wrong, that stunt in particular is also a good example of the benefits of cgi. because I don't want someone to die over filming of some thing for entertainment)
@@purefoldnz3070 No they can't. Not the *average* moviegoer. Which means people who don't care too much about movies it's something to do on the weekend/a date. Not people who are interested enough to comment on the internet or the armchair experts.
And it's not even cg. You don't even have to go that far to work it out. Does the movie have a fantastic or genre premise? That doesn't happen in the real world? There you go. The alien is an effect. Duh. :Lastly, how is being in front of a green screen any different to the old/pre-cgi days when they were in front of a blue screen? It isn't. And you could tell then too. Even more easily...
This made me remember an old school mate of mine in the mid 1990's when he considered the "quality" of a computer game by how many MB it took on the Disk Drive instead of the gameplay itself...
wow lol 😂
"How many discs are needed for installation?"
Anakin vs Obi-Wan actually had very little CG. The landscape was a miniature-set, Hayden and Ewan were actually doing the coreography, and they were actually that fast.
@I'm David Hasselhoff no, not very little, a lot of CGI. The fight in Empire Strikes Back was tight with limited space and plus the fight was real.
Weren’t they so fast that they were told to slow down because viewers might get confused at what’s happening?
Ya that’s prolly the only thing I disagree with in this video. Was it over the top? A bit. But it’s not done at the sake of character development. ROTS has some great character building, even in that duel obi and anakin have a lot of great back and forth about their views. And I’m not gonna lie the duel itself is fucking epic. Again, maybe a bit off the top? Prolly. But the score, imagery, and raw emotion are fantastic and the dueling maybe be choreographed but comes off quite epic. I always saw it as master and apprentice knowing each other so we’ll they see each others moves before they do them hence why they do that whole spinning thing where neither gets hit. But hey that’s just my opinion
@I'm David Hasselhoff I'm a fan of Drinker but claiming that the difference between bad CGI and practical effects is very obvious while proceeding to show a scene with mostly practical effects as an example of bad CGI is hilariously ironic. I have a feeling Drinker doesn't do any research before writing because in his TDKR review, he made fun of the wings ripping off in the opening plane scene as being ridiculous when, in reality, the plane was real and the wings detaching was completely unplanned.
@@sean_michael_kenny yeah that was almost completely CGI, because they couldn't exactly find a two foot tall swordfighting gymnast in time, but even the set they were in was completely real
I agree with most of what you said. But, Anakin and Obi-wans fight on Mustafar was amazing. That, in my opinon, was a good mix of CGI and proper choreography. Its not all perfect, but its the highlight of the prequels.
They used a lot of practical effects mixed in too
Not compared to the duel of the fates in phantom menace.
@@davidmullen8690 ahh yes the fights where they clearly were aiming for the sticks and not the actual person is better then the absolute death match in episode 3
It was good duel. Even Shadversity likes it.
And they paid attention to a lot of tiny details, like a dozen different costumes with increasing levels of fire damage. I think in a way it was supposed to be over the top, as well. But it works because of the music and colour, instead of the grey mess we see these days.
CGI can be a good thing
*when handled properly and used sparely*
When it goes wrong IT GOES WRONG
No it can't. There is no such thing as "good CGI." Yet most of CD's fans, and CD himself, assert that there is. You guys sound like shills or simps or something by pushing that BS.
@@True_Christian Oh, but there is - mostly one you DON'T SEE and DON'T NOTICE.
@Bonka Well, look at 1958 A Night To Remember.
@@True_Christian Okay, then please build me a space ship, and film on location.
@Bonka LotR CGI looks awful by modern standards. The New Zealand landscape is great, and then suddenly a ps2 cutscene shows up. Okay, maybe ps3.
I still love the fight between Obi-Wan and Anakin in ROTS. These are two warriors in their prime that have been fighting a war for years. Their swordsmanship is at its peak, and duels between force users involve a great deal of premonition and force sensitivity in order to keep up with your opponent or best him. This is the same force sensitivity that allows them deflect literal fucking light with their saber, so it makes canonical sense that it appears choreographed.
I love Critical Drinker but imo he was a lil off being so harsh on Obi Wan and Amakins fight. The epic set piece they fight on is literally unmatched. You can see in the sequel trilogy where they tried to replicate it but nothing comes close.
I was o board until then. when he got there I was like "oh no you don't"
Yes, exactly, besides, their fight is mostly real. Some ridiculous flips aren't, but their attacks and parries are mostly derived from real swordsmanship. Shadiversity did a great deep dive into that fight scene. I mostly agreed with him until it got to this part, that lightsaber fight is absolutely legendary and imo the best in the franchise.
I see the wisdom to both sides. On the one hand, it's an awesome fight scene, with lightning fast flurries that show how much concentration and swordsmanship are at play between these two legendary warriors. On the other, I can see how the set-piece for the fight could get a bit convoluted, and some of the CGI doesn't hold up as well. I think the Duel of the Fates (Darth Maul vs Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan,) is a much better fight, not just for the novelty of the double-bladed lightsaber, but at how grounded and well-executed the fight was, the tension of "holy crap, this guy is fighting TWO jedi at once, and he's still not down yet." and the cunning of Maul to use the terrain to separate and try to finish off the jedi one by one, a tactic that ends up backfiring.
Overall however I totally agree with Drinkers assessment. The Best movies are those that use Practical effects, and only use CGI to touch up scenes rather than making the entire thing digitally animated. I mean at that point you're just watching a video game cutscene. Predator, Terminators 1 and 2, the first two Alien movies, Mad Max: Fury Road, all use either no, or little CG, and they all hold up really well for the most part.
They're supposed to be like marionettes:
Ben: Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.
Luke: You mean it controls your actions?
Ben: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.
John Carpenter's The Thing is forty years old and a masterclass in practical effects that still look good today. Rob Bottin, Stan Winston and their teams brought a genuinely terrifying alien creature to life. As Drinker said CGI enhanced practical effects can work, but I certainly wouldn't want to be one of those actors standing in a big green room not knowing where I should be looking.
One of my personal all time sci-fi / horror flick was and still is "Event Horizon" was there a bit of cgi? Yeah, sure. But it was mostly just great acting, a great story, great set, great stuntmen, great characters and a good portion of hard work and effort. Things many movies nowadays seem to lack severely, some more than others.
I think the original Thing was a good movie, especially the acting and script, but let's face it - the effects were often weak and excessive. Rather than inducing horror, they ruin immersion in much the same way that CGI does. And I'm not saying that doing them in CGI would have been better. The movie would have benefited greatly from restraint, from showing a lot less, being less blatant, relying on the fear of the unseen.
@@IrishCarney I think you are referring not to the original done in 1951, but I agree with you. There was probably an effort to create maximum shock value and it mostly works. Ultimately, I give that excess a pass as the film is so good anyway.
@@andrewkoines6389 Right, by "original" I meant John Carpenter, sorry
I think the part that gets me out of the immersion of modern movies is just how light everything seems to be. People get hit through the air and bounce off the ground like tennis balls.
There has not, and likely will not, ever be a modern CGI-laden film which will make a convincing alternative to the ship interiors in ALIEN. The "floating digital display" is the laziest, stupidest piece of CGI. Give me functional computer banks, clunky buttons, and real actual grime...a working machine...any day. God forbid an actor actually interact with something. You mention the use of squibs and pyro-technics and one of most obvious benefits is simple; actor reactions. Ever watch Arnold dump a magazine in Predator? Even when firing propane simulations, the sound, flash, etc. cause all of the actors to wince slightly, reacting to the actual exploding squibs, etc. If a wall next to you explodes in dust and debris...the actor will automatically react to it. Actual recoil, actual noise, actual fire, actual water...these are all important elements which allow the actor to respond physically.
There's a lot of CGI that outclasses all of Aliens practical effects. In fact even real time games can generate better looking images 100 times each second in 4K.
There's an aspect to the Alien ship interiors that really bothers me, though: The computer technology. It SCREAMS 1970s. Ridley Scott did not do a good job there. The ship interiors in 2001 are VASTLY superior. The instrumentation still doesn't look dated, and the film is now 54 years old.
@@robertromero8692 While some of the screens are underwhelming, they match the purpose of the ship though - a work vehicle. Look at modern industrial vehicles today, or combat aircraft or tanks. None of them are "pretty" like your big tablet in something like a modern sports car, etc. ALIEN and its off-shoots are kind of the dead opposite of 2001. 2001 was 'fantastical sci-fi', whereas the ALIEN IP takes place in a vastly more down-to-earth grimey reality. The ship in ALIEN is literally a space truck. Just hauling cargo. Nothing glamorous, nothing fancy. It's the equivalent of a beat-up F-150, or better yet a garbage collection truck.
@@asandax6 Congrats. You missed the point of my post completely.
@@oskar6661 I don’t buy that explanation at ALL. I am not talking about the ship being “pretty”, or being free of grime. I’m talking about the ridiculously low res computer screens, etc. “Mother’s” screen is just a monochrome 80 x 24 TEXT screen, and doesn’t even have voice recognition. Don’t try to tell me it’s because it’s a “work” ship. 4k resolution (or better), voice recognition, etc would be very OLD (at LEAST 100 years), VERY cheap (have you seen the price of 4k screens TODAY?), VERY available technology in the year in which Alien takes place, FAR MORE available than the crude low res CRT screens shown in the movie. In fact, it's unreasonable to think that such low res screens could be available at ALL when the ship was built. The Nostromo is not a military vehicle. It’s a frickin’ STARSHIP. Scott just didn’t put forth anywhere near the kind of effort Kubrick did in imagining future spaceship design. He simply slapped 1970s technology in and said “good enough”.
"Monsterous and deformed" Oh thank you, thank you, thank you. I was sitting there wallowing in my tail end of shingles misery when THAT gag flashed up. It improved my mood an order of magnitude.
This is why a lot of 80's action flicks are revered, even if some are a little cheesy: because they are a Hell of a lot more authentic.
Reals stunts, real explosions on set. I'll take 80s movies any day.
@@patrickkavanagh7371 Yeah, and sqibs instead of crappy CGI blood. 😁
80's "cheesy" is 100x better than today's woke content regardless of image quality and CGI.
@@Cryo837 Yeah, I remember in "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" they called each other a "fag" after a glad-you're-alive hug ...you know that wouldn't fly nowadays!
Because, of course, teenage boys NEVER say crap like that ever. 😉
There's bad effetcs in all of them. Also the past was a different time for movie making. People were forced to go to the cinema to watch movies or wait an eternity for them to eventually release on VHS. There was no torrenting no online streaming etc. Movies were about getting people into cinemas. Now most of them are churned out like a production line based around maximizing profits.
Perfectly stated! I am particularly sick to death of the CGI overkill in fight scenes. When I was a kid, I knew damn well that when Stallone, Lundgren, Van Damme, or Charles Bronson were duking it out on screen, I was watching real tough guys do real stunts. We had real action heroes and it was delicious escapism. Time to bring back real people doing real things!
I wonder what it would look like if someone could really jump one hundred feet in the air.
It still amazes me how incredibly real the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park (1993) look as compared to modern CGI movies. Upon reflection, I realized that a big reason why they look so real is because Spielberg seamlessly meshed these enormous creatures with practical sets and vehicles. This gave them weight and presence. When the T-Rex butts the overturned Explorer with its head and spins it around, it looks real because the crew actually spun the truck around. In a 21st century film, the whole scene would have been animated.
That's a big part of it. But also he was forced to be restrained in his use of CGI because of what in that era were the cost, time to carry out the rendering, and the limitations of what it could do and how good it looked. So he'd shoot the CGI portions of the T-rex in the rain and dark, cutting to practical soon, etc. Also, aspect ratio mattered. th-cam.com/video/BKALxKbjOaE/w-d-xo.html
I'll fight you on the Anakin vs Obi-Wan duel. Lucas was limited by the technology at the time for the OT, but could shoot the duels in the prequels like he wanted them. And sure, this epic long duel on Mustafar can either seem obviously choreographed... or showcase the closeness of two Jedi at their prime who know each other as well as themselves.
With everything else, however, I agree. Well, personally, I don't mind CGI all that much. But I also am a fan of animation in general, so maybe that has something to do with it. Yet at the core, it is as you say Drinker, it should supplement a filmmaker's toolset to get the results not possible otherwise, but it shouldn't replace everything else.
And this is exactly the reason why I love watching movies from the 80s and 90s. Can't stand CGI today 😴 You can't beat practical effects 👌🏾
same here
Lol you like to watch puppets. 😂
You quite easily can.
@@Getorix Prefer CGI? Lol you like to watch cartoons.
@@hamsterminator lol you go to chuck e cheese for the puppet show.
I think part of it is an earnestness in the actors. It’s hard to convincingly act stuff you can’t comprehend, so by using real effects as much as possible you help put them into the world they’re supposed to be existing in and giving them a realistic frame of reference.
Like the Omaha beach scene in Saving Private Ryan, those actors are cold, wet, probably slightly seasick. Just like the real soldiers were. They get dumped onto a beach filled with explosions with real heat and you see someone missing an arm walking around, that is a real human and it inspires a very visceral reaction. Especially blanks, for the love of God I hate when they CGI in muzzle flash and spent brass because you can feel the actors just pointing rubber guns at each other.
No matter how much you do it, when you see a rifle pointed at you and there’s a flash and crack the logical part of your brain turns off and the instinct kicks on and screams “Run!” Into your body. It’s a huge adrenaline rush and it’s needs to be conveyed to the audience.
Nearly all the actors they push on us today are talentless garbage unable to sell anything regardless of the environment they are in.
I have felt this way ever since I saw the Star Wars Prequels were using Green Screen for all their locations. How can they act when nothing is there?
Look, I appreciate method acting as much as the next guy, but not every movie has to be the Blaire Witch Project. Actors, by definition, have to pretend. And, whether practical purists want to admit it or not, actors can pretend to see things that aren't there. Uncharted is proof of that.
@@nobalkain624 Ask the guys in the voice acting booth.
@@GameCat16 Yeah not as well, all the Star Wars Prequels are proof of that.
I agree with you on that. Overuse of CG effects just makes movies nowadays look like video games or animated film.
It's called pushing the medium forward, whats wrong with animated films or video games, all 3 take from each other and grow.
Modern blockbusters meld together CGI, practical effects, stuntwork etc to create some amazing visual spectacles, the cynics around here that hate on marvel can't even deny that endgame and infinity war have the best large scale actions scenes ever, it's not replacing practical effects you just literally cannot make that fight without heavy use of CGI and the subtle but powerful emotions of thanos are an evolution of motion capture in a very nuanced way.
@@WookieWarriorz be honest. How will modern movies look with overuse of CGI that are released these days are gonna age 10 to 50 years from now?
@@WookieWarriorz You take out the work that it takes to make live action films and you put stunt men out of a job.
And they have that video game aesthetic from the PS3/360 era with bloomy lighting and washed out colours, typically seen in shooters at the time.
I have loved most of your commentary, but the Anakin vs Obi-Wan fight is perhaps the greatest 10 minutes in cinema. Especially the scream "I hate you" at the end...chills.
I’m a special effects pyrotechnician by trade and this video explains perfectly what is going on with the film biz. The use of CG as a crutch instead of what it was intended to be (a tool meant to accomplish what simply cannot through normal means) amounts to nothing more than outright laziness when it comes to filmmaking.
This fact is made all the worse when you realize that this laziness is thrown into $200+ million films that they still expect to be major blockbusters you are to blow $12 or more a ticket on.
Talk about a bait-and-switch…
Part of what used to make movies great was how they made audiences say “how the hell did they do that???!!!”. CG took that wonder away and replaced it with outright laziness.
The cynic in me says that they somehow launder money using gigantic CGI budgets and "fortified" ticket sales.
Real question here: Isn't CGI more expensive and time-consuming than practical effects?
Been rewatching older movies, and there’s a certain thing that you don’t get from cgi that you do from practical effects - movies like Dirty Harry and Magnum Force are great, and every sequence is done practically. CG is a cop out, and it’s sad that it’s replacing instead of blending with practical effects.
I think something that modern movies miss is the real sense of adventure. Actors can portray a role but us humans can pick up on subtle emotions and mannerisms. For Indiana Jones you can tell Harrison Ford was really tired as hell, sweaty and nearly crapped himself with dysentery. It made the movie real and feel like an actual adventure. Or the extreme example of Apocalypse Now where the actors were literally going insane and got lost in the jungle etc. Nowadays it just breaks the suspension of disbelief when some pretty boy actor rolls out of an AC trailer and says some lines in front of a green screen. I give Viggo Mortenson a lot of credit here because he did a lot to really play roles like Aragorn like sleeping outside or with his horse etc. He was not just trying to play a badass, he lived like a badass and the cameras happened to roll.
Dirty Harry and Magnum Force are good because all of the impact of those films comes from the people in them. The only "special effect" is Harry Callahan not getting immediately fired from his job. lol
Modern action movies aren't action movies. It's a CGI mess that is pretending to be action movies.
This is why I love Christopher Nolan’s approach to directing. Most of his film sets are practical even if a Blue screen and/or Green screen are used. Also, Spike Jonze does a phenomenal job with using practical sets.
Dunkirk badly needed CGI, just for the scale. His approach won't age well & it also looked absolutely nothing like the real event (which can only ever be recreated with CGI anyway because there's just not enough ships & equipment from that era to make a realistic depiction with practical effects).
In that respect Atonement managed Dunkirk better.
@@cartermoth6447 I liked Dunkirk. It looked more realistic than Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy 2.
@@AJVillanueva2030 But it still looked nothing like the real event in terms of scale. So "keeping it real" didn't work if recreating Dunkirk was the goal.
A good war movie of the past 20 years is Black Hawk Down: it has an absolute boatload of CGI in it but because it's so well done & integrated neatly, no one says anything.
That's the crux: CGI is like anything else in a movie (including the acting): it can be good, or bad. But aiming for 'no CGI' like a form of purity (which can be deduced from many comments here) is a mistake & the movies will suffer.
@@cartermoth6447 Okay then.
My problem with CGI is it should have made action scenes better, but it did the opposite, it made it worse. 80s action scenes from Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Jackie Chan are still 100 times better than CGI action scenes today.
I was watching Jackie Chan's Police Story the other day. Knowing that they used a real car bouncing down a real hill with a real stunt driver inside illicits strong emotions from a human. It made me feel anxiety, excitement, shock. I don't feel that way with CGI action scenes that look worse than a video game..
"CGI should enhance practical effects, not replace them." Exactly. Awesome commentary. I hope Hollywood takes note.
While I agree that CGI overload is a huge problem in modern entertainment, I think the biggest and most prominent problem is that they prioritize THE MESSAGE over the story, the characters and pretty much everything else.
He adressed it in other videos.
I agree, it’s so boring watching a movie now due to the constant barrage of “the message.” God forbid we get a movie that is just an escape from reality that is entertaining
@@rmmm6725 theres this non woke film called moon fall which had potential but it turned out garbage
In live action, CGI looks best when it's supporting what's actually physically there.
If all the weight of the scene/ effects falls solely on the CGI, immersion gets shattered. There is only so much the subconscious will tolerate.
Personally, I think a lot of CGI battles feel "floaty." Like each hit is rubber, little to no impact.
I recently went to a comic/sci-fi convention recently and was amazed to see how well cosplayers can create the look of superheros, monsters, robots, etc and are able to include moving parts, lights, and wings. There is no reason actors should be enhanced with so much CGI when great practical effects are achievable by amateur convention goers.
ikr!! like she hulk, wtf, why is she-hulk cgi-ed the hell out of when cosplayers can do a better makeup job??
A several hundred/maybe even a thousand dollar labour of love versus a soulless movie studio with millions. Yeah I'll take the cosplayer.
The reason is saving money. Cos players are incredibly talented, but they only have to dress up for the occasional weekend. Films take weeks or months to shoot, and modern day studios would rather skimp to save a few dollars than to spend a bit extra for practical effects. The endless comic book franchises are little more than cheap fast food entertainment at this point, and it's all about quarterly profits, not art and storytelling anymore.
thank you for bringing that up! that pisses me off more than ANYTHING, look at Titans, and look at cosplayers and you start to realize that it is not just inexcusable that Hollywood can't achieve that, it's intentional that Hollywood bullies the products out of pure ego. The actress they chose for Starfire, whom I'm sure is a good person, looks absolutely NOTHING like the character from neither the comics or the cartoon from the 2000's, there are cosplayers that play Starfire/Raven that looks ridiculously gorgeous to the point that they sometimes look even better/sexier than their comic/cartoon counter parts! It's simply put pure ego and jealousy from Hollywood to not put an effort into their movies out of pure spite for the fans. That's not even getting into the Social Justice crap either!
Better yet, make the whole thing animated. You can go as fantastical and off the wall as you want and you don't have to worry about the limitations of actors and live sets. And for anyone the doubts animation can do mature stories, just last year there was Arcane and Invincible which were huge successes. In addition to many great animes thru the years with complex and mature themes.
Honestly I'm too young to have seen most of the movies with practical effects you talked about here, but just seeing a few moments of them intrigued me so much honestly I'd love to see more real people fighting in real locations doing actual explosions. I like cgi and animation in general but it would be nice to get something live action once in blue moon.
Movies are recorded. You don't have to only watch them when they come out. They have ways to watch older movies online.
You need to watch some old movies! I recommend 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' ( the first Indiana Jones film) as a great place to start
I've learned that cgi is often overlooked if the story is good; but if the story is lacking and boring, you spend your time picking everything else apart.
Enjoyable story means more suspension of disbelief from the audience
The double standard between the body types for female and male superheroes is another important topic.
Most female heroes look like models - not MMA stars. Instead of looking (and acting) strong, we’re simply told that they’re strong. And, of course, male heroes are now (typically) degraded as a means of fake, female empowerment - which just makes the status of these female heroes feel even more unearned. It’s ironically patronizing.
The 110 lb women vs the 200lb accommodating stuntman
But not every women is a MMA fighter and buff, this whole entire argument is stupid.
Also some super heroes are strong because of their powers, not because of their physical, sometimes it's both, sometimes is one or the other
Also I hope you know having a super buff female hero, isn't really empowerment. You seems to have one narrow minded mindset on empowerment too, like dumb Hollywood
@@Snow-xd4rv Not every woman and not every male looks jacked and is super strong, but the protagonist/heroes usually are because they're usually fighting bad guys. Thats the argument here. You expect males to be jacked but the women just needs a pretty face and can be 105 lb soaking wet and yet they're beating up the same guys. Just that one weighs around the same or more while the other weighs 1/2 the weight of the bad guy. Now if apply real life to the scene or any amount of physics, it becomes unbelievable lol. I agree with your other comment when it comes to powers and magic it doesn't matter what they look like to be fair.
I think a great example of CGI done right is the new Dune film. There's not a single moment in that movie where the CGI doesn't feel convincing or have weight behind it.
the balloon ship has a defect like it inflate like a cartoon.
@DC Bombadil I disagree
I do wonder if they used models at all like David’s version, and as a comment above me I do like the original look of the sand worms but I understand why they don’t have it for the new ones, the worms literally eat and borrow though the sand a beak wouldn’t make sense if it’s constantly eating, though the new ones didn’t have lightning effects or storm clouds when that’s what the worms cause when their moving around
I disagree, the balloons inflating look completely fake and pulled me out of the movie
The spice vision dream sequence of the Fremen fighting the Sarduakar was pretty weak. It was fine in the move as a contextual "hey, conflict is coming" dream sequence, but it was like watching armies from LotR lining up and battling it out against each other.
I work in the VFX industry. The CGI needs to be so good that it should convince the audience that there wasn't any CGI involved. This is an extremely difficult task to achieve but we will definitely get there.
let me ask you a question: if your CGI task was to create a mouse the size of an elephant, what would that mouse look like?
Its not enough that it looks good, movement/physics etc has to be realistic.
Well work harder cause it aint working
The problem is the scenes they create are so unrealistic in their defiance of logic and common sense. People care far less about how perfect it is but whether it was necessary, adds to the film, and makes sense. For most CGI, no, it doesn't.
@@clownshow5901 That's less about the skills of the VVFX artists, it's the fault of directors who want sequences that don't look real.
I remember years ago when Call of Duty introduced real actors to perform for the game's animation, the actors talked about how one of the major obstacles they faced was that they were performing entirely in front of a motion capture system and didn't know exactly what kind of scene they were supposed to be in. All these years later, it is sad to see that just as the game industry continues to learn from the brilliant achievements of the film industry, real cinematography is becoming more and more like a video game.
That's a not so new concept. In the 1990s games like Wing Commander III introduced live action. That game had Mark Hamill and Malcolm McDowell of all people acting in it.
Challenge =/= impossible. Uncharted faced the same hurdle, and I think it's safe to say that those games are well-acted.
And that's without getting into the fact that voice actors face the same challenge, even if they aren't wearing motion-capture suits.
@@Ozymandias1 BTW: these cutscenes and story made one hell of the movie!
100% agreed. I have been telling this for decade. What killed movie industry is superhero movies, lack of ideas and CGI.Also lets not forget "the message"! CGI should only be used to suplement practical effects. Good example of this is original Jurassic park
Oh man, that is still my top bar for effects. Nothing produced since then has topped Jurassic Park.
@@alex_mcclay Exactly my point. And we have oposite today. Today everything is done with cgi only, even supermans face. Yes there were lot of scenes done by special effects in JP but almost every dinosour had real size practical model being built and just basicly used cgi over it. Thats why even after 30 years jurrasic park have better effects than most modern movies today. Its because they were a suplement for a practical ones, basicly painting over real life models that were in real nature and not in front of green screen.
"what killed the industry is superhero movies"
No. There is an oversaturation of superhero movies, yes, but that has always been a thing. There have been countless knock-off cash-grabs to bank in on the newest craze, whether the first one was good or not. The Lord of the Ring, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, and Twilight all inspired massive trends. Superhero movies are just the newest version of oversaturation.
@@GameCat16 I am not sure how old are you but i lived pretty long time to remamber a time when movies had original ideas and mouse didnt own all studios and pump out trash but mostly great stuff. They still recycle those old movies today for a "cash grab" based on nostalgia cuz they are bankrupt on ideas and in process destroy legacy of many movies. Never in last 30 years i seen anything like this superhero wave lasting for 10+ years. Also twilight and hunger games not in the same class as lotr or harry potter. Hell i would say lotr is class of its own. Its a last great holywood franchise that also used lot of practical effects. After that all went to s..t
@@flyboy7593 I remember watching Robert Ebert on his show with Richard Roeper say that with Jackson's "LOTR" films that "We are watching cinematic history". I had zero interest in watching LOTR until somebody dragged me to see The Two Towers, and I was so taken by the film and story itself that I became an instant fan.
Honestly Drinker, I would've set my sights on the Yoda vs. Dooku fight from Episode 2 as a more egregious use of CGI in a lightsaber duel. That chaotic mess was horrifying and dizzying. At least with Obi Wan and Anakin's fight, it was the climatic battle, summation, and apex of the entire prequel trilogy, the first time Anakin finally gets to let loose on someone his equal, and the origin of Darth Vader. Yeah, they needed to go big, they needed to raise the stakes, they need a spectacular landscape setting, and they needed to draw it out. Was it realistic? No, not really, but those actors trained for months to get the choreography down. The fight from Episode 2 on the other hand was just a CGI frog jumping all over the place with a 79 year old Christopher Lee (RIP) waving a stick in the air. It made for great comedy, but bad impact.
They both sucked.
Could not agree with you more
This is the comment right here, had to pause the video to see if anyone else felt the same way
it wasnt even Christopher Lee, he couldnt do any of the lightsabre fight scenes,probably only did that bit where he stands there and waved a lit red neon tube past his face, but it was a stuntman body double stand in, and they just used CGI to faceswap him in. I think of the PT Duel of Fates is closest to the OT style, but George had wanted to show the Jedi at the full heights of their power and the stunt fight coordinator was more into the samurai sword fighting style, whilst in the OT, the guy who was basically a master swordsman/olympic fencer and any film in the 80s with a sword fight he choreographed, felt it was more like a broadsword. But of course sonic the yoda, there are ways you could have made that work in cgi and it be more believably done, but they went for the choice they did. Also I remember the PT fight choreographer said of the Anakin/Kenobi fight,they are all parry moves,because thats how awesome the characters powers were supposed to be, every attack is instantly predicted and parried, but it just looks like some crazy totally choreographed thing,which it is,but the moves arent cgi, the stupid landscape and everything surrrounding them is, which just adds to the unbelievability because it all looks fake.
I disagree. The Anakin vs. Obi Wan fight shouldn't have been a massive spectacle but a grounded battle of wits driven by the emotion of two brothers trying to kill each other. Kind of like the final duel in Ghost of Tsushima. The ROTS fight was way, way over the top to the point of it being hard to take seriously.
The thing about ROTS Anakin vs Obi-Wan fight is that most of their actual moves were choreographed, not cgi. And also remember that it was during a time where cgi was still very revolutionary and new, so of course they were gonna use it
I must be old but I do not consider CGI to be revolutionary and new by the time ROTS came out. CGI was well developed by that point as far as I am concerned. Remember that Jurassic Park and T2 came out in the early 90s. Heck, ROTS had already been preceded by two Star Wars sequels that didn't use any less CGI than ROTS.
A while ago, I watched "Escape from New York" with a friend, and we both commented on how good of a movie it is. Here is this low budget film with very limited special effects, but it is a great movie. The tension is palpable, the characters are all believable, and all without massive CGI.
Rewind back another few decades and you see how films were more focused on the characters because they had to be. Even a big war movie like "The Longest Day" is more focused on character close-ups and dialogue than with actual battle scenes. Oh, they're there, but it's not on the scale of say "Saving Private Ryan" or "Hacksaw Ridge." And you don't necessarily need the big battle scenes. I think with special effects and CGI, we have to go to Dr. Ian Malcolm and I'm going to paraphrase ... nobody ever stopped to ask if we should (with regards to all this CGI).
Without *any* CGI as far as I'm aware. The scene towards the beginning with the computerized wireframe flyover of NYC was actually done using UV-reflective tape on a scale model painted black, and shot under a blacklight.
I love John Carpenter's use of darkness in his movies. Escape from New York and The Thing in particular. The ever-present clinging black shadows create an oppressive atmosphere, sharply contrasting the characters with bold lighting and enhancing the fear created by masterful sound design.
Talk about practical effects, who could forget that scene with the dogs in the Thing? I still get shivers when I think about it.
Both those movies are masterpieces.
Also the fact that it would've been too expensive filming in Manhattan itself. So production went to East St Louis where there had been a huge fire in a district some time before; and used that as a setting for a desolate Manhattan prison.
Would love a remake of The Longest Day enhanced with just the right amount of CGI.
@@APsychicMonkey My favorite movie of his is Halloween. It's how you make horror--not a lot of fake blood or gore, no excessive violence ... just the building tension and fear. Carpenter knows how to do it better than anyone.
I recently watched a video talking about dune’s special effects and two things stood out to me. 1. CGI can be treated as an enhancing technology (enhancing what’s already there) rather than simply forgoing the practical effect base and fashioning the effect full cloth from CGI and 2. CGI allows for shots that the audience knows could not realistically be shot with a camera. These impossible shots can cause films to feel less grounded and more fantastical.
Dunes' CGI looked real tho
Admittedly, Dune's CGI was definitely used in service of the setting, and not to necessarily outright replace things that could be better served by real, physical interaction.
I don't agree with that criticism of the Anakin vs Obi-wan duel. Ewan and Hayden rehearsed that duel for months and spent hundreds of hours learning every single move for that fight. Watching the behind of the scenes for that fight, made me appreciate the two actors at the top of their craft forcing themselves into being swordmasters to satisfy fans who waited decades to see that duel. It was also the last duel of the saga. I'd be disappointed if they didn't go out with a bang.
Exactly. The Mustafar background was sure CGI but the fight was very much real, or at least not entirely CGI. A lot of it was really Ewan and Hayden
All Landscape-shots of Mustafar aswell as the Mining-complex are taken on a model, the Lava is just real footage of Lava from Mt Etna, and all inside shots, aswell as the plattforms Anakin and Obi-Wan fight on are sets.
EPIII alone had vastly more models and sets built for it than the entirety of the OT COMBINED. Wether people want to accept it or not, it's very possible that Ep III relied LESS on CG than TFA
@@akbarri-the-khajiit I mean basically everything is practical to some extent. Like Marvel fights have actors act out the choreography.. But when it's surrounded with overblown CGI it kind of removes the realism. Also, the fighting doesn't really feel visceral or really. It's too unnaturally fast and choreographed
Exactly. That fight is literally the best fight in all of starwars
i don't agree with this criticism either. The OG fights had their appeal and good points, but the light saber duels were anemic to say the least. When Darth Vader cut down Obi Wan it was boring and unremarkable. I could appreciate the meaning behind the fight, but i did not think it was a fantastic scene.
The recent movies of Dune and Elvis definitely felt authentic to me out of all blockbusters and popular movies that have come out in recent years. Even though both of them were quite long, the shift towards shooting as much raw material as possible and using CGI when it's needed, made those films interesting and captivating to me. In terms of Elvis, Austin's performance was so real and captivating, that even at some points I was confusing him with the real man himself. He actually took time to prepare for this role, and did an outstanding job. I would rather see more actors and studios actually taking time to prepare for such creations, and not rely fully on the marketing, and pumping out content to stay relevant.
Another good one was the first of the Star Trek movies, the new ones. They did a good job of actually building sets and models and mixing in a little CGI, made it feel really good. Guiermo del toro movies are good about mixing practical effects and CGI too
Dune also benefitted from having a much bigger budget than Lynch had at his disposal so they could afford to use real sandworms.
"Elvis" was indeed a real person. He came out before CGI
@@trolleriffic Actually Lynch's Dune had a huge budget for that time. I don't know what you mean by REAL sandworms.
Elvis went very artsy and surreal with its intro, but once it grounded itself into his story I really ended up liking it. It showed me how Elvis came to be as someone who was born about 30 years after his death. Id seen him referenced in pop culture, knew he was called "the king of rock 'n' roll" but never really understood what that meant. My mom and I watched it together, and she was a teen when he died, but had heard his music, watched a couple movies he was inback then. I asked of people really acted like that around him (fangirl screaming because he shook his hips a little) and she said "oh yeah." As much as I liked it, couldve done without the near constant crotch cam during his songs, lol.
I seem to remember a while back reading that these CGI Overload films keep getting made because they are quite popular in China, where the studios make more money off them than anywhere else.
The CCP kept the majority of the money these films made. In addition the Juan is worth considerably less than the U.S. dollar so they didn't make much to begin with.
@@jeffreyskoritowski4114 What the fuck are you talking about? China is one of the largest consumer markets on the planet.
“Total Recall” was a rubbery mess, but was also hugely entertaining. I’d take rubber masks, and a good script over CGI every time.
Same here. I love that movie
2 weeks
Aaaaa 2 weeks
@@johanschimt3761 2...weeks!
Total Recall is still better than anything today. Great movie
@@strategery101 It’s a classic
It's a shame about Peter Jackson. The CGI in the Lord of the Rings is good and remains good: the Balrog, the Mumakil, the beasts the Nazgul ride... These are all examples of CG done right. The Hobbit was a shambles by comparison.
Peter just got too obsessed with CGI. I will always love him for the LOTR trilogy but let’s be honest. He’s relied too heavily on CGI and it’s damaged every single film after the Return of the King.
@@sophieamandaleitontoomey9343 It wasn’t his fault. Warner Bros forced him to make the Hobbit on a much smaller time table than the original LOTR movies. So he had no choice but to use CGI in order to make up for the time crunch.
Yeah, it's crazy how he went from setting the standard with clever use of miniatures, background CGI, and practical effects to being one of the most outrageous offenders for CGI over-reliance.
It's the big producer and studios, that force CGI because they want things done quicker and less risk. Most directors would love to do real stunts and sets.
@@bigj1905 I would agree with you, except Kong...