CGI Overload: Why Do Studios Keep Overusing It?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- In this video, Sean Chandler discusses why studios continue to overuse CGI in movies, even when it might not be necessary. He explores the convenience and cost factors that drive this trend, and the challenges directors face when balancing practical effects and CGI.
Sean also highlights the difference in capabilities among directors and how the filmmaking environment impacts the final product. Using Marvel movies as a key example, he explains how their approach to CGI and pre-visualization can sometimes lead to issues with quality and coherence.
Join the conversation and let us know your thoughts on CGI in movies. Do you think it's overused? What are some examples of good and bad CGI in recent films?
🔔 Don't forget to subscribe and hit the notification bell for more insightful discussions on movies and filmmaking!
___________________________________
This is a clip from my weekly Ask Me Anything show on Patreon. If you're interested in my box office round up series, my weekly AMAs or other Patreon exclusives check out my Patreon page here: / seanchandler
____________________________________
"The Overuse of CGI: Are Studios Taking It Too Far?"
"Why Hollywood Won't Stop Using CGI - Even When It's Bad"
"CGI vs. Practical Effects: The Battle for Movie Magic"
"Hollywood's CGI Addiction: Is It Ruining Movies?"
"The Truth Behind Hollywood's Overuse of CGI"
"CGI Overload: Why Do Studios Keep Using It?"
"The Downside of CGI: Why Practical Effects Still Matter"
"Is CGI Destroying the Art of Filmmaking?"
"Why Marvel Movies Are the Biggest Offenders of CGI Overuse"
"CGI Gone Wild: The Real Cost of Hollywood's Digital Obsession"
FIND ME ONLINE
INSTAGRAM @seantalksabout
TWITTER @kirkneverdied
FACEBOOK / seanchandlertalksabout
Patreon / seanchandler
This is a Sean Chandler Plus video
FIND THE SEAN CHANDLER PODCAST:
ITUNES: podcasts.apple...
SPOTIFY: open.spotify.c...
GOOGLE PODCASTS: play.google.co...
STITCHER: www.stitcher.c...
PODBEAN: seanchandler.p...
My Merch Store
www.teepublic....
Check out the complete list of gear I use for creating my TH-cam videos here: kit.co/SeanCha...
See a list of my posters (and where to get them) here: kit.co/SeanCha...
See a list of my Funko Pops here: kit.co/SeanCha...
Fan Mail can be sent to:
Sean M. Chandler
PO Box 1042
Hutto, TX 78634
VIDEO SUMMARYThis video contains Sean Chandler Talks About's
AFFLIATE DISCLAIMERI may earn a small commission for my endorsement, recommendation, testimonial, and/or link to any products or services from this video.
Fun fact: for the plane crash scene in Tenet, they determined that it would be cheaper to crash a real plane than to try to use CGI
I think that that scene looked amazing
the problem is that they could have used CGI and would have been cheaper, if Nolan was willing to let the scene look far worse, like Sean said in the video, Directors are basically CEOs of major companies. Nolan has a lot of pull, a much less-known director probably would have been pushed into cheaper and worse effects
Which is way better
It’s funny because this sounds like satire, but it’s absolutely true lol
Question should never be “what’s easier” or “what’s cheaper”…it should be “what helps us tell this story more effectively”
It’s simply easier to put up green or blue sheets on a soundstage than to shoot on location. Of course James Cameron and Denis Villeneuve are currently the gold standard of filmmakers who are phenomenal at using visual effects in their movies. But Cameron and Villeneuve are the exception. They’re visionaries who have the talent to be at the helm of CGI heavy movies. Most directors don’t have the experience or skillset to craft well done looking graphics. That’s what I think of this topic.
Wholeheartedly agree with this 👍
@@NinthShinigaminow let’s not forget Matt Reeves
Directors don't direct cgi, the effects artists make those. Weta or ILM should get the credit not George Lucas or Peter Jackson.
I think the only time studios should use CGI in their movies or TV shows is when it makes sense to do so. Not to use it just to use it. That's ridiculous.
I feel most of the time they use cgi to make sense of what’s happening and bring context to what’s happening in the scene. Like for instance antman 3 uses tons of chi because they’re in the quantum realm so they have to make it look fantasy. But the issue is the usage of cgi. They don’t make it look believable because it comes off as actors clearly standing in front of a green screen with nothing to interact with. That’s why practical effects and props are so crucial to bring immersion into the film
I think it’s a tool that people should only use to enhance their vision not rely on it. Now there’s some cases of course like avatar, Alita, avengers etc where it’s a necessity but then there’s sometimes where they use cgi to put something in the shot that easily could’ve been done using animatronics and it arguably could’ve looked better.
CGI is like plastic surgery. Small amounts of it in the right places can really make something look better. But too much of it makes the whole thing look like crap.
Very well said 👏
I understand Sean's points & the era of movies when they are/were made. I'm more of a practical effects guy, in fact practical effects are reasons I'm into 80s/early-90s action movies. It adds something more raw to that era
Because of practical being expensive or they don't know how to do it anymore, there are no model shops. They literally closed the doors on Kerner Optical's location where Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park and Back to the Future were made. Where the THX mixing stage was. Disney saw no desire to save it since everything digital went to the presidio. Even Grant McCune his shop went under, and he died in 2010.
This might be a hot day I know the transformers franchise to get a lot of hate
But the CGI is so good even till this day from 2007 the CGI is so good it’s still holds up to this day and it is better than most CGI
Yeah, but they had to use CGI for "Transformers" anyway because there was just no other way to do it because Transformers don't actually exist. These things don't actually exist in the real world. So it made 100% sense to use CGI with that film and all of the other "Transformers" movies, as well. 🤖
Yeah but it wasn't just the quality of the graphics that made look amazing, it's the fact that they did a lot of practical car & explosions stunts around them
Davy Jones and transformers CGI is top notch .
Because its not G1 and i'm a G1 purist at heart, I liked the first one as a Spielberg style action film and liked Peter Cullen as Optimus, but I dislike Bayformers. It's the story and designs I don't like, the cgi is the least complained about aspect for me I didn't even complain about Megan Fox or Shia however you spell his last name.
Fun fact: For the plane crash scene in Tenet, they determined that it would be cheaper to crash an actual plane than. to use CGI
I don't think CGI allowed the crew to save money rather than spend it on real sets and practical effects, because the budgets are still ridiculously high ($250 mln. for The Flash or $200 mln. for Argylle, really?)
I bet that if they made a movie where they had to travel around multiple locations and do a lot of stuntwork, it will be lower than any of the budget fr these mostly cgi heavy movies
Yeah and it would be cooler to know how it's made
Movies that don’t have a very clear vision are the most likely to overuse CGI, as well as have poor looking CGI. When you don’t know what you want your movie to look like from the get go, that’s less time to polish the edges. When you keep changing what your film looks like, that means the team has to start over again from scratch
What I would do is like Jurassic park where we make half practical effects and mix it with cgi even when it’s expensive
A lot of stuff is shot on a volume now, though even those have their limitations. CGI, greenscreens, etc are all great tools as long as you use them right.
I agree with everything said but all of those reasons is why the magic isn’t there on most projects these days
Are you keeping up with House of Dragon. If so how did you feel about the recent episode?
Hey Sean, have you seen House Of The Dragon season 2 episode 4? The CGI was really solid… not only a lot of movies are overusing CGI, most of them are doing it awful! Specially Marvel, Star Wars and Andy Muschietti!
@@wardenmagellan2643 Sean has only watched the first episode of House of the Dragon - Season 2. He has a lot to watch right now, but he’ll catch up on the season in the near future to do coverage.
I feel if they shot on location it would be quicker, easier and less costly than using cgi which takes tons of months to get right
Endgame CGI was amazing. They are definitely overusing it.
Ugh, this complaint again? As long as it looks good why the hell does it matter whether or not an effect is practical or CGI? If it looks real it looks real, simple as that, it’s not automatically better if it’s practical and vice versa, and look, I’m not badmouthing practical effects, I love them just as much, but it seems like people just have a predetermined bias towards them and to me that just doesn’t seem fair
Unfortunately that what Big budget action and comics book movies are for CGI
Yeah the mcu is using room much cgi i think because even look at ant man and the wasp quantumania also love your videos sean
Lot of comics book movies used CGI and DCU used CGI as well most times it's needed
You should definitely check out AAVESHAM.
One of the best film this year
They have to stop taking the lazy route
Hollywood movies are became very shit now a days
I really blame Sam rami Spider-Man movies and the Star Wars prequels . Before we had balance now it’s just all cgi all the time.
How would you realistically do a Spider-Man movie without CGI, though? This is character & a world that demands it. Star Wars? Lucas did overdo it in the prequels, but there were things that needed it too. I don't put the blame on Raimi's Spidey movies. Lucas has a stronger case against him, but I say it got worse in the 2010s.
@@Batman88878I agree 100%
@Batman88878 Spider man is one is those characters that needs cgi and other characters don't.
The prequels had way more practical than the Disney trilogy it's been well documented. I dislike the writing and the dialog of those films, and some of the acting being on green screens effected the how the actors did their performance. But overall the cgi is good just not on Attack of the Clones Geonosis scenes, because of the amount of renders they had to do, looks almost previz in places, very poor. You have almost a cartoon effect to some of it. If they had more time and money and not a locked release date that George was determined to deliver on it would have been better. But remember merchandising and toy lines drive the business and so does food and restaurant chains. You need a product to drive those. Movies in a lot of ways are nothing more than toy adverts.
Fun fact, modok never looks good
Also fun fact, anyone who uses that ad an example is lazy and doesn’t actually do honest criticism