Why You're Wrong About CGI
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ส.ค. 2023
- Some of my thought about the state of visual effects in movies.
Click this link to find out more about the ASUS ProArt 16 Studiobook - asus.click/Decoded
Support this channel and get access to exclusive content on Patreon- / decoded
Facebook - / blenderdecoded
Twitter - / decodedvfx
#ASUS #ProArt #ProArtist #Creator #Intel
Budget Budget Budget! I've seen some amazing teams of CGI superstars assembled but given no money and the results are invariably bad. It's costs loads to make good CGI. Good video. Very interesting.
Then how do you explain The Flash... 🤦♂️ There's more to it.
@@comebackguy8892 That's one example that was riddled with tons of other production issues.
Besides, OP is not saying that a large budget necessarily leads to good effects. What they're saying is that not giving them enough budget frequently leads to poor results.
If you paid a contractor $100 million to build your house, it might not be that good of a house in the end. But if you only pay them $100 to build your house, it definitely won't be.
@@iout Nah, when you mention something three times in a row you pretty much claim that it's the ONLY reason 🤦♂️
@@comebackguy8892 that’s putting words in people’s mouths.
Repetition is for emphasis. And they’re right. Budget is important. Without the right budget, you can’t expect a job to be done well.
But nowhere did they actually say that it was the only factor. If they wanted to say that, I’m sure they’d have said “budget is the only thing that matters!!!!1!1!!”
Anything more is you making bad faith assumptions.
P.S. love the constant use of the facepalm emoji. Really makes you look smart and engaging.
I think a lot of CGI is bad because artists have an artistic supervisor that doesn't know anything about 3d and cgi in general. A director knows about movies, photography and other stuff but he's incredibly naive when it comes to 3d, he hasn't developed enough critical thinking about CGI, sometimes he's just a little better than your average redditor beginner posting dobuts in the "I've made this" section. So they probably are fine with the first thing they show him "mmm that's cool", it's really easy been impressed with 3d when you don't know s about it.
Anyone saying CGI will never look as good as going practical needs to watch some David Fincher films. The Winklevoss twin effect in The Social Network looks so utterly convincing and perfect that I've seen people's jaws drop when I told them that one of them at any given time is a cgi head replacement. Hell, the digital doubles in Fight Club still hold up 24 years later.
The problem is Hollywood screwing over VFX houses at every turn. Be that not paying them properly, crunching them to death or just dropping bad footage on them expecting them to fix it. The reason Fincher's stuff looks so great is that he started off as an effects artist at ILM, while Disney, Netflix and the like just expect artists to fix their shit for them and then lie about their involvement.
No way the
Winklevoss twins were CGI?
@@Simon-is2xd Armie Hammer and Josh Pence played the twins physically. In post then, they did a CGI face replacement of Josh Pence's face with that of Armie Hammer while other times they did a simple split screen.
I noticed you started to release more and more youtube videos, and I'm all here for it, keep it up !
Thanks. I've been working on a big backlog of projects and videos for most of the year.
Agree completely. I've said these same things many times, even as far back as 22, 23 years ago. When people complained about CG in Indiana Jones and The Crystal Skull I reminded them of some of the dodgy blue-screen effects in Raiders of The Lost Ark, or even the iconic melting man effect where his glasses suddenly jump down his neck in one frame. It's like people forgot that special effects didn't always look real. In fact, it was rare when they did! And you were always comparing special effects to what had come before and pushed the envelope. It didn't take long for effects to look outdated, and compositing wasn't as controllable and nuanced as it is today. When The Force Should Have Stayed In Bed, or whatever it was called, came out people sang the "No CG" song. I asked, why there are 3 pages of digital effects credits, then? No answer. Anyway, another landmark effect you forgot to mention was the water tentacle in The Abyss. That was the moment when I said, "Now anything a director thinks of can be put on screen." I wracked my brains trying to figure out how they did it, and when I found out I was delighted to see that one of the ideas I had was something they actually tried, before finally going with CGI. I worked on The Controller, had the ILM guy come over with the half-mirror/half-matte sphere, take reference photos, and went to get 3-D scanned in a photogrammetry array for whatever it is they're doing to me. Yeah, I don't really know how the effects will look. Nobody seemed to. It was interesting how they were just shooting wild and seemed very confident that ILM would be able to work their magic. Wetta handled practical effects. From the trailer, it looks fantastic. For Another film I was told to walk into a room and stare at a tennis ball in awe, as it would be something huge in the final film. The director never said what exactly, and it wasn't until I went to the theatre that I saw what I was meant to staring at. But that's why it's called acting. I hate when these Hollywood actors jump on the bandwagon or are possibly taken out of context complaining about having to react to something that isn't there. Go back to mime class, then.
Great comment. 👍
Man I fucking love your videos, You keep shit simple, don't talk down to your audience and just genuinely talk to the camera as if you are talking to another person. 10/10
Thank you. I really appreciate it.
Very nice to hear an argument in favour of CGI. I consider myself a CGI artist too, so I'm pro-CGI and I mostly agree with everything you say. For every She Hulk, there's an Arnold Schwarzenegger battle damaged head in Terminator 1. Practical isn't the silver bullet it's made out to be. But I do empathise with people who criticise the over use of CGI, especially where it isn't necessary or warranted.
One of the things I really detested in recent years was some of the action sequences in Batman vs Superman that heavily leaned on CGI. Some of the shots, particularly involving Batman, simply wouldn't have been practical to shoot without killing the actors involved. Specifically I'm talking about the scene where Batman is driving the Batmobile and he shoots a car until it explodes. Or another shot in the Batwing, where he shoots the trucks outside the warehouse which also explode.
Neither of these shots could have been done practically, the actors would have died or been seriously injured. Instead, the explosions were added by a VFX artist after the fact. While the visual effects looked amazing from a technical stand point, they also made it seem like Batman had killed the criminals he was chasing. We never got any confirmation in the story itself that Batman had killed a single person. But it's hard to believe he didn't when you watch those scenes. It doesn't surprise me that the consensus amongst fans was that he was a cold blooded murderer. This goes completely against the character of the Batman and as a result, soured a lot of people on Batman vs Superman and cracked the foundations of the DCEU.
Did using unnecessary CGI tank the DCEU? Probably not entirely, no. One thing I do know is that people didn't like Ben Affleck's Batman killing people, and that only happened because of an overzealous director using CGI in the wrong places which damaged the principals of a beloved character. The negative reaction to Batman vs Superman caused the studio to panic and resulted in a tonal shift in Suicide Squad and completely butchered the next major film in the series, the Justice League film. I think you can at least say poor CGI decision making at least contributed to it's demise.
Personally, I think CGI and practical both have their place, still. After watching Corridor Crew's video with Adam Savage ("Slicing Adam Savage's Nose - Can VFX Beat Doing it for Real?"), I think the best solution where possible is to use practical where you can and compliment it with VFX. They point out in that video that Adam being sprayed with the practical blood caused his body to react differently/better, something that was lost in the shot without the fake blood. Only depend heavily on CGI for the impossible.
About the practicle vs CGI thing, i think much of it is the resolution. The Scenes in John Carpenters "The Thing" looked great because they had a much lower resolution (don´t get me wrong, i love the effects) vs the "new" The Thing in HD. Same goes for Mary Poppins. The next thing is Good Script with average/bad Effects vs Bad Script with good CG. The more the Audience enjoy the Script/Characters, the more they forget about the Effects. The more they don´t like the Script/Characters the see the Problems in the Effects. Its easy why, if they are not investet in the Characters, they focus on something else (She-Hulk vs The Hulk). A great example is a Video i saw a few Days ago. Someone took the Stopmotion Scenes from Robocop 1 and gave them more Frames. Everyone in the Comments thought it looked worse, because the "Character" of ED 209 was a Robot from the 90´s and the choppy motion worked. For the average viewer CGI like in She-Hulk is great if the Story/Script/Characters are good but NO million $ CGI Effect will save a bad Movie/TV Series. That´s the only Reason "Bad" Effects are ok and good CG is Crap.
The Thing was shot on 35mm which is more equivalent of 3-4K. You're probably thinking of seeing it on VHS, but it wouldn't have been a "low resolution" viewing if you saw it in a movie theater in 1982. I recently went to a 35mm screening of Jurassic Park for the first time since 1993 and was blown away by how good some the more aged CGI looked, even if you could spot the flaws such as the pixelated texture on the Brachiosaurus. I think there's something to be said for the more soft and organic look of film that has the ability to make effects, digital or practical, feel more cohesive and less sterile to the eye.
The reason in my opinion people have a different standard is simply because practical effects oftentimes are simply more convincing. This is because there are an incredible amount of small nuances that our brains pick up when looking at something that causes us to doubt something is real, specifically applied to watching CGI being portrayed as reality. When using practical effects you really only have to care about a small number of things that could go wrong as opposed to cgi where, for example, if your face animation is slightly unnatural or if your lighting doesn’t match the surroundings on this fake object you are injecting into a real shot it will be immediately noticeable and jarring, even if subconsciously.
Yeah, your brain actually knows when something's real, although they're REALLY good nowadays you can't tell so much, however, if it's done poorly you can tell it pretty easily. So if I make a miniature model of a cruise-ship -- and given everything is in focus, my mind knows it's a physical object, whereas a CG one my mind might be able to tell if it's done poorly. Then you also have the problem of practical effects that look too much like computer, because everything was processed in computer, so they grade it digitally, or add cg items (dust and other particulates), that give it that overly processed (digital) look.
I understand your point. But there is an incredible amount of vfx shots in movies and tv you dont ever notice. People only ever notice cgi when it's bad, so they think cgi is bad. It's a curse for VFX artists that people will look at what we made on a computer, think it's real because it looks real and studios market it that way, and then they go talk crap about VFX.
Actually @DECODED, Blade was the first movie that did bullet time was Blade but it became popularized by Jeff Lew who did it in his Killer Bean animated series. Which then used in the Matrix and the other films were Jeff Lew was apart of as well.
We really needed that video, I think it was long overdue. It makes me literally angry whenever I see someone criticizing CGI when, demonstrably, they don't actually know what they're talking about, and just want to hate on something.
Yes sometimes CGI looks kinda bad, it's true that when you look at some Marvel movies, they just impose such absurd deadlines on their artists that nothing good could possibly come out as a result. But the reality is: most of the time, visual effects are in places you wouldn't expect... and you never notice it
i think the reason why CGI is hold to a higher standart than practical effects is the fact that practical effects are "real" or actually real, so even if its bad, the effect itself is more believable. Yeah, old Hulk looked like shit, but he looked like the thing hes supposed to look like: a bulky green dude. The painted backdrops in Mary Poppins: they are painted, but they're still actually there, so it feels more believable, and has a stylizing effect to it. and the matte paintings: they looked amazing in an artistic sense and gave a sense of scale. The problem with many CGI shots is just that it doesnt look real in a sense that you obviously see that the effect is CGI, so its not impressive. But even a badly composed practical explosion is still impresive, becaue you know that at some pont this explosion actually happened, tho probably at smaller scale. but still, its somewhat real.
Great video. So much that needed to be said, but as you alluded to, the VFX houses can’t say a word without fear of being blacklisted.
I don’t think there are many programmes or films I watch where I don’t expect to see CGI/VFX…and if they do claim that it was all practical, my instant thought is “Shoemakers”, complete and utter balderdash. Just the pure cost of practical FX makes it prohibitively expensive. They don’t fool us.
Rant over.
Great video, thank you.
It's kind of like being the kicker on an American Football team; often the highest point scorer for the team, but nobody even notices they're there most of the time until they screw up a kick or two. When the CGI is done well enough, people probably don't even consider that what they're seeing is anything but real practical effects; it's only when it's botched and sticks out like a sore thumb do they think "that's what happens when you go CGI," or "over-reliance on CGI ruined this movie."
Not sure what can be done about it, outside of the effects studios collectively only choosing to work with filmmakers who will acknowledge and accredit their work and let those who wont drown.
if the cgi people have enough time it will look amazing.
and animatronics can often look stiff an weird lol plus the price of making something you may only use once.
i think the artist who do CGI should be given more time
For sure, of course, now with AI given enough time (which is probably anywhere from 5-10 years or shorter) they won't even need any artists. The AI WILL be able to replace humans, eventually.
Good call on Hulk, i had seen much Lou Ferrigno as a child, and the first star wars, mate painting yes, does not looked realistic but "good enough" , still the story and the characters keep the audience captivated, but after CGI becomes more powerful, as you said directors become lazy and bet too much on CGI, Special Effects etc, while having weak plot and forgettable characters at the best, which i see as the cause the She Hulk series being criticized, more a side effect of the unpopularity. In fact many of movies i had seen as a child would burn the eyes of people today, but is all relative to your expectations , i see the gamer community by example as a very demanding in terms of graphic quality, raising demand for graphic cards the same way.
I feel you man. Just look at the new Star Wars Series (especially Mando 3). The CGI looks freaking amazing and then you have puppets feet slipping on the ground, janky walk cycles or practical faces from aliens looking weird because you cannot hide the nose. Meanwhile all the animated stuff looks so great you don’t even notice it.
Love this video. Sometimes it feels I'm taking crazy pills when reading some of the comments about cgi vs practical.
Great video! I find myself complaining about CGI from time to time. But most of the time my complaints are how things move than the actual look of it. I cant stand the rubbery motion of characters when for example Im watching a horror movie and the thing thats supposed to be scary moves like from something from one of the Shrek movies. Its like a lot of things are animated with the old Disney rules of counter motion.
She-Hulk had great CGI actually, and not just for a show. Yeah, there were some problems or bugs, but overall, it looked great. I guess people can't handle the fact that she's green?
ohh Linus, you have a worthy competitor!!! nice segue 😌
Overuse of the bullet-time effect is really not why people think CGI is bad. Top Gun: Maverick is a really interesting example - the reflections on the insides of the planes' canopies are so realistic. In fact, I could tell the fake reflections in the one scene where they CGI'ed it mainly because of how much less realistic it looked. It's just amazing to see the actors actually look out and track something on the ground (or the hill they're flying over), which you just don't see done as realistically. And I certainly don't simply hate CGI - I love it - Avatar is one of my top favourite movies. But I do think that when something can be done for real (like flying F-18's) it should be. CGI should be used for the dragons and blue aliens (i.e. things that you wouldn't be able to do a very good job of with an actor in makeup). *TL;DR: Horses for courses*
I would make an important distinction between swapping out the background, and swapping out the characters for CG models to have them do ridiculous stunts. They aren't nearly on the same page. But not only that, the latter just leads to "could not be done otherwise" silliness, that frankly should not be done... like, 90% of the superhero movies...
That is a very strange phenomenon mentioned at the end, how real stuff can be sometimes mistaken for 3d. Angry practical luver mobs on forums aside, it is a real thing, to look complete artificial crap even though it was practical. The Star Wars prequels are full of these.
Hear Hear 🍺 I call it Visualnomics
If someone sees the incredible hulk In the movie And he's over seven feet tall And his arms are thicker than Anybody builders legs And his head is Three times as big as a normal man's ,, I don't think anyone's going to think that. That's a practical make up effect. And I don't think Talking about changing the color of a door. Constitutes any kind of example of the CGI versus practical debate. The whole CGI Isn't as good as Practical Revolves mostly around monsters creatures Things that were hard to get right. Facial Animations et cetera. I'm surprised you didn't bring up. Rob bottin"s work in The Thing. That's some of the most Amazing practical Effects ever filmed, imo. It's not unlike The whole analog Is better than digital belief back when cds first came out. Nice rant.
Great video, I've criticized Nolan for this too but too many Nolan stans refuse to accept the truth lol. The ironic thing is that I've myself replaced animatronics with CGI in blockbusters, just so they can market the film with the puppet and say its practical.
Thanks for video, I was already aware that for the last 20 years good CG shots can be either undetectable, or good enough that they are not jarring/spoil the shot. What I didn't know was the level of propaganda coming out of the film industry and how damaging this can be for VFX workers -- Being excluded from the credits is disgusting. To me the only time going CG over practical FX really irks me is when a production-ready shot is first filmed practically, looks great, and then a shot-for-shot CG replacement is performed (e.g. some of the creature effects on The Thing remake). On the other hand, using a practical creature puppet/costume for reference, or using CG to achieve dramatic angles/movements otherwise unachievable with the practical rig can lead to spectacular results.
Thanks Dave, I think you are right
I think the major filmmakers downplaying usage of CG in their movies for a reason of sealing up the "Hollywood bubble" (or any other film making socioeconomic strata) to prevent money going out, i.e. to the CG artists and studios that are from outside such bubble. They want to keep as much control as they can get over the money cake of film making industry.
Very interesting and useful information. You certainly earned your pint!
I know from experience that nostalgia sometimes clouds our memory.
Do not forget The Scorpion Kong in the Mummy 3
The problem lies deeper in the society and frequently observable "herd instinct" which is being often exploited by the media.
Great videos!
Strong speech. 👍 I feel every word. Pure hypocrisy.
I had no idea this was happening. We're now paying VFX artists to hide VFX shots by using VFX? WTF?
Yep
Thoroughly enjoyed this video. It's quite sad about the VFX houses shutting down due to this.
Thanks. I don't think this issue has directly caused any shut downs yet, but it certainly makes things harder for VFX houses and their employees.
Statistically in any art study class, there is always less than 1 third of a class that has potential. And maybe 1 prodigy or 2 no more. It makes it difficult to recruit talent at a good price.
Yay! I watched old Spider Man tv shows maybe 4 months ago! :)
Shit! I can’t believe I’ve been completely lied to! Wow!
I bet you were sitting in front of a blue screen while recording this! :D Very interesting to hear about this
I think you have a lot of good points, but also you kinda also dismiss the actual in camera shots, of course many are enhace by VFX or CGI, and yes, there are many cases in which in camera/practical shots can be way better than CGI, and by better I don't mean necessarily "photorealistic", cause many are so drown into "photorealism" that forget the art behind it, for example, in LotR, the forced perspective in those scenes look till this day way better than the scenes made in similar fashion in Rings of Power, it all depends, and sure, many times the media downplay the participation of VFX and CG artists in movies, by lying in their articles or twisting something that someone said, that's true, but that what they do, and they do it to everyone in all sections alike, the best way to fight this it's by informing people with accurate information, like CorridorCrew with their videos of reacting scenes where they invite the actual people directing or making those shots and unveiling the secrets, because it's also true that the whole industry is kinda secretive, they don't show off as muchs as they should, so there's also blame on them/us for not sharing enough the process and results.
People envy the artists and hate them. How much gloating was and still is under every AI video where some gurus promise to have the artists gone extinct by the end of the decade. How much people love to bash what they call "bad art" or "bad cgi", while being totally sure it's all done in "photoshop" by pressing one magic button. I wish that for one year all artists in the world would be transferred to a different dimension to live happily for a year and the rest of the humanity had to face the world without CG and art in general
I'm surprised you didn't mention anime and the use of CGI, since there has been a lot of backlash in that area as well.
For characters it absolutely looks worse
There's a lot of other topics I could have covered here. But this video is long enough and I'm not the best person to give opinions on anime.
@@DECODEDVFX Ya you need to be an anime enthusiast to comment on it lol It was a good video tho, loved the explanations you gave.
@@kullenberg The biggest problem I found with 3D compared to 2D is the expressions. You can achieve exaggerated expressions far easier on 2D. What I like about 3D is the variety of characters compared to 2D, which seems to have so many from different anime looking the same, with only hair and clothes different. Face rigging in 3D needs to improve to do what 2D does.
@@jasminecaulden1089 The big issue is lighting. 2D anime has very specific shading. When you try and translate that to 3D, the shading looks completely wrong. So you have to do a ton of crazy tricks (like Guilty Gear) in order to make it look good. Guilty Gear artists manually manipulate the normals and lighting on every single frame in order to get the right look, that's a crazy amount of work.
oh no i don't want them to lose there jobs that sucks hope your video blows up so people can know this.
It's funny that people who don't about CG, always call it CGI. But here on DECODED, where Rob knows his stuff, it's still called CGI. 😆🤔
I think one of the reasons, CGI is seen as noticeably bad - is just how good it is. A lot of effects were pretty basic back in the day, but you saw this from the beginning ("Lou Feringo doesn't look that much like the Hulk in the Comics") and either switched the channel, or you thought "I guess that's as good as it gets - nice try", suspended your disbelief and moved on with the show. Today you might not even notice CGI until you're deep into the show, but the moment you do notice it, takes you by surprise, makes you adjust your current level of disbelief, and thus lessen the impact of the scene.
Also one overlooked aspect is the ability to see details nowadays. Of course I could hardly complain about Raiders of the lost Ark's effects, played from VHS to an 1990s analog 14" CRT - because I hardly saw any details in the first place :)
That's a good point. A lot of old effects look pretty terrible when you watch them in 4k or even HD.
First off, you can't get more real than a real guy painted green. But as a person not in this industry, the real problems that make us fans wary of CG are those decisions to use it when it is completely the wrong decision. Such as: Why digitally remove Cavill's mustache when you could have added a beard? Superman coming back from the dead is often depicted as unshaven, and if they had watched even an hour and a half of related material in their lives (or asked their consultant) they would have known that was an option.
It's literally the same idea with magic. You can film yourself 52 times having someone pick a card and you show them the 5 of hearts and maybe one time you will be right, then you can show the audience only that take. Nobody wants that. But you have a camera follow David Copperfield to a safe in a building that's being demolished, and even though the tunnels he is being escorted down probably go nowhere near that building at all, it's a well constructed and entertaining lie because the real skill is the escape from the straight jacket, chains, and safe.
Ultimately, it is a question of using the right tool for the right job, like Jurassic Park did (with CG, puppets, robots, a guy in a suit, etc), but some people just want to smear it all over. Speaking of which, I also think you forgot the impact of some people using it to alter old classics, like removing guns from E.T. or everything added in the way of Star Wars. Suddenly, CG became a threat to the whole art. Then add in that hair fixing you mention, and some people perceive CG to be a threat to their children's self image. Neither of those improve its reputation, to say the least. Again, a tool is a tool, but every tool has its place.
Brave move not mentioning lowest bid contracting and crunch culture that produces the shots that people actually complain about when they say CGI looks bad and practical looks better.
I try to keep my videos below 17 minutes and this one is closer to 22. There's a lot of stuff I wanted to mention here but I didn't have time. Crunch culture is definitely one example.
**cough** Disney underpaying their artists **cough**
For me I'd sum it up like this:
When practical effects breakdown, the audience is endeared. For example the stop motion T-101 at the end of Terminator. It doen't look real but the audience loves it anyway. When Digital Visual Effects breakdown the audience is repulsed, for example the Scorpian King. I don't that's something that can be 'fixed' by educating people about digital effects. It should be accepted, and used to motivate you to the work the best you can.
That's not really true. I mean you could argue that it's true NOW, in a kind of rose-tinted glasses way fueled by nostalgia. But at the time those movies were released, practical fx failures were absolutely trashed by critics and audiences. People ruthlessly mocked the dreaded blue outline, they were derisive of puppets, and dismissive of stop motion. But with time and nostalgia, now those same people have collective amnesia and pine for a past that they absolutely roasted back in the day. Trust me, give it time and the Scorpian King's CG will be called "endearing". Hell, I see that opinion starting to gain ground even now.
@@z-beeblebrox Blue outlines are a side effect of optical compositing. Not really do do with practical vs digital effects. CGI was invented before digital compositing even existed so many CGI elements have been optically compositied. Though I do agree that how people feel about all this stuff might be very different in the future.
@@spuddie3207 While compositing is its own thing, there's no question that audiences associated the blue outline not with the compositing effect itself but with the practical effect insert that was being composited.
Of course, because what a lot of people who want to work for the industry say is totally impartial... the CGI will always look worse than the mechanical or practical effects, we have seen it in thousands of movies, hence the great phrase he said a great director, superhero movies and the like are not cinema, just a great amusement park, there is no longer affection or talent, only green screens
The great director you're quoting uses VFX extensively in his movies.
Spotting crap computer work in motion picture is a lil' hobby of mine :D, but i gotta admit i failed to see the utter poo-poo in that Shehulk nonsense when it was a thing. At least on the looksies. I don't care about Hulk at all, and i have always thought he must be super angry to transform and he essentially loses himself to his anger. So why is cutesy babe over there just a little green and going about her life as normal?
I remember when Lucas redid Star Wars and replaced the scenes with CGI and it looked a 1000 times better!
One of the reasons I'm trying to leave the film industry. Tired of old directors going round telling young directors without the budget to make practical effects anyway, when CGI would look better and/or get it done cheaper.
I think the reason bad (or not perfect) CGI seems worse than bad practical effects, has to do with the uncanny valley. Bad CGI can look unearthly, unnatural in a very disconcerting way. Bad practical effects can look goofy and silly but don’t always look like they’re breaking reality. Not saying that’s fair or that CGI is bad. I’ve seen some very well done CGI, especially when combined with practical effects.
The reason for that is primarily lighting: practical effects use real physical objects, so they automatically have correct natural lighting which matches the scene. But CGI has to fake the lighting using math, which doesn't perfectly match with the real world. So you get things that look close to correct, but very slightly off. Lighting is HARD to do correctly in CGI, very hard.
@@SchemingGoldberg that makes a lot of sense. So even if it’s a mask or something that’s a bit silly, at least it’s silly with the right light. Also, we’ve all seen masks so a bad mask is a bad mask (with the right light) but it at least looks like it belongs in the world.
What ruins everything every time is human motions. Everything is too smooth. Near cartoonish. You can make the most beautiful model ever, if its biomechanics are screwed up, everything will be disgusting.
SFX, VFX and CGI are just hanging out being the best of friends while producers and directors are in the back chanting "FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!"
Lol
As soon as the writers and actors are ready to get back to work, the VFX houses should probably strike. There's a term/phrase used in the industry which is "Getting pixel f***ed", this is where studios continually revise and revise and revise the CGI shots because they don't know what they're looking at or what they want to see. They add in extra shots or have a 'we'll fix it in post' attitude to mistakes that could have been avoided on the day (like a film set in 1800 but a background extra is wearing an Apple Watch) and by the time they are happy, the budget is spent, the deadline has arrived, and they just render out the best they can in the time left. It sucks, it it needs to end.
Just boycott all of Hollywood to be honest, we'll be better off without them.
I don't agree that you wouldn't have had these modern movies without CGI. They were doing really well in the 80's and up until the early 90's when CGI started taking over with Jurassic Park. They would have just been done differently. A good example is the Eborsisk (two-headed dragon thingy) in the movie Willow circa 1988 -- It was stop motion animation, but they did a really good job, with adding in motion blur and things to make it seem less like grade-school stop motion , and more like a living creature. A stop-motion Jurassic Park with Phil Tippett at the helm would have still been a smash hit. It's just the technology was there to do it with CG, and CG does bring some benefits to the table. (Yes I agree that most CG nowadays can look utterly real, we're almost to the point, of course now we have "CG-Look" which means even physical models and puppets can look like it was made with CG with the digital over-processing. (Look at the Star Wars Prequels where 80% of them were physical models, but they don't look like they did back in the day - in fact they made a little mini-documentary stating how many physical models they used, and why? Because it looked too 'computery') As far as Nolan, I heard he really likes practical effects wherever possible. I've never heard him say he hates CG. There were some effects that they thought would work better with CG, such as the city-foldover effect in inception. Cases like that probably make more sense in CG any way, because to do something practically, would probably be too unwieldy and complicated (Not that you couldn't do it practically, but, and no pun intended, just wasn't practical). There's also a saying, at least it was back in the day, that the highest complement you could receive for vfx was when people couldn't tell it was visual effects. A good matte painting shot is a good example. A lot of the matte paintings in the 80's looked really realistic, although they usually had rules, for instance, you shouldn't hold a matte shot for more than 3 or 4 seconds (which they subsequently broke for Die Hard 2's end sequence, which was one of the first digital matte shots -- painting was real, but they put it in the computer and did a zoom out, which was longer than 4 seconds). So, I don't know about someone saying that there's no CG in a movie, since that's just pretty much a lie, but if you can't tell whether it's cg or practical, I would see why some studios might want to play that up. Every time you go to a movie you're being lied to. The only difference is that you know it. So if some actor says it's just make up, I probably don't believe it. I also think that Kurt Russell was saying that as a joke because we know they use CG (in fact they didn't even bother to change the shape of his face in the 'younger' shots, so it doesn't look like Kurt Russell did when he was young, just that he didn't have any wrinkles or gray hair ;-)
Some CGI is truly awful though. I've only seen Independence Day once, shortly after it was released, and even then was shocked how terrible the computer animated F/A-18s looked. The models are fine, but the animation is absolutely garbage.
People laughed at bad practical effects as much as they laugh at garbage CGI. Also I don't believe in bad CGI.
I am getting burned out on CGI in all forms. It's getting to look like a video game, regardless if it is a commercial, TV show, movie, or whatever. The over reliance on CGI is making it more and more obvious, and in my case, less watchable. I watched less than 30 seconds of the latest Avatar movie. Some scene with Mrs. Weaver, she looked horrid in that scene. The tikagram filter didn't track with her face properly. She turned her head and then her face moved. It was the same with all the rest of the characters. One of the main reasons why it is getting harder and harder to shoot on location is security. Look up how many crews were robbed of all their gear. So yeah I see why green screen everything and fix the rest in post. Doesn't mean I will watch it anytime soon.
the female hulk cgi is good but got a bad rap for the first time when it was posted unfinished.
How about not telling us what to Like or dislike.
If we think certain cgi looks Bad, WHO are you to Tell US WE are wrong? No one ist smarter than the consumer.
I'm sure anyone working in customer service would beg to differ.
@@DECODEDVFX the fact that you do not understand my Point regarding the consumer as a collective entity Made of thousands and millions of individuals, collectively having the oppinion of what ist considered good or bad and set the Norm or Standard of what WE Believe is good looking and reduce this to a banal Situation of some Joe shmoe from customer service Handling random Situation with single individuals, make you Look even less entiteld to have relevant subjective oppinion in this field.
You should Not Project your beliefs as absolute truth and make false Statements.
If small Teams make shitty looking cgi compared to big Budget Teams, does not make it better.
WE have perceived a certain quality of cgi over the years and giving US less than that make it Look worse, end. No discussion needed.
@@arsalino1116 My point is that audiences only have a problem with CGI when they can tell it's been used. 90% of CGI is invisible and audiences don't even realize it's there.
Most consumers happily accept CGI in movies. If they didn't, studios would stop using it. It's a small but vocal group of people who are pushing the anti-CGI narrative.
Bad cgi is easily seen as fake and breaks your suspension of disbelief. Good cgi on the other hand brings you deeper in to the movie world.