the fact is they use CGI because it i cheaper and faster to make than old scool way..look at the 2001 space odyssey and Blade Runner, it was done by models and it looks better than any CGI today
Saving Private Ryan was made by pyrotechnic explosion and today war movies use more CGI and it looks fake no mater how good you make it
Example: race arena set for Ben- Hur movie was build in Italy, it took 1 year to finish it.
Today, the would make it in on a blue screen in a month and cheaper!
I have to disagree, I am in that type of industry (gaming) and CG in my opinion is by far better than animatronic or puppet characters. Why you say? Well there has been shitty CG I know that but for high budget films they dont suck. The CG looks more life like than a prop, the only time ive seen a prop that looked and moved real was in Jurassic Park.. Also I cant wait to see The Thing!
I agree with you. Studios would rather save time and money these days by doing an entire set, props, and scenes with CGI rather than constructing lifelike models or scenes etc. It's hard to mix 3d with real-life and when overused, used unnecessarily, and not done perfectly; it'll stand out like a baboon's ass.
On the other hand something like Sin City was done entirely in front of green screens with CGI, but it worked extremely well as a comic book adaptation. It just has to be used right.
I agree with you. Studios would rather save time and money these days by doing an entire set, props, and scenes with cgi rather than constructing lifelike models or scenes etc. It's hard to mix 3d with real-life and when overused, used unnecessarily, and not done perfectly; it'll stand out like a baboons ass.
On the other hand something like Sin City was done entirely in front of green screens with CGI, but it worked extremely well as a comic book adaptation. It just has to be used right.
I agree with you. Studios would rather save time and money these days by doing an entire set, props, and scenes with cgi rather than constructing lifelike models or scenes etc. It's hard to mix 3d with real-life and when overused, used unnecessarily, and not done perfectly; it'll stand out like a baboons ass.
On the other hand something like Sin City was done entirely in front of green screens with CGI, but it worked extremely well as a comic book adaptation. It just has to be used right.
I wonder if any scenes from RKO's The Thing will be used in the "prequel". If you look at the Carpenter version closely, you can see them.
The problem with CG is getting the lighting right. It's very difficult to do that. And when you try to mix it with live action, it almost always fails. Also there is a good chance the CG is rendered in a different color space than the live action was recorded. That's almost impossible to mix together.
Fun lil piece of trivia...There is a term in television called "Jump the Shark" it means a popular TV series has a single moment that taints it and destroys the integrity forever...it from a Happy Days episode where fonzi does some stupid Evel Knievel shit.....But in film, there is a term that means the same thing.... "Nuke the Fridge"
My brothers problem with the fourth Indiana Jones movie wasn't all the CGI and crappy dialog,it was the fact that they put a 1980's evo engine in a 1950's bike.
So i agree with portions of what your saying. But coming from a 3D art background I have to disagree in places. Totally agree with the CG in the movies you picked to talk about, I wont even go into Indiana Jones. But I do have to defend CG because is CAN look amazing if done properly so I hate to see a title like CGI sucks. I know its hard to appreciate if you dont work in the field but take Transformers for instance. Do you think that movie LOOKS bad?
@steelhorseclub@chasein3d also being a 3d artist(animations for gaming) I agree with chasein3d, if done right CG can be awesome, hell look at the T-Rex in JP hell that was 1993 and the first realistic wet skin to be done and still looks great today
You touched on something else that pisses me off too. Game trailers. They tend to always just showcase the CG cutscene shit and show very little, if any gameplay footage. SBK-X is a perfect example of this, the intro and whatnot look beautiful, then you play the actual game and you're like "Really? On XBox 360? This shit looks like a cartoon!" Aside from the graphics sucking I'm actually enjoying that game though.
@jhuey936 I have noticed, during the last two years or so, more and more trailers indicate that "the following is in game footage". Usually when a studio releases the first trailer for a game, the game is in really early stages. So they thought pre-rendered would be easier. But I think they are starting to realize we don't want to see that crap.lol
i kind of agree, but to me. CG can be used good, but it isnt any more. i think that a mix of the two would make movies much better. but i dont think they are trying to make movies that will last 20+ years anymore. i think they are trying to make a movie that sells for a few months. gets them money and done. so they make it as cheap as possible. ie, why spend 25 million for one helicopter when you can spen 5 million on a whole fleet of fake helicopters and an explosion.
Yeah, CGI tends to look pretty dated even a few years after it comes out. Puppets and models on the other hand tend to hold up much better if they're done right. I feel obligated to go watch some Farscape now.
And to be fair, I'm pretty certain that CG is actually very expensive, but I have no idea if it's more than using puppets or not.
The Thing 2011, you know maybe it is half decent but it isn't needed .
And yeah CGI really CGI.. sorry CGI doesn't scares me! I know when I am looking at a CGI monster!
masticina 4 months ago
the fact is they use CGI because it i cheaper and faster to make than old scool way..look at the 2001 space odyssey and Blade Runner, it was done by models and it looks better than any CGI today
Saving Private Ryan was made by pyrotechnic explosion and today war movies use more CGI and it looks fake no mater how good you make it
Example: race arena set for Ben- Hur movie was build in Italy, it took 1 year to finish it.
Today, the would make it in on a blue screen in a month and cheaper!
daraofp 4 months ago 2
@daraofp
With you puppets are so much well at least they are there! Scary stuff!
masticina 4 months ago
I have to disagree, I am in that type of industry (gaming) and CG in my opinion is by far better than animatronic or puppet characters. Why you say? Well there has been shitty CG I know that but for high budget films they dont suck. The CG looks more life like than a prop, the only time ive seen a prop that looked and moved real was in Jurassic Park.. Also I cant wait to see The Thing!
GamerAndGameDev 5 months ago
was that bumblebee at 3:20
ExiasRevenger 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with you. Studios would rather save time and money these days by doing an entire set, props, and scenes with CGI rather than constructing lifelike models or scenes etc. It's hard to mix 3d with real-life and when overused, used unnecessarily, and not done perfectly; it'll stand out like a baboon's ass.
On the other hand something like Sin City was done entirely in front of green screens with CGI, but it worked extremely well as a comic book adaptation. It just has to be used right.
crthebigo 5 months ago
I agree with you. Studios would rather save time and money these days by doing an entire set, props, and scenes with cgi rather than constructing lifelike models or scenes etc. It's hard to mix 3d with real-life and when overused, used unnecessarily, and not done perfectly; it'll stand out like a baboons ass.
On the other hand something like Sin City was done entirely in front of green screens with CGI, but it worked extremely well as a comic book adaptation. It just has to be used right.
crthebigo 5 months ago
I agree with you. Studios would rather save time and money these days by doing an entire set, props, and scenes with cgi rather than constructing lifelike models or scenes etc. It's hard to mix 3d with real-life and when overused, used unnecessarily, and not done perfectly; it'll stand out like a baboons ass.
On the other hand something like Sin City was done entirely in front of green screens with CGI, but it worked extremely well as a comic book adaptation. It just has to be used right.
crthebigo 5 months ago
cgi is used to replace the fact that movies have week story lines
67kneil 5 months ago
Contact also used CGI effectively.
I wonder if any scenes from RKO's The Thing will be used in the "prequel". If you look at the Carpenter version closely, you can see them.
The problem with CG is getting the lighting right. It's very difficult to do that. And when you try to mix it with live action, it almost always fails. Also there is a good chance the CG is rendered in a different color space than the live action was recorded. That's almost impossible to mix together.
Fudmottin 5 months ago
your vid is stretched it looks like its suppose to be in 4:3
series333 5 months ago
Fun lil piece of trivia...There is a term in television called "Jump the Shark" it means a popular TV series has a single moment that taints it and destroys the integrity forever...it from a Happy Days episode where fonzi does some stupid Evel Knievel shit.....But in film, there is a term that means the same thing.... "Nuke the Fridge"
billmaa 5 months ago
@billmaa It is sad that my favorite franchise of all time is responsible for coining a term like that.
steelhorseclub 5 months ago
@steelhorseclub @billmaa But there were aliens!....doesn't that make everything ok an make sense lol
Drewballz00 5 months ago
I hear ya. I walked out of Indian Jones when E.T. showed up at the end. Twister. cool "Special Effects"!! remember special effects?
ninexone9 5 months ago
My brothers problem with the fourth Indiana Jones movie wasn't all the CGI and crappy dialog,it was the fact that they put a 1980's evo engine in a 1950's bike.
pulse0000 5 months ago
@pulse0000 Ha, that's funny. I never knew that.
steelhorseclub 5 months ago
So i agree with portions of what your saying. But coming from a 3D art background I have to disagree in places. Totally agree with the CG in the movies you picked to talk about, I wont even go into Indiana Jones. But I do have to defend CG because is CAN look amazing if done properly so I hate to see a title like CGI sucks. I know its hard to appreciate if you dont work in the field but take Transformers for instance. Do you think that movie LOOKS bad?
chasein3d 5 months ago
@chasein3d Yes there are movies that use CGI well. All I'm saying is that 90% do not.
steelhorseclub 5 months ago
@steelhorseclub @chasein3d also being a 3d artist(animations for gaming) I agree with chasein3d, if done right CG can be awesome, hell look at the T-Rex in JP hell that was 1993 and the first realistic wet skin to be done and still looks great today
Drewballz00 5 months ago
3:00 that truck is way sideways! yeah avatar was a cgi whore. vomitted while in the theatre lmao liked!
VitalityJolt 5 months ago
3:00 that truck is way sideways! yeah avatar was a cgi whore
VitalityJolt 5 months ago
You touched on something else that pisses me off too. Game trailers. They tend to always just showcase the CG cutscene shit and show very little, if any gameplay footage. SBK-X is a perfect example of this, the intro and whatnot look beautiful, then you play the actual game and you're like "Really? On XBox 360? This shit looks like a cartoon!" Aside from the graphics sucking I'm actually enjoying that game though.
jhuey936 5 months ago
@jhuey936 I have noticed, during the last two years or so, more and more trailers indicate that "the following is in game footage". Usually when a studio releases the first trailer for a game, the game is in really early stages. So they thought pre-rendered would be easier. But I think they are starting to realize we don't want to see that crap.lol
steelhorseclub 5 months ago
i kind of agree, but to me. CG can be used good, but it isnt any more. i think that a mix of the two would make movies much better. but i dont think they are trying to make movies that will last 20+ years anymore. i think they are trying to make a movie that sells for a few months. gets them money and done. so they make it as cheap as possible. ie, why spend 25 million for one helicopter when you can spen 5 million on a whole fleet of fake helicopters and an explosion.
69techlover 5 months ago
@69techlover Yeah, I think you summed it up perfectly.
steelhorseclub 5 months ago
one remake i wanna see is Killer Elite with Jason Statham and Robert Deniro
DesmosediciAlice 5 months ago
I thought the cg worked better in rise of the planet of the apes. Bc the one with mark wallburg ( not sure if spelled right) sucked
ecfootball63 5 months ago
@ecfootball63 I think "Rise" had a really strong movie to back up the effects.
steelhorseclub 5 months ago
Yeah, CGI tends to look pretty dated even a few years after it comes out. Puppets and models on the other hand tend to hold up much better if they're done right. I feel obligated to go watch some Farscape now.
And to be fair, I'm pretty certain that CG is actually very expensive, but I have no idea if it's more than using puppets or not.
geodubb 5 months ago
@geodubb I know its cheaper than hiring an army of actors or an armada of ships.
steelhorseclub 5 months ago
Yes CGI SUCKS...... If you sawMrs 808's vid of the Star Wars Movies... You and I would agree.....
sgtmarkins 5 months ago
You hate CG that much, I dare you to watch one full movie on the sci-fi channel.
NOLA191788 5 months ago
@NOLA191788 HAHA, I guess there are some exceptions. Sharktopus anyone?
steelhorseclub 5 months ago