Is cgi in film getting better or worse?

the 'michael bay' teenage mutant ninja turtles films are a revelation, i watch them purely to watch them the turtles themselves and i believe that if somebody wrote a killer script working alongside the people who crafted the technical side of those films, it would be genre defining.
it almost makes me cry that it might never happen it's a disgrace i don't care what anybody else thinks about it.

Better overall but you will always see bad applications of it. Compare Dragonheart to a recent movie of the same level of quality for a good example.

You and I remember The Mummy very differently

LMAO

Diminishing returns + different lighting conditions on your monitor probably gives that effect, but overall CGI is getting more lucrative in places you don't even realize like marvel being able to copy paste B roll of their characters into any sort of situation they want.

Piss off. LotR looks like shit now

?????????????????????????????

it's getting better but we're becoming disproportional reliant on it and usually used in a rushed production, so we get lots of weird looking awful shit

CGI has no soul

It doesnt matter if its good or bad, it should only exist to hide immersion breaking shit like water bottles or that fag wearing jeans in Gladiator

CGI is animation, animation is art. it's all about the application.

Using animation to make your live action film le epic blockbuster of the week is a soulless practice.

Attached: external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg (600x326, 23.58K)

i'm not disagreeing with that
>CGI has no soul
>It doesnt matter if its good or bad, it should only exist to hide immersion breaking shit.
i'm disagreeing with this

They have gotten lazy. I agree with Go back and you will see puppets that look more realistic than the crap you see now.

not really. it's literally getting worse. maybe if the question was 'is the technology improving', then I would agree. but just look at downy jrs capeshit costume, or the irishman 'DE AGING' technology. it's pure garbage and cringey.

This. I read that in one of the earlier Harry Potter movies there was going to be a scene set in a hospital, but it would have required building a new set. Whereas now they'd just CGI the whole room like a Marvel movie.

Attached: thor-ragnarok-scene-change.jpg (1020x488, 53.19K)

CGI isn't getting worse, it's only that capeshit/Disney studios figured out that their viewers don't give a fuck about that, so why even bother wasting time and money?

It's simple, Disney and capeshit studios make fast food like flicks while yelling at their chinese rendering slaves to render faster, while for example in BR2049 Villeneuve and MPC the visual effects company literally worked for an entire year just on that single Rachael shot alone.

Attached: br2049_rachael_mpc4.webm (1920x1080, 2.7M)

what a dumb fucking answer

did they change the location of an entire scene? how? why? ???

This

Originally Odin was going to be a hobo living in an alley after being banished, but they changed that to him just living on the coast before "dying" for whatever reason. The following scenes were also changed because of this. It looked like shit.

He thinks it's Ghosts of Mars, or Red Planet. One of those Mars thriller movies.

CGI. You don't think they actually film any of the Marvel movies in real places, do you? It's all green-screens. Warehouses covered in them.

>You don't think they actually film any of the Marvel movies in real places, do you?
They do sometimes. I remember a few years ago I didn't have class for a week because they were filming some chase scene at my university.

>location's are all cgi
>props like lamps/guns/tables are cgi
>cgi animals
>already cgi dead actors faces (Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing)

How long before they cgi living actors? Get a computer to do the voices? How long before people draw the line and say "this isn't real cinema anymore"

Attached: D23ZZOBXQAAaSd3.jpg (1200x1199, 218.18K)

Visual problem with cg, it's not cg
It's the screens getting bigger and better, and the technology for cg just can't keep up with it

I definitely think the way CG is lit is getting lazier. There's no Janusz Kaminski or Dean Cundey for CGI, the images have to be lit on their own and in a way that properly fits the scene, something which obviously has to be done after the scene is filmed. Or perhaps the entire scene is CG like a Marvel movie, in which case I imagine it's even harder to light if you don't quite get how it works.

Would you come back to life for this?

Attached: asnm.gif (245x245, 1.25M)

Both.

it doesn't bother me. there are so many storied about actors and directors halting production not being able to stand each other, hitchcock didn't like actors, it's just another means of creating a film. it's crude at the moment but it's like everything there is good and bad.
if it's cost effective there will be films that never could otherwise get greenlit by studios from a production standpoint. it's about creativity and imagination. it is what it is.

That Rachel shot was one of the most impressive things ive seen in a while. It took me completely off guard.

did you think this was mission to mars?

Attached: redface.jpg (400x226, 14.66K)

>How long before they cgi living actors Get a computer to do the voices?
((they)) are planning to bringing back James Dean so next year or in 2022

Attached: James_Dean_-_publicity_-_early.jpg (900x1156, 298.4K)

nobody in the thread said that

What is happening here?

The Mummy sounds even more kino than I remember.

the vfx team creating a digital double of Rachael off the first BR film so they get a greenlight from Villeneuve to then start working on Rachael in BR2049 and creating pic related

Attached: [email protected] (1320x556, 80.46K)

the theme park ride tie-in was better

Attached: Mission-space-56a245f85f9b58b7d0c8845c[1].jpg (960x640, 110.23K)

impressive, but
>that interlacing in the video

>How long before they cgi living actors
they already do to some extent to de-age them. not talking about films like the irishman either.

Producers think the technology has advanced more than it actually has and are asking for too much in too little time probably.

Attached: 1578928659763.jpg (430x381, 108.04K)

Sometimes a kid asking dumb questions must be made aware it is asking very dumb questions.

''her eyes were green''
fucking hell man

CGI is getting better, scene composition and saturation is getting worse.

Not if I saw what she looked like post-wall.

army of the dead i feel you, but the balrog, cave troll, mount doom, etc all hold up very well

NOOOOOOO NOT THE ANCK SU NAMUNORINO. NOT THE HECKIN WAIFURINIE

I wouldn't mind more movies like Beowulf. Animated can do a lot that would be too expensive, and real actors... well... I think the world would be better off without this branch of low iq celebs and their undeserved cultural influence.

Attached: ckpget8cin931.jpg (640x635, 43.04K)

Really impressive. Even if it's "just" a digital copy of a scene.

is this shit real
if so, is it really cheaper doing that shit digital instead of using a real cat, or making a plastic prop gun, or filming in a fucking regular room

Movie magic.

Attached: thor cgi.webm (1280x532, 2.91M)

What does she look like?

If she takes those fucking pasties off, of course
actually no, I would rather be Setepai for Mummy-fu

Did they seriously CGI an eyepatch? I don't believe it...

>''her eyes were green''

Such a weird thing to make a plot point, a continuity goof, since Sean Young's eyes are brown and they used some random eye shot by the pre-production crew for the Voight-Kampff machine screen.

Deckard probably watched that Voight-Kampff footage too much and/or is fucking with Wallace