Why did movies start looking like shit after 2000? What happened...

It's a combination of bad compositing, grading, and shooting on digital. It makes everything look artificial and mismatched.

I think that might be partially related to how digital "film" cameras work, they have an extremely flat raw output which is then massaged into a "look" by the colorist in post. and I think that just can't really look as natural as real film.

Attached: maxresdefault[1].jpg (1280x720, 49K)

Apparently Disney/Marvel think that good looking aesthetics is taking something too seriously if the subject is even slightly unreal, so they have to make things look as bland and as grey as possible to sell the subject matter, because it takes it less seriously or something.

>It's a combination of bad compositing, grading, and shooting on digital. It makes everything look artificial and mismatched.
Fucking this.

You think they do that shit when they're shooting green screen?

It makes sense when filming outside, because the lighting is imperfect, you might need to adjust exposures in post, or change some colors. I don't understand why you would do that on a closed set, with perfect lighting, and everything in the background is green and flat. Unless Hollywood is 100x lazier than I ever thought possible. The only way they could possibly get lazier is if camera guys turned on autofocus.

Attached: fU12pi8Bhh8BfrpPsE8ooDO0amu[1].jpg (1920x1080, 188K)

to THIS

Attached: hobbit.jpg (1280x536, 56K)

diversity and inclusion

Nigga this whole movie looked like garbage. Wtf are you on about?

We haven't improved CGI rendering in decades. All we have done is speed up rendering times. Back then studios were fine with waiting months for a scene to render. Now they have techniques to make a shittier scene, but have it render in a few hours.

I think they do use the same cameras yeah

*tips fedora a little lower than usual*

hitting the captcha makes this look okay for some reason

You want to know something crazy I heard about in The Hobbit? They used LED lights on the set, which fucked with the colors. So when they put make up on the dwarves, their faces looked pink and orange and shit, but when they shone the shitty LED lights on them and it went into the shitty digital cameras it "fixed" the color imbalance. Yet it was still an ugly as fuck movie.

Because it used to be primarily real shots enhanced by a little cgi. Now the shots are primarily cgi with some real footage added in.

>Meanwhile films in the late 90's looked so good that you no longer had to suspend your disbelief, the effects really just looked 100% real.

You’re just nostalgic. There’s always been movies that looked like crap in the 80’s and 90’s. I can still notice the crappy practical effects in Star Wars

Did Plinkett told you this?

honorable mentions post-2000
fellowship of the ring, cgi balrog, gollum etc. all still look terrible, but their commitment to actually building and using sets, locations, costumes etc. really makes it feel real anyway.

Attached: maxresdefault[1].jpg (1280x720, 143K)

yeah, I don't think "bad lighting" is enough of an explanation for that

Yeah he did, that guy is a RLM drone. Fun fact, an actual volcano erupted somewhere when ROTS was being shot and Lucas sent out a team to film it, almost all of the Lava flowing up in the air during the Anakin vs Obi Wan fight scene is real Lava and not CGI.

that's a composite. What you're seeing is:
>a real set with a real actor
>miniature buildings and trees
>a matte painting of mountains
>cgi waterfalls

What was the last film to use Matte paintings and how expensive is it? Seems like a good way to get really great looking backgrounds.

no I watched the making of on the dvd extras and was blown away that mustafar was a carefully crafted miniature, it looked for sure like shitty cgi.

there's always bad shots, but you can't notice the good ones.
there aren't any good ones left in modern movies.

theed looks real, the space battle looks real, most of the underwater section looks real, coruscant looks real, the entire podrace looks real. the gungans look bad, but they were going to use costumes at one point which looked better, going full cg on them was oscar bait. watto was also kinda shitty I guess. those stand out, but everything else holds up.

hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

Attached: e02a4068-7875-42fc-9274-4cb7e3649ae1_screenshot[1].jpg (1128x480, 31K)

Some bad CGI in a real shot doesn't fuck up the movie as bad as the whole scene being CGI even if the cgi is better now. Compare Terminator 2 to Terminator Genisys. The liquid metal in T2 looks shitty by itself, but it's a small part of a real on location shot with mainly practical effects, compared to Genisys where the entire movie looks like a videogame cutscene.

Attached: terminatorgenisys-greenscreen-climax.jpg (1437x779, 392K)

You should go see an optometrist and have your eyes checked.

Yep. Same technique they used for the Star Wars prequels, but done correctly.

nolan films like inception, the dark knight, and interstellar

I don't know what to think about interstellar, nolan's a faggot who cut out 90% of the story for muh feels and feminism, but he's the only director alive who could have made it look this good.

Attached: big_1498726790_image[1].jpg (1280x720, 136K)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3mMUPcXrjg

amazing what film can do

Matte paintings also perfectly fit the fantasy aesthetic. Even if they look a little unreal, they still feel right. Computer renders don't, as evidenced by The Hobbit.

episode II was the first fully digital film and it looks terrible compared to episode I

youtube.com/watch?v=RnhqwRQf04A

vimeo.com/238180196
better quality scan btw

Wow that looks great. The only effect that still looked bad was Yoda. Everything else felt so real, even the nonーeffect shots. Why does film look so much better?

the speeder bike, clone army, and kamino didn't look off to you?

The trick to the T-1000 is also that it used way less CGI than you'd think

Attached: images.jpg (283x178, 8K)

Never thought I'd see TPM looking like an actual movie.

Watching on my phone.

I love how that puppet is actually kinda shitty but it works 100% onscreen because it's a brief dimly lit shot

Attached: miniuk53.png (640x276, 238K)

>25 years later with twice the budget

Attached: T1000-Eye1.jpg (600x300, 66K)

kikery

That looks so fucking cool.

Overemphasis on CGI. That's all there is to it.

you mean chinks

I think that you operated under the assumption that new star wars films were 100% ebil cgi for too long and it rotted your brain.

you know that the prequels already have a grain filter that's a lot more realistic that that shit?

He's absolutely right though

The example that always struck me was Palpatine's office. Those couches were real props. Somehow for some godforsaken reason they made and shot real furniture that looked like shitty CGI.

Attached: 10.20.13-AM.jpg (2194x934, 340K)

Today I will remind them

Attached: bvs.jpg (6252x3168, 2.59M)

>What was the last film to use Matte paintings
Matte paintings still get used today, just less often because there's other easier/better/cheaper ways to do it. Matte paintings are used in the new Star Wars films, for example.
And matte paintings are just pre-blue screen green screens basically.

Granted the production behind the Hobbit was fucking shit when guillermo del toro jumped ship. Peter Jackson had to film the majority of the scenes without a storyboard or complete script, and said that they "just made it up as they went along"
This is also why there is so much cgi instead of real sets

Yes yes, everyone knows, you have brought up Palpatines office a million times. It's a space office retard. It's using materials not available in our real world. It's meant to look otherwordly. And you also never mention any of the fucking god tier looking outside scenes on Coruscant.

In the prequels, they touched almost all their physical props of it up in CGI, adding lighting and shine to it that makes it all look unnatural. There's also weird clipping issues in some of the scenes in Palpatine's office in the prequels. Wish I still had the webms that point this out, probably do on some computer but not this one.

I prefer the idea that the level of craftsmanship in films peaked with these movies, and they are so grand that you can't believe it's not cgi.

Attached: 0064_03_E-1024x672.jpg (1024x672, 141K)

Those chairs look real to me. They just don't look like normal lounge chair material. The front of the chairs under the lights looks to real to be CGI lighting.

What I don't understand is why the fuck movies cost more to make than ever before even though they've almost completely stopped building massive sets and location shooting in favor of just rendering everything on a fucking computer

youtube.com/watch?v=-IEhC4v0f0A

Attached: REEEEEEEEE.jpg (597x299, 61K)

renderfarms and the army of """"artists"""" to work the computers cost a lot of money

True story: After releasing Aliens (1986), Fox Studios received several requests from warehouse and factory owners who wanted to buy a power loader (large yellow robotic suit that Ripley uses to fight the Alien Queen.) It had to be explained to them a few times that it was just an effect.

For me, this has to be the most astounding achievement of all time in special effects: that an adult audience accepted it as being 100% real, and that there was not a single bad shot or botched effect that would have ruined the immersion. CGI these days can give you a thousand power loaders all battling each other in an exploding volcano ... but it somehow looks fake, and at no point does anyone think that what they are watching really happened.

Sure, CGI has its uses - things like filling in background details and erasing cables and props. But Hollywood can't seem to grasp that a CGI creature that is the focus of the shot still looks fake after almost 30 years of use.

Attached: 1541708042916.png (1200x863, 1.37M)

they knew cgi looked like shit so they were careful with it

now imagine if thousands of adults accepted that a plane crashed into a steel building and made it collapse as 100% real

Attached: SlowMo_Nose_Out[1].gif (500x291, 1.92M)

Every shot of the feet makes it very clear that it's a pretty light prop, it never moves right for something of supposed weight.

That's why Thunderbirds feels so real.

Because it's all real, it's just small scale.

Attached: 00416-C-JAMES-FIELDING-PHOTOGRAPHY.jpg?zoom=2&resize=850%2C491&ssl=1.jpg (1700x982, 177K)

First, CGI was outsourced to India - and the quality has decreased.
Then, after the Life of Pi shitstorm, studios decided to make their own "in-house" CGI departments - and the quality has decreased even further.

>Life of Pi shitstorm
give me a quick rundown

>after the Life of Pi shitstorm
What shitstorm?

they do? they always looked too clean to me

absolute bullshit

Was that the reshoot one?

Studios weren't paying the workers, or delayed the payments for as long as possible, eventually they got sued, mainstream media got mad after it was revealed that about a year after the release, after Life of Pi has won an Oscar, the artists who worked on this movie still didn't get their salary.

Disney, and other studios, in response decided to create their own CG department which shat out Black Panther, among others, and they pretty much only hire interns on the lowest pay possible, if there's a pay at all.

>I'm going to compare all the generic slop from now to all the best movies of time period of my choosing to claim that quality was better back then, the post
Look user, you're fucking stupid.

okay it's generic slop
where are all the best effect movies of this period? name one. just one.

Alita and 2049, un-ironically.

Marvel movie effects seem fine for the most part, movies like annihilation, arrival, and live/die/repeat looked great, and I don't even watch a lot of movies.
You are literally comparing the flagship product of a cutting edge digital effect company in their prime (ILM) to all the generic slop that comes out all the time, including around when the movie you cite came out. Obviously TPM is going to have better than average effects. You're retarded.

>the artists who worked on this movie still didn't get their salary.

Didn't they also have to close their studio because they had spent almost all of their time working on Life of Pi and didn't get paid?

TPM is special because it has a crapload of CGI but nearly all of it still looks good. jar jar being the obvious exception.

lmfao

Attached: latest[1].png (1920x816, 1.71M)

>nolan's a faggot who cut out 90% of the story for muh feels and feminism
wait what

full CGI remake when?

Attached: Apocalypse.jpg (3570x2400, 752K)

you'll notice there's a bunch of plot threads left hanging like the malfunctioning harvesters and the chinese drone.

the original concept of the film is the physics of time travel via wormhole, as theorized by kip thorne and igor novikov. nolan wanted to keep it to one wormhole to avoid confusing the audience, but with it he cut out the actual story of the film, what we're left with is feels, which was more popular with normies I guess.

slashfilm.com/interstellar-script-differences
wired.com/2014/11/metaphysics-of-interstellar/
>6 wormholes and 5 black holes

Attached: novikov-fig-6[1].gif (503x349, 15K)

It's very obvious in episode 3. I believe it was even mentioned in the blu ray featurettes.

That is both wrong (for example look at the piss poor cgi and design of the pod race spectators) and has nothing to do with what I said

the spectators are actors, mark hamill has a cameo among them

Society has been going backwards since the mid-90s. The Matrix is non-fiction.

Guess who was born after 9/11.

Yet they still somehow made movies fucking faster back then and they ended up looking better. Now grindhouse trash takes 5 fucking years to make and looks like something from the Hallmark channel.

>no I watched the making of on the dvd extras and was blown away that mustafar was a carefully crafted miniature, it looked for sure like shitty cgi.
Yeah, I was surprised by this too because it looks fake as shit.

Nolan has never made a good film.

I was watching TPM on Blu-Ray and the CGI in the beginning scene holds up extremely well. It starts to get shitty in the swamp. Mostly the bad CGI is relegated to the characters. Other than that it looks ok except for some shots during the Naboo plains fight. Still think TPM is the best prequel.

This was practical

I'm talking specifically about the two headed announcer guy, so maybe spectator is the wrong word

I understand the Tarot, but what are all those dark grey rectangles? Are they images of something?

this is the stupidest thing I've seen in my entire life

It is by far. Didn't they spend like an insane amount of years working on the film to get it just right?

More time was put into it than AOTC and ROTS, that's for sure. I wish they didn't jump to digital cameras with those movies because it makes them feel completely removed from the other movies. TPM is the only one that feels like it could be connected to the OT in terms of the technical aspect.

>CGI in the beginning scene
actually the republic ship and the trade federation blockade are miniatures, all the battle droids are cgi though

I know. It doesn't matter how an effect is made as long as it looks good.

AOTC was shot on 3 months of preproduction, TPM was in preproduction for years.

Any other boomers around here used to watch Movie Magic on Discovery Channel in the 90s?

youtube.com/watch?v=QEGMMLQEq5M

This was my favorite episode.

youtube.com/watch?v=YdrsXuVfWLw

Attached: You Gonna Get Comfy.jpg (600x772, 68K)

The droids still look great though. I was shocked at how well that whole sequence was done.

what is this narrator he sounds nostalgic as fuck

>AOTC was shot on 3 months of preproduction
It all makes sense now. I remember being 4 when TPM came out and loving it. Then AOTC came out when I was 7 and I remember feeling like something was off about it. I've hated that movie since then.

>Movie Magic
That's a lovely trilobite you have there.

I think zoomers are overly critical of nostalgia because they don't have any themselves; they have nothing to be nostalgic over.

Truer words and all. Zoomers were spit out from the void itself. They are demonic monsters masquerading as human. They can only ever do a pale imitation of a lifeform.

>Watching on my phone.

Attached: gordon.png (960x571, 1021K)

whats wrong with color grading?

Digital and CGI. Why bother with practical effects when you can green screen everything? There's no quality control anymore.

I need to watch the whole movie like this.

26 year old Jurassic Park unironically looks better than most shit made today

Attached: EF9D9864-AE11-4E4A-9A7C-BC36741A4D2B.jpg (807x605, 102K)

They are more tragic than that. There is simply no culture for them to cling to. Trump might be the first interesting thing that they've ever encountered, just because everyone is going insane all around them. Their nostalgia won't be movies, cartoons, or books. It'll probably be news broadcasts shitting themselves over the election.

Calling them tragic implies they deserve sympathy. They need stepped on like grapes. They're a malformed generation of edgy little demons. Can you imagine a fucking world where all the CEOs and presidents are literally dumber than Pewdiepie but edgier than Erik Prince?

That's not true. The concept art department was working since September of '99 and they started shooting in June of 2000.
And besides they didn't have to start from scratch, had the team assembled during TPM, they already knew the process, got it streamlined and do you really need 4 years to design starships and make costumes and shit? Lucas' production's are actually quite slow, 3 years between movies. Spielberg or any other director with TV origins would probably knock the whole trilogy in 5 years, half the time it took Lucas.

>26 years

Fucking Christ, I still remember the DAY i went to see it in the theater.

Attached: 1464666716674.jpg (720x720, 28K)

true

Attached: makes you think huh.jpg (1286x880, 120K)

it already exists.

Attached: 61AD0B9E-37AD-4A02-B901-D3A04989472D.jpg (500x750, 41K)

A truly terrible film

Is that supposed to look like shit?

TPM looks great fuck off

Nice autism

That whole office is a set

Even though they are both post-2000 compare this...

Attached: 1536612530479.webm (870x358, 2.7M)

youtube.com/watch?v=20vA9U7J2qQ
It's a depressing and disheartening watch.
I feel sorry for jackson, but hey, he got paid squillions didn't he?
He's okay.

...to this.

I feel this sums up the change in CGI use in films over the decades.

Attached: 1520918664167.webm (900x376, 2.9M)

eh, it's clearly intentional because The Hobbit has a lighter tone being based on a childrens book.

based

the five armies color grade was awful

oh it looks terrible INTENTIONALLY
that makes it all better

>All that fucking bloom
FPS has poisoned everything.

what are u comparing exactly?

Your pic is bullshit and you are a retard.

Attached: 1550846319201.png (520x414, 352K)

It sucks and you're making excuses for it.

Unironically looks like a video game

Why "lmfao"? Alita and 2049 both looked spectacular and will hold up, perhaps not quite as well as Jurassic Park or TPM (my favorite prequel, fwiw), but certainly as well as, say, the LOTR films.

My VFX runners up for the 2010s are Life of Pi, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Interstellar, Fury Road, and possibly Rogue One. There hasn't been a single capeshit film from 2010-onwards that will ever be seen as a VFX masterpiece.

they both look fake, all of the films you listed except for Interstellar look fake as fuck. I guess the scenes from fury road where they use actual cars look pretty good but the rest is shit. christ that dust storm still makes my stomach turn.

naw man video games nowadays look better than that shit. that's like late ps360 era vidya.

not him but, the interaction between the two characters looks very fake (in the hobbit one).

Yeah I think it looks very Dark Souls.

2049.

Attached: 2049grid.jpg (1900x1059, 167K)

>Evangelion
Christ it wasn't that bad.

I wasn't saying they were the best looking films of all time, just that they're going to be remembered as the best-looking films of the 2010s.

By your logic, though, Interstellar shouldn't count, either, because TARS/CASE were puppets and most of the ship sequences involved motion-controlled model work, even if this time the models were 3D printed off of CAD files instead of being built from scratch.

Hell, most of the good shots in 2049 involved LOTR-style miniature work, and most of the sets from Alita were 100% practical. The only real CGI tour-de-forces that I mentioned were Life of Pi, Gravity, and Rogue One, all of which still look fantastic.

CGI was a mistake and practical effects are the only way for movies to enhance their story telling. The brain is able to instantly recognize something that isn't real based on movement and shading and takes you out of the movie. Maybe in a couple thousand years it will be perfected to mimic reality but until then practical effects are the way to go. Practical effects use real things you can physically touch so it's impossible for it to act or look in a way that isn't real in the same way CGI looks.

>Interstellar shouldn't count, either, because TARS/CASE were puppets and most of the ship sequences involved motion-controlled model work
why would that matter? the only thing that matters in a film is how it looks onscreen.

youtube.com/watch?v=hpWYtXtmEFQ

>intentionally looked shiny and furturistic to match setting
>hurdur it's shitty CGI because it doesn't look like the real couches we have here in real life
It's no wonder why Star Wars is absolute shit now because people like you wanted everything to match "real" shit.

Attached: 1550594396536.jpg (282x306, 27K)

Part of what I think is the problem is a trend I've noticed since the early 2000s of movies that are just colour-corrected to Hell with really deep shadows that obscure anything in the background. It just makes all movies look the same, especially when so many of them have the same desaturated look with some weird blue-grey colour correction. Just take a look at how visually similar the Marvel movies are alone in this respect.

>FUCK PLANNING WE CAN FIX IT IN POST

how

what di you mean bloom

I know, I was just ribbing you.

It seems the key to VFX perfection is to composite scenes in much the same way that Lucas made the OT, only you use digital compositing instead of old school chemical bluescreens and mattes, and you use CGI work to touch up your models/backgrounds and add moving details to your matte paintings/other backgrounds, while using motion capture CGI to replace the sorts of characters that you would have used stop-motion to render in the 1980s (sorry, Phil Tippett). This allows you to limit your computer graphics work to actual characters rather than backgrounds or entire scenes, so that your VFX team has that much more time to absolutely nail your digital characters. Oh, and shoot it all on 35mm.

Now, is it any surprise that what I just described is exactly how Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, True Lies, Starship Troopers, Titanic, The Matrix, the Star Wars prequels, the LOTR movies, the original Pirates of The Caribbean trilogy, and the first 3 Bayformers movies were made? (All of which are pretty much the best looking movies of the past quarter-century)

>people are stupid
>most astounding achievement
The most astounding achievement is that you managed to solve the captcha.

It's sad that this matte background painting stuff is a dying and nearly dead art.

That weird glowy effect. First Person Shitters are responsible for its popularity and it started to spread into movies.

No it looks like Commodore 64. XD

Yeah they used to make movies look more gritty and "real" but now it's like they are making big budget cartoons.

Based and REDpilled

Also, look! It's someone else who thinks of Pacific Rim and Fury Road as VFX high-water marks for the post-digital era!

2049 does look great but Alita looked like Ready Player One at times, you can tell up everything you're looking at is blatant CG

I hate it but I don't see the conection

it's like they made the Hobbit on the Oblivion engine

300 MILLION DOLLARS

Attached: 1513917389002.webm (720x400, 1.92M)

>pre 2000
>special effects made by passionate professionals
>after 2000
>special effects made by gamer nerds

The backgrounds did, for sure, but Alita's first body and Zapan in particular are probably the most spectacular pieces of CG character work that I've ever seen. Zapan especially might have actually dethroned Davy Jones as the most "real"-looking MoCap fantasy character ever put on screen.

Attached: alita-battle-angel-epk-ABA-595_rgb.jpg (1500x793, 211K)

- you winning not so much time because of preparation to flight(going to airport, registration, customs, etc.)
- cost of development and making supersonic airliner nowadays will be a lot more then subsonic airliner
- cost of fly will be a lot more then subsonic airliner
- supersonic airliners cannot fly freely because of loudness
- a new airliners like B-787, B-777X, A-350, B-737 MAX are using a lot of new technologies and made flying very afordable

Would you buy 200$ subsonic flight and waste 10 hours total or 1000$ supersonic 7 hours?

Attached: 1520608354001.jpg (400x400, 112K)

Eh, that's a pretty broad statement. There's obviously still lots of passionate people working in the effects industry

Hell, even the other, less meticulously rendered cyborgs still look pretty fucking good.

Attached: alita-2-excl.jpg (1500x792, 128K)

Maybe that's the problem? The majority of post 2000 special effects people are influenced by having consumed all the previous stuff, so they can't think and act as freely in compairison to the people who came up with all it in the first place. Or they only observe other special effects instead of real life, thus imitate only the imitation.

Attached: 1547140120411.jpg (450x347, 30K)

>Post digital era

Stop using words you don't understand

Because it's simply not true. Computers and airplanes have gotten much better, but computer services and airlines have not. There's a difference between science advancing and society in general.

This is more obvious if you compare a new power tool bought today to one made in 1999, modern ones are much better because there's real demand for improvement by people who use power tools.

Yes but the shitty CGI designers are way more abundant nowadays whereas in the past only passionate people would even want to do it since it was pretty much a brand new profession.

Studios stopped shooting on film and went over to digital cameras because it cut almost 35% of a production budget.

Also, Pajeets took over CGI rendering and did it for less than a 1/4 of what american studios would charge, so they started rushing out products to rake in the dollars.

Finally. Capeshit. Avengers made over a billion dollars in 2012 with almost no effort.

why you use cgi for few scenes its easier to make it look good than when you use it for every single scene

Nah Davy Jones still holds it for me. Every time he's on screen I cannot pay attention to what he's saying, I'm just transfixed on the fucking tentacles swirling around, it's incredible

The berserker body looked like hot MCU-tier garbage, but my god, the doll body looked so "real" that it reminded me of a mega-budget version of the practical Henson aliens from Farscape or one of Guillermo Del Toro's autistic monster puppets.

What's wrong with classifying films by whether they were shot on film or on a CCD/CMOS?

Attached: tumblr_p0ofmpcJy31rpb83ho3_500.gif (500x211, 2.05M)

CG is used the best when touching up practical effects, and using techniques like avoiding broad daylight in favor of night to better hide discrepancies in full CG shots

Attached: 1514963320437.webm (1206x500, 2.84M)

>davy jones looks good now

The new planet of the apes movies are nearly indistinguishable from reality.

now compare that hot garbage to the fifth element.

Yeah, and the thing with Davy Jones is your eye reads him as being so "real" that you stop seeing him as a rendered animation and start reading him as a real-life monster.

But yeah, Zapan and Doll Body Alita were the first time since watching Dead Man's Chest for the first time in theaters when I stopped paying attention to what the character was doing because I was too busy admiring just how "right" the artists and animators got every single detail. They're easily the most "tangible"-looking rendered characters I've seen since Jones. Nothing else even comes close.

Attached: alita-crop-wm.jpg (1200x675, 148K)

jar jar looked better

Attached: War-for-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-2017-Movie-Scene[1].jpg (960x720, 69K)

>Doll Body Alita
disagree, her whole character was constantly just pulling me right away from it the whole running time. The guy does look fantastic though

it says a lot about a civilization when even its art is fake
hopefully it all ends soon, would fucking love to watch the world rip itself into pieces

You're starting from scratch. It's like when they made the jump from high quality 2D video games to primitive blocky 3D with awful textures. It looked like shit. Before CGI you just built models to the detail you needed and had matte backgrounds. The key thing is that they were lit by REAL LIGHTING. CGI lighting in the early days was shit

Grewishka 2.0 was also a really fucking impressive piece of CGI character work, though he has the same problem that the early Bayformers ILM stuff had, where no matter how photorealistic and tangible he looks, he's so obviously a fantasy character that your brain never "reads" him as being a real person in the same way that it does with Jones or Zapan.

Attached: maxresdefault (34).jpg (1280x720, 227K)

yeah totally real looking
mate he looks like he belongs in toy story 2

I actually can't think of a well made humanoid cgi character. all the good ones have been monsters and aliens and that sort of thing, it's just way easier to tell when something is off for humans.

there was the whole lightstage cinema 2.0 thing in 2008, that looked 100% real but that's the only thing I can remember, wasn't used in anything real.

Attached: pirates-of-the-caribbean_-dead-man's-chest-wallpapers-29794-5828831[1].jpg (3000x1668, 751K)

Because that was literally my childhood and everything I watch after having lost a sense of wonder is shit
I also happen to have been born in the incorrect time period and long for validation on the Internet with similar minded peers

>he's so obviously a fantasy character that your brain never "reads" him as being a real person
fantasy characters can look real. it's just that he doesn't, and nobody in alita does.

But now even when you have real crazy props (like the working BB8 prop) people will convince themselves it's all CGI

>art drawn by hand is "real"
>art drawn on a computer is "fake"
You aren't very bright are you?

BB8 looks like a plastic toy regardless, and some of the stunts are cgi and look even faker.

Yeah but even when the real thing rolled out on stage people will still saying it was CGI

The new Planet of The Apes movies are a case of decent-enough rendering work elevated into being some of the best looking VFX of all time almost solely on the backs of the actors providing the MoCap performances and the animators translating them into CGI characters. They look merely decent in stills, but look utterly incredible when they're moving.

Davy Jones falls into the same category. Half of what made him so good was Bill Nighy and the animators who were able to capture and elevate his performance.

Attached: piratesofthecaribbean-davyjones-closeup.jpg (2048x1018, 1.09M)

>CGI lighting in the early days was shit
hasn't improved much honestly. actually the super basic renderman lighting DID look real when done by a skilled digital lighting artists. the modern "physical" shading models probably share a lot of the blame. incidentally the shift to things looking like crap was when the SGI poweranimator/renderman pipeline was replaced with maya and its artist driven material node system.

Attached: physically btfo.jpg (924x684, 51K)

And in motion

Attached: OxHrcBJ.gif (560x230, 1.9M)

Show me one case of a >10 foot tall CGI robot or monster looking so real that your brain suspends disbelief and I'll eat my hat. Even practical effects have never been able to pull it off.

are you for real? think for a second about why CGI became widely used in the first place.

mocap performance was really solid I'll give you, but the off look of his tentacles/skin the whole time was distracting.

>no no, you don't understand, it's SUPPOSED to look like shit

I used to think enterprise-D was cgi too. it's just a really bad paintjob.

Because Pajeet started doing all the CGI.

Very well said. Saw it again this weekend an was able to autistically study the effects and detail of the artwork instead of focusing on the story. Some of the most impressive animation ever released. Really has me excited to see what they're going to deliver with the next few Avatar sequels.

youtube.com/watch?v=1koa2xAxCAw
youtube.com/watch?v=VV97_cn54bQ

A T-Rex in the rain obscured by shadows and flashes of lightning doesn't count.

And CG got popular because it was faster and cheaper, on a character-by-character basis than hiring Phil Tippett and much more flexible, both filming-wise and in terms of the kinds of motion that you could depict, than building large puppets like in the OT, Aliens, or anything involving Jim Henson or the creature shop.

If Alita is the low-budget demo reel, then Avatar 2 is going to be absolutely insane.

Him being wet helped a ton too, it masked the plastic like sheen that common shaders use and were smart to use messy textures in a way that didn't become distracting.
Ugly things are easy to come off as cool and gritty.

>Some of the most impressive animation ever released.
This is for you.

Attached: gruel in a world of wood chippings.png (709x916, 141K)

>you'll notice there's a bunch of plot threads left hanging like the malfunctioning harvesters and the chinese drone.
They were both being fucked up by the gravitational anomaly Coop set up in Murph's room that contained the coordinates for NASA in binary

I saw this and Event Horizon back to back and it struck me that they were like 85% the same movie.

Exactly. This is the same reason why Godzilla '98 and the T-Rex scenes still look so good.

That said, Godzilla moving through the water and destroying the dock is clearly a miniatures effect. Emmerich had a ton of experience with large-scale miniatures work and it's a big part of why Stargate and Independence Day both still look so good today. Godzilla used a lot of those same physical effect tricks, and by combining them with showing the monster only in the dark, in the rain, or both, was able to transcend the 1998-era CG effects and produce something that visually still stands up today.

Men in Black and the 5th Element also did the same thing, which is why both of them have also aged beautifully.

The detail of Zapan is amazing to study during the movie. Just spectacular level of design and animation.

reference for how this nigger should look

many movies these days suffer from a kind of "hyper-detail", adding a lot of texture and visual noise where reality isn't even that detailed, and that in turn takes away from the reality of it rather than add.

Attached: ambusher[1].jpg (2197x1479, 804K)

>There was a time when the Raimi Spiderman movies' CGI work was considered mediocre and the Elfman score was considered forgettably unremarkable.

If only he knew just how bad things would later get...

I think the reason those two scenes look so good is because real effort has been put into integrating the cgi with the scene, so it's not just cgi on it's own, but it's a part of the live action. where often characters like jones just kind of exist in their own dimension and rarely reach out of it.

I think that's a big part of why Zapan looks so good. He's just a dude in a future city, and is treated no differently from, say, how Ridley Scott treated Rutger Hauer/Roy when he was filming Blade Runner.

I need more bad cgi webms

>CGI Balrog and Gollum look terrible
What? I think they've aged very well.

>Demon's Souls 4-1

The robotic one rarely worked. It couldn't even move up a ramp most of the time. It's good for closeups. A lot of the time it's just a green ball they CGI.

Attached: ffs.gif (853x479, 2.41M)

they stand out terribly

>CGI was a mistake and practical effects are the only way for movies to enhance their story telling.

Attached: 8C8BFEFD-4216-49E8-828D-24536A654018.gif (320x200, 1.9M)

I'd done an Intro to Acting class a few years ago, which was based mostly around the fundamentals of stage and improv acting, when all you have in front of you is either one or two other actors in a relatively empty space with next to no props to work with or just yourself.

Take Star Wars. Stage actors such as Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee no doubt had an advantage over everyone else, as they were more or less in their element the entire time, having come from stage backgrounds. It was reasonably awkward for most everyone else, but that can honestly be chalked down to their not having imaginations much more than Lucas' relatively absent direction. Also, I remember Jackson actually said that the people complaining about the CGI backdrops should stop, because actors should be able to manage just fine. That's their job. And while there are pros to having a full and interactable set, Sam has a point. Just look at stage plays. They often have to make do with just as little

Imagination is pretty important for actors. Practical sets and shit can't make actors magically act better. A shit actor in CGI wont magically become a genius in a practical set. Hollywood actors honestly don't know how easy they have it.

It was the days of switching everything over to CGI. Only Lotr did it good back then.

>he got paid squillions didn't he?
and probably had a few years shaved off his life

how do you know all this?

This is best and only answer. Watch a movie like Florida Project. No effects, but you'll recognize the same feeling. Shot on film, little or no color grading.

You must literally not even watch films and just watch marvel garbage dude

Besides the horrible clone army, I legitimately think this trailer looks amazing and better than most big budget movies of 2018.

The wide shots are a CGI "stuntman." They can't get movement right.

>vimeo.com/238180196
Wow... That is the Blu-ray transfer I'm waiting for.

>youtube.com/watch?v=RnhqwRQf04A
The contrast adds so much to the film, it's incredible

Attached: star-wars-the-phantom-menace-1074.png (1440x900, 1.21M)

Further proof that Samuel L Jackson is one of the greatest actors of our time and nobody ever really recognizes it. He's professionalism, personified.

Attached: gladiator starring russel crow.jpg (1920x1080, 155K)

That attack of the clones czech trailer in 35mm looks really nice
Just so everyone knows though, Episode 2 and 3 digitally look great upscaled to 4K. Most of the film is upscaled without loss of detail and most of the effects look good.

He's a good actor but unfortunately his 150 films still havent given him enough money not to be in commericals
hes way too oversaturated after star wars now

Based Sam L.

Attached: mckellan is a whiny little bitch.jpg (772x1700, 579K)

bump

>cgi balrog
>terrible
Literally still holds up today

it's literally babbys first fumefx. digital smoke and fire didn't start looking good until a few years ago.

DC PAJEETS BTFO

>I just had to pick a spot and kind of do it. I kind of liked that. I'm an only child, so I played by myself a lot in my room.
>I made up stuff and I'm used to fighting things that are not there, talking to people that are not there.

Attached: flat,550x550,075,f.u9[1].jpg (550x344, 37K)

That's what being an only child is like. It's great to have such a strong creative foundation.

so is that all you have or are you just going to post a single """edited""" gif?

Are you forgetting Davy Jones is half human though? He wouldn't be full slime like that

Imagine not having fun

yeah having functional eyes is a horrible curse. I've been told getting high helps see it for normies.

based retard

All of your points can be refuted by "Yeah, but I liked it".

youtube.com/watch?v=9lcB9u-9mVE

That, or he just has expensive tastes.

Either way, he's basically the black Christopher Lee, and I mean that as the highest of praises.

>switch to digital
>color grading
this right here. For a while, films tried to make digital mimic film, but then they gave up. It has looked like shit ever since.

He probably just doesnt make most on paychecks for movies since lots of smaller parts but makes well enough, capital one gives him like 10-20 million to be their sponsor

Yeah but the problem is the VFX artists can't read your mind. What ever was running through his mind was probably way cooler than the clunky shit that happened in the movie.

Exactly, enough for a modest, /comfy/ $10 million house in Malibu with nice views of the sunsets and a Porsche/Tesla in the driveway, a couple nice condos/pied-a-tierres in your favorite cities, and a farm out in the country somewhere.

>As of 2019, Samuel L Jackson's net worth is $220 million.
welp nevermind so why does he need those commericals

He doesn't have complete freedom to just run around and flail. Shit he did was choreographed and there were markers where to look and shit. Also, he pretty much fought Jango, who was there, and that rhino thing. The only things he had to imagine were laser bolts and the rhino. He didn't just wing it.

This. McGregor complained that it was blue screen, like he actually expected that ILM is gonna build a real size alien Colosseum and fill it with flying antlizards.

forgot this even happened

wowowow

Because maybe he wants to upgrade to the $40 million Malibu mansion.

Didn't he also have substance abuse issues in the 80s? I could see him wanting to keep himself constantly busy as part of wanting to stay clean/sober.

OH NO NO NO NO

well when you have the star wars budget they probably could have built that but didnt.

My secret favorite movie.

They did actually build a large open arena though, it's just the walls were bluescreen. It's shit like the factory or mustafar fight where it's just 100% blue except for the actors.

They worked with 115 million. Lucas payed for this stuff himself. He's rich, but not Disney rich.

Attached: arena.jpg (1524x861, 622K)

And this exactly as it shld be everytime. Different tools used to their advantage in combination

>the effects really just looked 100% real
kek, as if you realized even 50% of the CGI used in todays films hahahahahahaha

yes, CGI is that good nowadays

another great example of something like this is the island from The Lost World. Nearly all of the background landscapes are composited from various locations and mattes, so it creates a realistic looking fictional terrain that still is convincing.

For 3 they just used vue and it looks like shit.

Attached: Isla%20Sorna%20-%20Topographical%20Map%20(2)[1].jpg (3091x2494, 1.93M)

Episode II and III would look great in HDR

His own brand image, the commercial deal allows him to play something that doesn't involve swearing loudly at people and it will be widely seen, so he will potentially be seen as more "serious"

then maybe they should cut it down to that 50% that you can't notice.

People are merely cherrypicking, that's all there is to it. They look at big franchises that has no reason to look good anymore. You need to literally be retarded to not understand this.

Jurassic Park CGI doesn't need to look good, it sells anyway.
Star Wars CGI doesn't need to look good, it sells anyway.
LotR CGI doesn't need to look good, it sells anyway.
MCU CGI doesn't need to look good, it sells anyway.

When all these needed to look good, they were exceptional. Look at the early Iron Man movie when they were actually forced to try because they were trying to establish a brand. Iron Man 1 looks insane. You believe in virtually everything. That's not because CG has somehow become worse, but because the studios know that it doesn't matter if it looks good or bad, people will continue to be loyal to the brand anyway. Movies that need to sell their visuals through CG and aren't backed by some brand name very often look spectacular. This is simple business 1:1.

Attached: 1526755032526.jpg (1910x1330, 2.15M)

The CG was so-so, but the prototype suit scene was pure fucking metal.

The creative drive for humanity died out by then
The 20th century was an absolute burn out, where whoever didn't die on the battlefield slaved away using their creative energies to create new implements of war and thinking of ways to fight it. We gave it all we had and when our cause to continue disappeared, we burned out
We now blindly follow some vague idea of progress, where it just seems to be motivated by undoing taboos merely for the sake of doing so, but under the guise of justice. Doing so, ironically, further strips the creativity that made such things tantalizing in the first place. Take drag, for example: a subculture that thrived in its underground status and high standards required to survive in it. RuPaul even thrives on this. Now transgender rights is just a mindless political platform for NPCs to rally behind

It's clear in the photo you posted that they used a high dynamic ratio color profile, which is useful when shooting a photo/movie with contrasting highlights and shadows (think a sunlit scene). This helps them maintain detail in both the traditionally overexposed highlights as well as keeping details in shadowy areas. But as you pointed out, this color profile results in flat colors.

That said, it's only necessary to use that much of a high dynamic ratio during scenes in bright sunlight, so with the type of controlled lighting you'd get inside of a studio, they could go with a different color profile that's more accurate color-wise.

it clearly says uncorrected, that's the raw output before any processing