Behead who ever invented CGI

This movie's SO bad i didn't even remember that

good cgi is orders of magnitude more expensive than good sfx but cgi that looks "good enough" is extremely cheap, much cheaper than any sfx.

>good cgi is orders of magnitude more expensive than good sfx
why does this exist then

It still looks beautiful today because of his design, and the lighting.
The design isn't supposed to look realistic, so it avoids uncanny valley. And the lighting is just perfect

JACK SPARRAH

Because they spent proper amount of time fleshing it out. They didn't really do that for Black Panther. We already know CGI can be good, so whenever there's bad CGI on movies it's either because it was rushed or not enough money was spent on that.

I know people say this a lot, but I don't even know what's so bad about the third. It's got its dumb moments, but no worse than the musical scene from the first or the beach fight in the second, and some of the series cliches it uses are a bit stale.

But it has some great moments and shots, and is still decent enough.

Because that's clearly a case of "good enough" aka "nobody will notice"-tier CGI?

The "Jack Sparrow talking to himself" segment dragged on for far too long.

where did the 200 mil budget go then

Overhead and third party.

why was 2011 thing ever greenlit
why did they think they could recapture the magic of a cult classic that had iconic music and practical effects but include neither of those things

Because the director of this movie knew the limitations of CGI and almost exclusively used it in scenes where it's dark or when CGI characters are distant. Also helping is the fact that CGI always looks shiny/wet/greasy, enhancing the look of the sea monsters. The CGI itself is just as awful as in current capeshit movies but the setting and creative restraint hide its flaws.

It's not just being wet and slimy. That helps, obviously, making things look shiny and reflective is actually really easy in CG, but also because his skin texture specifically is "alien". It doesn't look like anything we have a reference to, so your brain doesn't go uncanny valley in the same way it would if it was trying to be real skin or look like a real octopus. It's not a real octopus, and we can tell that, but it's still identifiably some sort of skin with a little bit of Sub-Surface Scattering (that effect of slight translucence that can make something look either like real skin if done right, or some weird gel if done wrong), some nice texture, and a generous amound of contrast.

It's also that his tentacles and stuff are constantly moving and not stiff. That part really sells it, the facial motion is flawless, and everything moves and jiggles as he talks. It's natural enough that your brain doesn't register it as stiff and unnatural.

The eyes also really sell it. They're very, very well done.

Scare factor and CG quality have an inverse relationship. A bunch of gooks working for rice back in 2000 created far freakier shit than Hollywood ever has.

Attached: Cameron.jpg (320x240, 16K)

Right, sure, that's true. I never said it was perfect, but I don't think that ruins the movie as a whole.

I still can't fucking believe they covered up those amazing practical effects with that shitty CG

I've seen that short RE movie but the plot is actually retarded, I think they just wanted to put a "the thing" ripoff in
"lol now the t virus lets u shapeshift man what ever"
i dunno if its retconned, they're prob saving it for some weird plot connection

>why did they think they could recapture the magic of a cult classic that had iconic music and practical effects but include neither of those things

I don't know if you're a ware, but Amalgamated Dynamics was actually hired to make practical versions of all of the monster effects, and most of them were actually shot completed, before the production company decided to cover it all in CGI for no real, discernible reason.

But the movie was, for all intents and purposes, made with practical effects. They just don't show up in the final product.

Attached: 077ce9a765a61bf6624f18ce942d0ccf.jpg (500x750, 163K)

practical effects is a trade too (meaning skills passed down and improved), so as CGI becomes more used it becomes a dying art like 2d animation

It's a matter of skill and care as well as time and money. You can end up with incredibly expensive yet shitty looking CGI if you don't have a director who knows how and when to use it overlooking the entire process.

>like Disney
Have you seen Disney since 10 years ago? their CGI is pure garbage

It's good when done right and with love. For The Thing prequel they should have stuck mostly with the prosthetics and animatronics they had already done, and supplemented it with CGI.

Attached: jurassic park-3.webm (640x347, 2.69M)

How do you go from this...
TO THIS

>Because the director of this movie knew the limitations of CGI and almost exclusively used it in scenes where it's dark or when CGI characters are distant.

That's just not true at all. Davy specifically gets plenty of close-ups and interactions in-frame with other characters.

They do have a few things going for them to help blend things together, but it's not also for lack of technical skill and effort.

Attached: davy_jones_crew_dmc.jpg (1200x673, 1020K)

Thing's CGI was cheap and rushed because of some idiot who shouldn't have been in charge of anything
Moby Dick's CGI was extensively worked on and designed to be one of the best special effects films of its generation

This.
It baffles me that they movie was DONE with practical effects, that they looked perfect but the producers went "you know, how about we do it again but with CGI?"...nigga, you already have the movie, you just doubled its cost to make it worse, why?

Jew money laundering

why did it suddenly break character after reassuring the guy that 'they just forgot something' ?
what

>something from RE was stupid and unoriginal

You don't say.

Was focusing more on how the quality (or lack thereof, really) resulted in a much more successful attempt at what that scene from the 2011 movie was going for.

Gibs

Attached: 1400860007256.webm (1280x544, 2.86M)

Goddamn kikes meddling into this shit. Don't know if the practical effects would have saved the film, but at least it would have been very technically impressive to watch.

Too bad it’s a faggot movie

Attached: 1411621869534.webm (1706x720, 2.29M)

lmao

Attached: 1400866464926.webm (1280x720, 2.5M)

>Don't know if the practical effects would have saved the film,
That's debatable, I can't really comment on it. In general, I would say no, great effects don't make a movie great or save a bad plot, but they sure as fuck don't make it worse, which bad CGI does.

>mfw actually is not Bennings

Attached: 1551330314531.webm (1280x580, 2.65M)

Attached: 1429734283316.webm (1280x720, 2.47M)

still looks great

Why does the one guy tackle the other guy?

Movie?

beautiful

Attached: hellraiser julia.webm (696x392, 520K)

fucking classic

Bad CG thread?

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

also wanna know, reverse search gave me nothing

rikki o story of rikki

this is so gross and nauseating who wants to see this shi

This stuff wouldn't have been so bad if they just added some fucking blood and puss. It looks so unrealistic how it just opens up without leaking anything.

But that would've taken some effort so whatever.

rikki o

Attached: lord of the rings fellowship balrog.webm (870x358, 2.7M)

whats bad about this

thanks I'll give it a watch later

This shit is unwatchable

Attached: 1551964097141.jpg (450x370, 29K)

its looks clunky but for its times its fantastic

CRINGE! how the fuck was this greenlit?

wat movie

Attached: the witches-33.webm (900x506, 2.46M)

Bad CG and Great Practical Effects thread. I'm sorry but I have no webms to post. :(

This makes me very mad.

The fact that it looks like a low budget PS3 cutscene and it's a $300 million movie

the thing 2011

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.gif (640x335, 2.24M)

Attached: 1513905033370.webm (720x400, 2.34M)

again what's bad about it? be specific? ps3 games look pretty great, they are just low frame rate and low res

Attached: 1551595532706.webm (640x360, 1.54M)

holy shit i almost forgot about this guy

Attached: 1514124642572.webm (700x416, 1013K)

that's practical

This is unfortunately true

>Dwayne 'The Rock' Lobster

because they realized that audiences are stupid

wow this looks realer than real life

Look at the body he's carrying

Based Jimbo actually cares to make his stuff look good, be it a passion project or something clearly made just to make money

Attached: 1551845563463.webm (960x402, 2.62M)

thats some stupid good practical effects dude holy shit

DC just can't do good CG for some reason, or it's very hit and miss.

Attached: superman-2.webm (1280x534, 1.63M)

It's still stupid. The result of the transformation is the helicopter crashing. The Thing could have waited and used that asset later on. The movie was not good.

it looks endearing, like star wars ot

To keep his distance

what the shit

holy fuck that is scorpion king tier

GMan?

I don't remember this from justice league

We could have had this.
The movie would not have been great, but at least the effects could have been cool.

Attached: 1527137406772.gif (280x269, 2.84M)

damn I guess they never miss huh

youtube.com/watch?v=QChWIFi8fOY

Attached: david fincher.jpg (704x396, 34K)

holy fuck thats cool

Gotta wonder why they don't release a version without the CG. Even if it was a rough cut it would still make a bunch of money.

My understanding is that ADI went into the premiere not realizing their shit had been tampered with so they must have had practical effects only version at some point.

>typical day at the Brie Larson press tour

Christ, that's terrifying.

wh

The Thing premake isn't worthwhile, anyway.

And the fact people only ever point out the SFX with it only cements that.

I agree, they bust their guts trying to make it look as good as possible, even inventing the systems to do the modeling and rendering themselves, that's why it still holds up.
These days any idiot can download Maya, buy a few plugins and call themselves a CG illustrator. That's why all of this new shit looks the same, the effort to produce something great is minuscule by comparison.

Damn, realfax

2 urban gentlemen fighting in an Underground Railroad.

Really fires my neurons...

Story goes is that they screened the film for their teen relatives and of course being """"ironic"""" teen boppers they laughed at it so the execs decided to order that everything be slathered in CG.

The movie had a good 50 minutes of character stuff cut from it. I think there is a decent movie in there but it's been fucked up by the studio.

>Gotta wonder why they don't release a version without the CG
Because the studio doesn't have the rights to do that. The film is owned by the production company, they paid for it. Amalgamated Dynamics was able to show off their effects in production videos and such because they had that to hand, but they're just an effects company, they didn't make or cut the movie. The director might have it but I don't believe they finished filming with the practical effects.

There's likely no finished cut without CGI, any any film that does exist would belong to the producers.

despite

CGI has its place.
It can fill in little details and add scale that isn't otherwise possible (or at least not possible in a budget sense).
The problem is both that it ages and that even when done exceptionally well there is an uncanny effect where you can tell it's "just cgi".
We could fast forward 50 years in the future where CGI has advanced much further and the lighting is calculated with such detail that it looks absolutely photorealistic from a still.
But even then, it may not look real.

Practical effects have every calculation of our physical reality perfectly completed by default so they don't age the same way.
The only limitation is in the scale and animation of those effects, it takes extremely sophisticated puppetry to do anything that isn't very stilted.
You'd hope the new wave of robotics would bring about a golden era of practical effects but I doubt it's going to happen.

>even inventing the systems to do the modeling and rendering themselves, that's why it still holds up.

Photoshop was created by the people who founded Industrial Light and Magic.

Would it REALLY be that easy to pop a head off

What the fuck is the thing? How does it talk and act human and understand basic human interaction yet it wants to kill things? For what? I dont get it.

CGI is better than practical effects about 90% of the time.

ur mom

Probably not but zombies in film seem to often have superhuman strength.

Attached: 1400866199416.webm (1280x720, 1.84M)

CHOKE ON EMMMM
CHOKEEE ON EMMMMMMM

I've heard people suggest that The Thing hadn't learned how to assimilate itself into human environments yet, but if that was the case the movie should've played up its inhumanity and had it be a lot weirder in socialization with human beings.
I dunno. It could've been pretty creepy if you had the Thing trying to work out how humans work over the course of the movie, maybe learning from the protagonists and figuring out how to manipulate them.

I need to watch all the romero movies

>what is marketing

it's a alien organism that assimilates shit and absorbs their memories and abilities, creating copies of them, but all of this w the goal of eventually assimilating all life it can, go watch the thing 1982 its an amazing movie, top 5 of all time for me

This gave me so many nightmares as a child

>When you've got money, like Disney, and actual creative people, like Disney, CG can look like real life.
Then the only explanation as to why all the new Disney flicks have atrocious CG is because they're secretly broke and had to replace all their creative staff with soulless pajeets in sweatshops?

This movie is an exploitation masterpiece!!!FACT!!!

This film fucked me up as a child.

If CGI was used on the same scale as practical effects(or even better, alongside practical effects) it could look great. Studios go for unbelievable action galore so pajets just can't keep up and half-ass the job.

woah, they managed to land

Mesh and rigging were fine, what they fucked up was the lighting and subsurface scattering (which might not have been a thing yet) and keeping the eyes/face static was a blunder.

You got that backwards, user.

underrated post

Remember this?

Attached: Terminator Genisys.webm (640x360, 1.32M)

If the whole movie was animated it would be ok. The cgi for a lot of these capeshit movies is lacklustre. I'm not mad about these kind of films anyway and find them lacklustre across the board. I think the Captain America movie and Iron Man kinda got their cgi right mostly by not being so centred around it. These over the top action scenes just really don't look good and are a fucking snooze most of the time.

straight outta Xbox 360

Do zombies have super human strength or something? I fucking hate when they are just able to pull off body parts like that.

I would agree with you because most CGI is crap but some directors/sfx crews can do it right though
this guys kind of a faggot but it shows how good fincher is at CGI
youtube.com/watch?v=QChWIFi8fOY

There's no way this is actual promo material

WHEDON

>CGI is better than practical effects about 90% of the time.
CGI is getting there but isn't there yet because most of real life physics are dumbed down or poorly understood in simulation. The potential's out there but it still requires VFX teams to comprehend and adequately model.
On top of that, studios that favor CGI often have directors/cinematographers who focus too closely on the effects to highlight how much money they spent, drawing too much attention to the flaws.
That being said practical can still look like shit as seen in where Romero looked at latex rubber skin splitting like, well, latex rubber and said "good enough for me!"

They did do practical effects for that film but they were CGI'd over. Those probably look really good.

This scared the shit out of me when I was five.

If it makes you feel any better, AD would later crowdfund their own horror film filled with practical effects.

Attached: MV5BMTQ4NDYyNzM5M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDI0MjY0NjE@._V1_.jpg (1400x2100, 572K)

Attached: 1548919774130.jpg (750x613, 23K)

Stills always look funky, motion helps hide shitty work or any other visual inconsistency

That's not even the craziest scene. The whole movie is like that. There's one scene where Riki gets the tendons in his arms sliced up, but he's so metal that he just ties them back together with his other hand and his teeth.

looks so fucking good

any good? might give that a watch

So much wasted work.
youtube.com/watch?v=JchXCnuQFrs

>Do you fear death-thah?

It's passable

>Based Jimbo actually cares to make his stuff look good
He views each film he makes as a way to learn how to make his toolchain better for the next one he has in mind just like Pixar used to. Avatar was prep for Alita which is prep for the other 2 Avatar sequels he's producing.
Main flaw in this is Momoa not selling the weight he's carrying (regardless of physical prowess) and the body refusing to have a skeleton outside of the lip service of one leg then one arm dangling. I have no fucking clue why they didn't either give him an articulated "dead ringer" prop or just have him carry the actor.

Alita was Robert Rodriguez, not Jimbo

>"Dude we need CGI because it's cheaper and we can create movies for you to enjoy faster!"
>Takes longer
>Budget is inexplicably much bigger
>Still manages to turn a profit
>Yet according to (((accountants))) no movies make money, even My Big Fat Greek Wedding was considered a loss according to (((accountants)))

So at which point does this get unveiled as the laundering scheme that it very clearly is?

You really think Juimbo wasn't there all the time?

I don't think he had as much input as you think

>even My Big Fat Greek Wedding was considered a loss according to (((accountants)))
I don't think that's correct.
You must be thinking of the fact that it never reached number one at the box office.

Attached: hobbit-smaug-movie-screencaps.com-20754.jpg (1600x667, 138K)

I thought dawn of justice was pretty solid desu. Way better than justice league cgi and batman also didnt look like a fat retard either.

>before the production company decided to cover it all in CGI for no real, discernible reason.
The suits insist they ran it before focus groups who hated the practicals. Even the best practical effects can look cheesy if lit and shot incorrectly and I wouldn't be surprised if they had a shit cinematographer who lit everything so brightly you could see how artificial it was. In no way defending the CGI or the decision but without the footage to watch we'll never know.

Fucking hell this is so cool. The Thing (prequel) will always be a movie that I wonder what could have been if they'd just gone practical. The plot wasn't amazing and had a lot of weird forced parts. Them leaving the axe in the wall was one of them, could have easily just had it get stuck and a thing after them so no time to yank it out. However the god awful CGI in it makes what would have been only mediocre flat out terrible. I haven't watched it in years now but I'm willing to bet that it gets worse with each passing year since the CGI will just look more and more dated as it goes. Such a fucking shame.

someone should post the abraham lincoln vampire hunter horse chase scene

what movie?

>hellraiser

Wet surface is kind of cheating. That's why in Jurassic Park there's always dinosaurs in rain. In fact the first big T-Rex scene was in the rain because it helps.

Godzilla is always roaming around on rainy days too now that I think about it.

This image is from 1993 and it still looks pretty good.

Attached: download (2).jpg (1000x538, 63K)

Genuinely interesting watch. Thanks for sharing, user.

this is fake obviously

youtu.be/KR--TNuh15U

There are so many things wrong with this transformation sequence but let's start with the actor's complete lack of emotion compared to how every actor in the 80s Thing strove to sell being revealed as a monster (usually fright or anger). The director for this remake said "nah fuck that, let's have LESS acting" which doesn't work.
Next,Savini's practical effects emphasize the trauma of a body morphing, stretching and breaking apart where this sequence just shows a tiny forgettable amount with the head nanosplitting and showing tiny mucus lines but no gore spilling out. Even the ridiculously random structures under the skin look ugly but not scary and then we get the torso exploding into extremely badly lit talons.
The lighting is completely crap. Carpenter understands shadow and imagination and whoever directed this doesn't, thinking that more detail = better effect.

>These days any idiot can download Maya, buy a few plugins and call themselves a CG illustrator
but that's not really true, it takes years of learning to make anything of worth. you're not just throwing assets into a render engine here

So why doesnt some indie-documentarian take on this subject for a movie. If it was done well I’d like to see her trying to hunt these producers down and work to get the most candid answers out of them. See a few get too embarrassed to even show their faces. See if anyone’s careers were ruined. Maybe there wouldn’t be a whole lot of material but I think it could get enough support. And I’d sure as hell watch it.
>inb4 some failed Kickstarter shows up tomorrow that goes nowhere and squanders any initial hype to generate investments.
Don’t do it unless you’re gonna do it done!

I remember watching a Vimeo video explaining why they replace practical with cgi, but I forget the name of the video and I also forget what their explanation was.

Lmao

Attached: 1514105370864.webm (940x390, 2.89M)

I don't understand what the fuck happened in this scene.

There is literally no way Joss didn't intentionally sabotage this movie. Literally everyone call tell how bad it is, it looks like a low budget film from 1998

do you actually have mental problems?

>Joss
user...

Attached: 1551830404068.jpg (900x900, 64K)

Isn't that Justice LEague?

I'LL SEND YOUR EVIL KARMA TO HELL! PASS ON TO THE NEXT LIFE!

Attached: rikioh.jpg (1053x668, 376K)

hahahaha what the fuck, is this from the Hobbit? i never saw it, this is like a video game

That's BvS kek

holy shit

CGI is shit 98% of the time, CGI backgrounds are shit 99% of the time and CGI characters are shit 100% of the time.

pretty simple

they harnessed the power of turbo-surface tension to melt a statue from the inside out and use it to temporarily inconvenience a dragon

also bilbo was bait...? man fuck i don't even remember the whole scene

thanks for the contribution, that isn’t actually a contribution, and doesn’t deserve this response, but i’m doing it anyway.

Just not the same without hearing his scream go higher pitched as his head is being ripped off

Hi there

Attached: 1551912247161.webm (1920x1080, 2.91M)

question. how does the thing still come around when they clearly show the fucker getting burned here?

This looks like a fighting game from the early days of the PS2

so, were witches a different species from humans or they were regular humans who got corrupted by dark magic

I don’t usually have a problem with CG, but I hate shit like this

How the fuck is a CGI fight supposed to hype anybody up

This person has not seen the Aladdin trailer

its the frame rate that makes this look so fake

thank you for proving my point.

>Literally looks like it could be straight from the real gameplay in a PS3 era Mortal Kombat game.

>We could have had this.
And it would have been over-lit ruining the effect even with digitally painting out the operator behind the puppet.
Fincher's fetish for going over budget is why no one wanted to fund The Goon and he tried (and failed) to use Kickstarter just to make a demo. He was told to cast nobodies for Fight Club, ignored orders, threw unnecessary CGI effects into it and bankrupted Orion to the point that it was killed as a studio until this year. It's neato-keen that a former ILMfag graduated to making good film, but unlike Cameron he gambles with other peoples' money and reputation.

Have you not watched The Thing?

Why don't you ask them yourselves?
morgancreek.com/contact-us/

We should have drawn a line for CGI where it's not okay to imitate anything organic.

>this was made in 2001

How the fuck did they do it boys. This has aged so well.

>over 10 years old
>still the best cgi character ever
How in the fuck did they do it

ayy lmao

Just no CGI for humans. That way you don't get corpses paraded around as living actors. Organics can be fine, see the Jurassic Park and PotC examples.

Bad practical effects will ALWAYS look better than good CGI

>his screams turning chipmunk as his vocal chords get stretched
Scared the fuck out of me when I was younger. Whoever came up with that idea deserves an award.

kek

like 3 years ago. guessing it assimilates multiple people

Because they realized the limitations of CGI, and worked with it in mind. The Balrog is mostly just a black silhouette that's on fire.
It's why Pacific Rim 1 looked good, while the 2nd looked awful. Everything in 1 is almost always obscured by darkness, explosions, or water. In 2 they try to show them off all at once in bright lighting and they look like ps3 models

he was asking for it

Attached: 1530680038582.jpg (3052x1736, 934K)

I posted it hoping someone would know what I'm talking about and post the video.
You contributed even less than I did with your snarky response.

delete this shit RIGHT NOW

they do in the RE games but i dunno if they got the idea from romero films

the four or five good movies that use cgi effectively are not worth the mountains of shit that roll out every month. cgi was a mistake.

hola reddit

>wrong aspect ratio
>interpolated
yikes

Well, zombies with the strength of a rotting corpse wouldn't really be scary, would they?

weren't the prequels the first set of movies with almost every shot having something cgi in it?

Attached: luke_senpai.jpg (1920x1080, 238K)

life of pi cgi studio. won an oscar then out of business the next year

K I N O
I
N
O

Does anyone have Leia's young version from Rogue One's ending?

uncanny valley only applies to human faces. its been proven a number of times animals (and aliens) can look completely real without hitting it.

they'd just be corpses then wouldn't they, m8

This isn't a Disney thing, whoever worked the graphics on POTC obviously did a great job

throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it; Black Panther had dreadful CGI. You have to hire the right people

Well, yes. That was the point.

so all the zoomers can tell who is who

Attached: zoomzoomzoom.png (480x561, 108K)

wouldn't be very scary, don't you think?

It's amazing how important Williams' score is to ANH. youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-GZJhfBmI

Fucking based capitalism!! businessmen are better than artists

Well, yes, that was the point.

The second Hellraiser film.

Attached: hellraiser.webm (1280x720, 1.78M)

cinema has had to make so many concessions to pleb auteurs along the way, the most onorous being the acceptance of CGI, that they're now handing out oscars to capeshit. if i had known this was the way things were going to end i would have joined the goddamn soviets.

For 1992/93 Jurassic Park still looked good even in the daytime.

Attached: Jurassic Park.webm (853x462, 1.03M)

could be scary, though. if you think about it. still wouldn't want one turning up unannounced.

Haha this looks so fucking bad, should've used real fire instead of greenscreen for everything but I guess the old entitled faggot would've cried about that like a bitch too.

Attached: aliens-7.webm (1920x1036, 2.83M)

That looks better than a lot of movies TODAY

>turbo-surface tension to melt a statue from the inside out
It's supposed to be that the statue deliberately hadn't cooled fully and the molten gold inside transfered enough heat energy to melt the presumably set gold on the surface without itself cooling. In other words, a phenomenon that's never been observed or recorded.
Even if they'd cast a hollow statue first, allowed it to cool enough to remain stable THEN filled it with molten gold, Smaug would have noticed it was giving off unusual amounts of heat considering gold can only be melted in a fucking crucible because it's not fucking milk chocolate.

>Look at Avatar, a 10 year old film, which Cameron put money and creative effort into. The results still hold up to this day.

Attached: laughing-laugh-mock-mocking-finger-point-pointing-600x400[1].jpg (600x400, 30K)

Probably looks better in motion

yo wtF

Attached: the hero we deserve.webm (1000x424, 1.93M)

Very true.

Attached: muldoon jurassic park.webm (1200x650, 2.91M)

were their two raptors?

Because Stan Winston oversaw both the CGI and practical effects and they extensively studied weight and locomotion of comparable land animals today. Spielberg allowed Winston to demand the CGI be as indistinguishable from his puppets as possible.

>lets a building get blown up for no reason
wtf

only the trex has a shadow

>CGI bodies
>looking good in motion
>ever

i am projectile vomiting because i know the plebs in this thread cannot even bring themselves to wipe their asses before posting and their keyboards are all shit-caked. please, Jesus, release me from the devil's world.

How can you type so much, yet not say anything

Attached: Excalibur (1981).webm (800x450, 1.4M)

Batman was right. Could have easily stopped that tanker yet let it destroy a parking garage just because.

it's a shitty parking garage and they built a children's hospital in its place. based snyder leaves no stone unturned.

Attached: All of You.webm (594x250, 2.94M)

Have you not seen the promo shots that were in some magazine? The marketing team didn't give a flying fuuuuuuuuuuuuudge!

Attached: 1521733712790.jpg (936x536, 105K)

This shit was cash af
not sure why the nerd brigade is crying over it

No, the raptor created a decoy using carcasses, leaves, and sticks. That's why he said she was clever. Not at all anything related to Grants foreshadowing when he explains to the kid how raptors would hunt.

>nobody posted the Magnum Opus of CGI

Attached: Arthur Activates Avatar State.webm (800x332, 2.96M)

The gun getting caught is such a great little detail

>clip looks fine
>what's wrong with it?
>lewks like ps2 game!

Well that was unsettling

Attached: Satan Is Pissed(2).webm (564x240, 2.76M)

is that one of the backstreet boys hopping around like a little fairy?

classic

Attached: James Bond Goldeneye.webm (1258x522, 2.76M)

>alitatists think this looks good

oh first of all i meant there. second ii'm a fucking idiot who thought there were two the whole time growing up.
fuck me

>the cgi is more real looking than their acting
wowee

The raptors or whatever cast very light shadows. What's aged badly is the eating part, probably because it's a little too closely modeled on a smaller animal's method of killing prey (if you're that large there's no point to shaking a prey animal to snap its neck) and there STILL isn't a consensus T. Rex was a predator instead of scavenger.

Other than the atrocious lighting and shadows, sure it looks pretty good

So this is what the alita spam is defending? Jesus fucking christ.

Attached: 1539720199360.jpg (330x246, 14K)

Bond does practical stunts well, and even the newer films do some a degree.

Attached: james bond licence to kill-3.webm (640x272, 2.88M)

Can we agree that Charlie Hunnam is not a good actor? He was mediocre in Sons of Anarachy and the only movie I can think of with him that wasn't awful was Pacific Rim. That had less to do with his acting though and more to do with giant badass robots fighting giant alien monsters. Any actor could have been cast there and it would have been a fun movie.

spirits within looks like shit now. back then you thought it was real life tho

This is one of 3 scenes they needed to fix to make this movie work for all genral audiences and critics

thank goodness that teamster escaped with his life to run home to his wife and kids.

Well for starters, the movie isn't in 60fps (or 48 or whatever that webm is)

Attached: Magneto Ends It.webm (1024x576, 1.68M)

Dead Man's Chest came out 3 years before Avatar.

It's from 2006.

Movies that are around 20 years old now, like The Matrix or LOTR look better than modern movies.

Attached: 1510547202654.png (500x565, 134K)

How long did it take Pierce to fatten up that little T-34?

The gigantic fucking eyes look shit no matter the framerate.

>spirits within looks like shit now. back then you thought it was real life tho
Subsurface scattering was not a widely used technique at the time and it was still a head scratcher as to why SW wasn't live action. By the time it was complete many of its techniques were outdated. The only good thing that came out of it was that nude portrait of Aki.

I love this movie so much. The wedding song always gives me goosebumps and Mordred is such a fantastic villain.

>you only think it looks bad because you are being tricked by specifics

my nigga. it looks dumb for reasons beyond what frames per second it is played in. at some point you will be growing a sense of taste, yes? sometime in your life? mummy demands it.

>Fellowship of the Ring uses darkness and smoke to obscure CGI
>Return of the King has a green ghost army occupy the entire screen in broad daylight
Viggo was right, even the original trilogy gets progressively worse

>you wanna play good, you hope you play good...you know I think we played pretty good tonight.
The basketball one is funny and the movie holds up pretty well honestly.

>Subsurface scattering
what is that and what movies use it

>When she tries to leave Pierces dinner before finishing her meal

It's fun, I'm not sure I'd say it holds up

Attached: Liz Hurley Bedazzled.webm (1280x720, 2.85M)

Licence to Kill has the best explosions of any film I've ever seen.

KEK

It was a Lada before

Attached: the great martian war.webm (1280x720, 2.85M)

theres no reason to watch it other than liz hurley so the movie is in fact eternally great

There still has literally never been better cgi to this day.

>Pleb
Kate Beckinsale

>Patrician
Liz Hurley

You make a compelling point user

Attached: Police Officer Abusing Authority.webm (564x240, 2.91M)

>director yells "cut"
>none of the boys move from their desks for 15 minutes

Technically, Cameron is one of the last man who still really care about his craft. Unfortunately, his movies have been nothing but a pile of cliches and common places pretty much since the 80s.

It was never a blockbuster or anything. Was always just a mindless fun little movie, so by that standard it is still enjoyable to watch if you want a mindless comedy. You get pre-justing Brendan Fraser and prime Elizabeth Hurley in it.

Attached: kate beckinsale underworld-2.webm (800x450, 1.76M)

Practical effects by her surgeon.

Now now, it's ok to have a favourite but lets not get into a pissing match about it

Attached: 1551384763176.webm (986x554, 2.75M)

>wtf is this the 80s? hahahaha cover that shit up with ps2 graphics pls
- audiences

i sometimes wonder whether movies have been purposefully demystified and now meaningful movies only come out because they're deeply coded and none of the higher ups have a chance to scrap their more meaningful elements.

Supernatural has stopped giving a fuck, this is from the current season

Attached: This Is Fine.png (967x768, 395K)

Is every single cent spent in any marketing endeavor included in a movie's budget? If yes then that'd be a huge percentage of the budget.

As a nerd who uses Poser/DAZ Studio, this is technically excellent because the pillow is the only thing in the shot that's actually there. The skin and hairs are all 100% lifelike, the eyes reflect and refract without flaw, and literally the only mistake is the carved-looking sharp boundary between upper lip and surrounding skin.

i guess this is now a dumb broads thread.

>theres no reason to watch it other than liz hurley
except to see how a remake of a classic Dudley Moore film comes out

The eyes being of comically huge proportions is just a minor oversight.

CGI well done still holds up 30 years later
youtu.be/HzZkNdn5hpA

If you want to see what The Thing could have looked like, the effects company crowd funded a movie called Harbinger Down

Attached: red dwarf - Goldeneye tank.webm (480x360, 2.42M)

Since the PR divisions are now included in the credits in movies and games, I would say yes.

i thought that was a real animatronic dino thing

It can be whatever you want it to be

Attached: Blue Alien Jizz.webm (1920x1080, 756K)

Looks fine in high-res. Next.

>Next

Attached: Avengers Assemble 60fps.webm (640x360, 2.71M)

>CGI
youtube.com/watch?v=B4J9TBlFxAg
She rotted to pieces within a year of the film wrapping, sad to say. Foam rubber and silicone aren't meant to last.

The higher res you go the more apparent it becomes how shitty the CGI Superman there looks.

>DCucks defend this

Attached: 1529958429686.jpg (3500x2940, 441K)

Thread's on autosage so I'll post one more.

Attached: Battle of Britain.webm (854x364, 2.03M)

They used both CGI and animatronics.

Attached: Movie Magic_no audio.webm (746x420, 2.88M)

The problem with CGI is that you can capture movement nearly impossible to capture even with the best digital camera out there, and the paradox is how to recapture the LIMITATIONS of film to make it not look fake.

Ridley Scott is apparently directing a new BoB film, I wonder how much of it will be CG.

"Meaningful" movies are now relegated to smaller venues, like streaming. It's got its pros and cons, since they get much more freedom but they also get buried among tons of shit like Adam Sandler films.
Big movies now rely on gimmicks and a big opening weekend. With a guy like Cameron, at least you can appreciate him still pushing himself to improve the technical aspect of his films, unlike people like Spielberg who obviously don't give a shit about it anymore, or Jackson who obviously got totally burned out. I just wish he'd put all that knowledge and technical capacity into better movies.

Who's the ponytailed girl?

This is from Stargate Studios' demo reel. Most of their work goes unknown because they excel at background replacement and in particular digitally relighting actors to match digitally inserted scenery regardless of the shot lighting. They have created databases of most film and digital cameras' temperatures, lens properties, etc. just to automate matching in post. It's fucking ridiculous what they can do.
vimeo.com/238996305

It doesn't. Movie makes great use of grain to cover up any inadequacies. Just rewatched the scene. It's perfectly fine.

>RE:RE:RE:RE:IDEA FOR PROMO NEED IMMIDIEATELY
Some intern probably had a miserable day.

aaaaa

>Chewbacca's screech
Heh. But music is obviously important to a film, would anyone really argue otherwise? The binary sunset scene wouldn't have nearly the same impact without the force theme.

>Looks fine
Capeshitters always make me laugh

Attached: 1551930216187.png (455x443, 230K)

you miss spelled brendan

>still holds up
>ages very well
>for its time
why do retards keep spouting this shit? cgi has only gotten worse

For the like six frames Cavill's face is in shot, it's reflecting a lot of light for a too-darkened scene and so is the skin of the guy throwing him. His expression seems fixed and his hair is SHINY both making him look plastic.

what is happening here

Kill yourself

For England, James?