Why won't other directors implement miniatures instead of CGI shitfests to create extremely realistic looking locations...

About 50% of costs is licensing and marketing these days.

blade runner 2049 was mostly miniatures

Image your job was to make those, that would be dope

Big studios inflate the budgets so that they can pay less taxes. Less net profit on paper, less taxes to pay.

i remember reading this one interview where viggo mortensen criticised jackson's use of CGI in the second and third films, the interview was conducted in 2014 or something. pretty funny considering how much CGI there WASN'T in those films compared to everything we've seen past 2008 or so... but i'm sure viggo didn't mean it disrespectfully.

>cost cutting

Attached: ducks eating apple.webm (1280x720, 1.16M)

>ducks eating apple.webm

Attached: laughing storks.gif (400x225, 1.96M)

Star Wars prequels had a ton of miniatures

CGI isn't made by slaves in a basement you know. That shit costs money too. Miniatures can't be that expensive.
I think it's because of time. Movies barely have scripts now, and you need to know what you want when you're dealing with miniature since it takes time to make them.

You have no clue of what you're talking about, loser.

everyone making blockbusters now has in house CGI teams, you're paying their salaries whether you want to use them or not, no reason getting some incel model builders in even if its 'cheaper'

>might as well make it look shit because you're paying for it!
also
>incel model builders
edgy, i guess that's why the behind the scenes for lotr has been viewed millions upon millions of times and no one gives a shit about cgi indians that ruin most movies

youtube.com/watch?v=jhpFsO8wUoI

youtube.com/watch?v=toFOhKVouCg

What cost $93000000 in 2001 would cost $135144376.02 in 2018.

CGI lighting is as good as real life now. If you go back and watch LOTR it looks like shit.

Attached: dgfdfgdfgdgfdgfure.jpg (1149x856, 67K)

If the miniatures are rendered in CAD or something before being printed/sculpted, then just using the renderings skips a step... though light rendering and shit is a whole extra process so maybe it's not that much easier.

>CGI lighting is as good as real life now

Attached: Avengers-6.jpg (1777x937, 183K)

>If you go back and watch LOTR it looks like shit.

Attached: Return-of-The-King.jpg (1280x720, 49K)

>>CGI lighting is as good as real life now.

Attached: rev-1-amn-vfx-ilm-1019rv2-high-res-jpeg-1545237106.jpg (2133x1200, 308K)

>>If you go back and watch LOTR it looks like shit.
imagine being you right now

Attached: 91973283fd8edcf3810a235777ac188a.jpg (1920x800, 218K)

IIRC that's a physical set where Frodo is, all the other buildings are miniatures, the mountains are real and photographed separately, not sure about the trees though

marvel....

that is some horrendous tone and saturation. are these flicks made for ADHD ridden people?

which skyrim mod is that?

>He thinks all capeshit is Marvel
>Second image is Aquaman, one of DC's most notourious characters and the 3rd most popular behind Batman and Superman

all capeshit is mass produced trash, you cant judge CGI's abilities with capeshit

miniatures? real sets? you don't understand bro thats shit compared to the as-good-as-real-life examples provided of today's kinema

Still blows my mind how good this movie looks 18 years later. Cave troll is really the only thing in the whole movie that hasn't aged well.

and time
Jackson had a lot of time for the lotr trilogy but he got shoehorned into the hobbit shits and didn't have time to do anything

They are not passionate about their work lol

>you can't judge CGI using the most acclaimed and profit-amassing movies of today
would you like to move any other goalpost? we're comparing one of the highest grossing films of the 00's with the highest grossing films of the 10's.

because miniatures are as fake looking as CGI

>new movie vs established universe
>what is inflation

My point is that most of that image isn't actually CGI. It was also made almost two decades ago so of course it's not going to look as good.

Because waiting for set designers top build something that takes 4-6 months just so you see it and go that doesn't work sets you back a stupidly long fucking time filming

>not understanding sarcasm
>thinking i actually implied it looks worse
the lighting is CGI which was the point of the conversation anyway you dickhead

And that's what differentiates a film from kino to utter trash.

BASED
only someone passionate about seeing his work stand the test of time does this.
It's how you separate the real filmmakers from those who are in it for the paycheck.

>Throws a blunt torch
>It gets stuck in the face
Wow Jackson... Bravo... *clap clap*

Attached: d4x1mos.png (480x360, 113K)

Attached: 1486920738799.jpg (458x458, 28K)

yeah just like interstellar right?

Can't tell it's a model there!, amazing work team! kino movie

Not for a second did it look like shit, the movie was lame but you can't deny it looked great where it counted.

It would've been even more expensive, you literal retard. Fuck, you're stupid

>didn't notice the model jittering
>clearly see it's a fucking model

Yeah, also known as millennials

my 14 year old sister told me LOTR ruined every other film for her so there's still hope.

What, which scene?

didnt the elf surf down an elephant face? surely that doesnt look too great anymore

It does look good desu

how many elephants did they have to kill to get the shot right?

Yeah, sure, and compositing is at its most advanced state, so much it's impossible for the naked eye to tell what's a green screen and what's a real set.

it holds up honestly

Attached: tenor.gif (497x280, 3.35M)