How the fuck do you nerds in the industry explain this?
How the fuck do you nerds in the industry explain this?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
Genysis did not happen. It's a fan flick
Shift in the industry from prosthetics to CGI.
Practical effects look better.
first to were directed by cameron
>Genysis' T800 isn't even on-model and looks retarded
There were only two terminator movies
The 1984 Terminator looks fucking jacked even without the skin
Also this
1984 left is obviously makeup. The animatronics and unironic fucking stop-motion for the robot skeletons always looked like trash.
they changed the cameras and cgi always looks worse than real world models- assuming you aren't modelling something like a human face.
there was a long and well known trick to shooting puppets and animatronics by using clever shadows and lighting to mask the plastic/fake look they have.
it's significantly harder to do good shadows on cgi, and it's also counter productive, you spend all this time and effort to make cool looking animations then you need to spend even more time to bury it in shadows and darkness so it looks natural and normal. it's also a whole different group of people, the puppet guys didn't become the computer guys, and by and large it's not the _best_ people that go into movie animations. a lot of failed programmers and dodgy fly by night european companies who offer subpar service for a ridiculous fee because the studio and director have nfi what it costs to do high quality 3d modelling (spoiler: almost nothing, maybe 50k for the gear and 150k for 3 people working for 5 months)
>hulking evil cyberskelly
>turn it into a skinny twink skelly with veneers
i dont understand hollywood
I've never seen a human being with their eyes 3/4s of the way up their face. Your eyes sit 1/2 way up your face. They teach you that in high school art class. How did they mess up the face so bad in Genisys?
It would't look so bad if the CGI guy wouldn't be such a jawlet.
Major franchise films shouldn't be put on the cookiecutter production conveyor belt. They should be the films that the studio plans professionally and releases it when it's ready.
Like Avatar 2.
Bad CG is always the director/ production's fault. The buck stops with them and what you're seeing is their poor choices. The vfx companies are totally cucked and just keep redoing shots for free. With practical stuff you get maybe 2 takes at most and that's it. Nolan's movies have decent CG because he just sticks with the plate lighting and doesn't keep picking at it.
The bottom is a jewish cash in whereas the first two are Aryan pieces of art.
Thank god you're here user, nobody else remembered it existed.
Does anyone else think that T2 is vastly overrated?
I much prefer T1
Why did you omit salvation? That movie had great effects
youtu.be
I believe Stan Winston died.
stan winston is the GOAT, that's how you explain it
It would be nice to have a thread about a film series without the absolutely pointless autistic obsession with ranking every film in it against each other.
They're entirely different but 1 does have more soul
Why, the bottom left shot could be fixed by changing the lighting alone. If they lowered the exposure on the face the eye would glow in the dark illuminating Arnie´s face red while hidding the edges of the CGI mask and the back lighting would provide adequate rim separation between the subject and the BG improving the shot.
The problem is not CGI as a tool but the use that is made of that tool. I get that the artists bother to make a model as detailed as possible and then render it for hours so they don´t want to hide it with lighting and camera tricks but that kind of cinematography and work arounds are what made Terminator or Alien memorable. When they show the whole thing because of pride the emotional shock and the narration both suffer but again, that´s not a problem with the toold but with the ways the tools are used.
True.
why doesnt the t 800 have a gap in teeth like arnold
The stop motion is of course wonky looking but Stan Winston’s animatronics hold up very well especially considering the original Terminator’s small budget.
Dunno if it's from the uncanny valley effect of CGI but the stop motion scene is still more suspenseful. I dunno if that's because our brains can that the the model "exists", like it's a real object with weight, even though it's crudely animated.
This.
Thanos looked good btw.
Off topic but could they have no done better than that Thanos guy as the final boss in the MCU? It's laughable that basically the genie from Aladdin is the big bad enemy they've spent 40 movies fighting to end.
CGI is cheap and fast and the normies don't give a fuck
They could have if they had the rights to Fantastic Four or X-Men at the time.
I know at least seven normies and they all gave a fuck. Each one.
He's only the first final boss. What do you think is gunna happen to the MCU after Endgame? It's just going to finish?
they're going to build up to another final boss
Terminator 2's make up looks so fucking God tier holy shit
>nerds in the industry
>on Yea Forums
>It's just going to finish?
Please fucking tell me you're joking. This has to be the end of all this capeshit crap. If it goes on for another 10 years it will kill cinema dead.
It will end once it stops being profitable. You know there is no end in sight when garbage like Captain Marvel makes $1B.
>I know at least seven normies
>I know normies
Then you're a normie yourself and your opinion is invalid
Nanomachines
No your opinion is invalid, NERD!
Cameron has soul
genysis looked fine
youtube.com
Skynet should sell toothpaste. Look at those pearly whites!
Where does skynet get the teeth for the terminators