>“I think I can count on one hand how many times I saw a green screen in all of those months of shooting,” he said. “There will be CG enhancements, of course, but as much as possible it was in-camera.”
>“I hate green screens. It sucks out all my energy. I get depressed,” Villeneuve said. “For Blade Runner, we tried our best to do as much as possible in-camera, building everything.”
>Villeneuve added that one of his biggest regrets for Arrival was that they had to go with CGI aliens, saying he would’ve preferred a “gigantic aquarium with gigantic beasts that would be moved by puppeteers,” but that they didn’t have the budget for that. Well, considering that Blade Runner 2049 is being called one of the most expensive R-rated films ever made, it looks like they have the budget this time around.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/director-says-cgi-will-take-a-backseat-to-practical-eff-1792253940
It sucks they're bringing Ford back for this. He was always the weakest part of Blade Runner. Even worse now that he's old and doesn't even have the charisma that used to carry him.
trailer was sterile digital shit
looked like macbeth(which looked good in its own right), totally missed the mark t b h
>>79329721
For real
Also this feels totally like pandering to the Reddit muh practical effects crowd
Good CGI is good, good practical effects are good, this is justification for shit practical effects under the guise of 'at least it's not CGI!'
>>79329721
Unfortunately Batty and Rachael are long dead assuredly. The replicants were the emotional core of the film not Deckard. I think that's why so many people disconnect from Blade Runner. The protag is boring and unchanged really and all the development is with the robots/antagonists.
>>79329785
>practical effects are now reddit
what the fuck isn't reddit, then? transformers 2?
>>79329785
kill yourself
>>79329849
That's not remotely what I said you asspie
>>79329665
Oh just make do the fucking movie you ponce.
>>79329785
legit post
this is exactly the same PR bullshit that JJ did, then it turned out VII had just as much if not more CGI than ROTS
CGI for world building can be incredible, such as Zodiac from fincher, almost the entirety of all out door scenes and world building is CGI. Most people don't even realize it's all CGI.
However when you start CGI'ing living things (like people), fights and that sort of thing it becomes a distraction because it simply doesn't look "right".
CGI for static things = generally good
CGI for moving, living things = generally shitty
>>79330202
I know you're saying generally so you can cover all bases (so that I couldn't for instance say that Starship Troopers has great CGI for living creatures and the prequel trilogy has awful CGI for scenery), but the fact of the matter is that all CGI has potential to look good even decades after the films release.
CGI studios are 99% of the time given completely unrealistic deadlines and nowhere near enough funding for what they've been asked to make such that they are forced to constantly cut corners because producers have verified that audiences will accept shoddy CGI that ages very poorly.
People often say why does the CGI in X look so poor in [current year] but almost no films are made with the peak in current technology, as studios are forced to compromise so heavily they're often using tech more than a decade old. There was a youtube video where two guys from the studio who did the SFX for the 2011 The Thing movie talk about all this but I've not been able to find it after seeing it the first time.
>>79330434
I am saying generally because it's very easy to create realistic static/world building elements and very hard to create realistic living, moving things. Especially things that we know how they should move like a person, even more so when they are on screen with actual people.
Can it be done? Absolutely. But it's far easier to do it poorly when you aren't truly dedicated to it, and most productions aren't.
Like District 9 had very good effects for the aliens (from what I remember anyway), because if you fucked that up you'd fuck the movie up because they are core to it (the same as in your ST example). But when you use CGI as filler, stop-gaps or easy ways out instead of doing small amounts of practical work, shit falls through the cracks, less money and time is dedicated and what do you know, it looks shit because it's hard to do.
Nice! Looking forward to the film, although I worry about the state of Harrison Fords acting skills.
>>79330434
The reason the bugs in ST look so good is they were wire puppeteered and then CG enhanced and added into the shots. So the movements of them look much more natural then a fully CG animated creature
Also, this is the Studio ADI video you were trying to find
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdDwrY5KpvI&t=1423s
>>79329665
TFA had practical effects and the movie was shit. When will fans realize the studios marketing is fucking with them? They know exactly which buttons to push to create hype.