Are most modern movies more forgettable in part because they

Digital film has literally next to no grit. People don't recognize this for some reason but shooting a film digitally is having to work against the deathness of the material.

CGI is ruining movies. Real scenes are important for the feel of a movie. CGI used to be used for simple but far too hard things to accomplish without it. Now it's used Simply because it's cheaper. Movie industry is starting to die.

>>80313830
fpbp

>>80313877
>fpbp
I don't see how 'framed pseudo-bayesian priority' has anything to do with anything here.

File: 1352174427079.jpg (62KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1280x800px

>>80312496
say what you want about this movie, but seeing cgi flynn and the grid in realistic glory is good enough for a few wallpapers at least

>>80312496
Daily reminder that The Thing sequel was shot with practical effects and then redone with cgi instead.

File: screenshot-lrg-32.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>80314008

>>80313830
ridiculous statement

>le CGI boogeyman meme

CGI itself is not bad, it's bad when it's used out of laziness and lack of ideas.
Even other recent movies praised for their practical effects like Fury Road and Interstellar have a shitload of CGI in them too, but it's used as a tool to touch up and improve the already set ideas and set pieces.

Full CGI sequences work only if the director knows exactly what he wants (Avatar, Gravity), but in most cases the director just hires an army of CGI rendering slaves from a visual effects company and tells them only general guidelines of how he wants something to look, leaving the company to be the actual creative part which is an impossible task because it's a whole army of people trying to form a singular piece.

Most David Fincher films have a lot of CGI scenes, but most viewers don't even notice it.
CGI is just a tool like any other, you just need to know how and when to use it.

>>80312496
>What are some movies that do cgi right?
avatar

>>80314082
Avatar looks like absolute shit.

what was the name of that CGI fest from maybe 2010? Fantasy with a bunch of gods or something fighting eachother in slow-mo and everyone getting dismembered. It was a very grey movie.


anyway, I think the only time(s) I've been mad at CGI was suffering through the Hobbit movies. Ugly as fuck movies.

>>80314072
Look at the pics posted in this thread. They are too clean. No grain, no basic underlying substance whatsoever. If something is too clean it's unnatural, anon.

>>80314125
>Avatar looks like absolute shit.
yeah no

>>80314119
Only that this film was also forgetable as hell.

>>80314187
>Only that this film was also forgetable as hell.
maybe but thats unrelated to its cgi usage

blockbusters are forgettable by design because companies don't want to be in the position of competing with their own products next year/quarter.

>>80314008
its a shame such great audio and visual design was wasted on that god-awful script.

>>80314171
It does, it looks like a shitty videogame. Get your eyes fixed.

>>80314031
>The Thing sequel
Prequel

And that sucks

everything in logan was great except the terrible mutant kids

>>80314171
>Literally looks like video game cinematics
>Not shit

>>80313850
color grading is worse than cgi

>>80314422
the most reddit thing I've ever read

With digital cameras you have to color grade, go watch any RAW file of an Alexa or RED camera and tell me does it look good just by itself.
Yes bad movies have an atrocious color pallete slapped on them, but so is every other filmmaking element atrocious too. Color grading is just a tool like any other.

>>80314422
Generalisations like that are fucking retarded and show you know nothing about film and filmmaking.

>>80314632
>the most reddit thing I've ever read
Please fucking go back there then.