Is there a genuine, non-emotional/nostalgic, rational argument

>>81763724
All of those pros can also become cons
>Studios hire cheap 3rd world CGI outfits that look like shit
>Patch shoddy filming with CGI
>CGI looks genuine except in live stuff where it just looks uncanny valley at best and trash at worst
>Stupid scenes are done in CGI because they're too retarded for reality
>writing is just dead generally because CGI is just that much cheaper.

>>81763724
>Technology has reached a point where, if done right, CGI looks genuine
Never seen this

>>81763724
>>Technology has reached a point where, if done right, CGI looks genuine

What movie and where?

>>81765269
>>81765354
Not OP but imho Warcraft orcs look realer than real orcs

Cheaper only when it looks like shit, genuine looking only when it costs an arm and a leg

>>81765409
This.

If you want to CGI some extra cars into a scene, sure. But CGI of living things still has a way to go.

it looks fake and stupid.

Beacuse most directors use it in the wrong way. CGI in most of Hollywood is used as a crutch rather than a tool. You hire bad directors, bad cinematographers, bad set designers etc because "cgi will fix it".

>>81765623

Not really. The studio just decide cgi is cheaper and more dependable

It's dishonest filmmaking.

People are terrible about acting around CGI. So what you end up with is a disconnect between the humans acting and the set itself.

You also have a dramatically larger amount of effort necessary to make CGI look even decent in comparison to if you used a mix of practical effects with a bit of CGI. Just look at Thunderbolt Fantasy, they used puppets and could make the show seem more fantastical and have greater visuals than most animation. It's hard to make something look real, no matter how good the CGI, it currently always looks fake.

Look at the recent The Thing sequel/remake, they tried replacing all the practical effects done with CGI and it looks horrendous. People could look back at the original and notice how amazing the visual were there in comparison, because they used real objects and practical effects.

There is no financial benefit to making a franchise movie good. It literally doesn't matter. As long as it follows some basic formula people recognise it will make the same amount of money as an authentic masterpiece. So the only challenge is in cutting costs as much as possible

I think there's an uncanny element to it, even when you see something like a model of a spaceship versus a CGI one you are able to suspend disbelieve more because while both may be fake, one is something you could actually touch with your hands, so is the more "real" special effect.

That said, I think CGI is a handy tool, but filmmakers go way overboard with it, it shouldn't be the be all end all of special effects, practical effects should still be the first method used.

>>81765354
Elysium

>>81765354
A ton of movies you probably didn't notice.

CG characters, especially real stuff we know what it actually looks like, never looks authentic. But backgrounds work fine, especially if there's enough real set for the actors to interact with and CG fills in the rest.

It's basically a easier and more advanced version of the forced perspective miniatures they used to use.

CGI is best used as a replacement for stop motion effects, in fact that's how it began, as a replacement for the stop motion dinosaur effects in Jurassic Park they were originally going to use.

CGI is superior to stop motion because while it may have it's charm, the movement will never look as "smooth" as CGI.

But you'll notice that in Jurassic Park CGI was ONLY used for shots that would have been stop motion, everything else with the dinosaurs was animatronics or puppets, that's why you watch the movie today and the CGI shots look dated, but everything else look like real fucking dinosaurs.

So it should NOT be used as a replacement for practical makeup effects, sets, puppets, animatronics, models etc, anytime you have the opportunity to create something that exists in a physical space, filmmakers should go for it over CGI.

This is why I think Kong: Skull Island is one of the better movies to come out recently because a lot of it was shot on location, the majority of the CGI was used for Kong and the other creatures, exactly like the original film used for stop motion, contrast that with the Peter Jackson Kong where everything was done on blue screen sound stages.

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.

>>81763724
It doesn't age well mostly.

>>81763724

It doesn't look as good.

Obviously depending on what you're doing.

I mean practical > digital.

However, to do, say a practical Transformer that matches the shots and movements of the digital Transformers would set you back billions.

>>81765623
No, they hire good directors, good cinematographers and good set designers.

Then tell them "no" when they ask for stuff and force them to use cgi. The big names arnt losing work to random unknowns, they're just bring given shitter jobs.

>>81765972
>This is why I think Kong: Skull Island is one of the better movies to come out recently because a lot of it was shot on location

Maybe the CGI itself is good in the movie, but it had the most *extremely in awe gazing nowhere in the distance with my mouth slightly open* green screen shots of faces looking at nothing at all in any movie ever.
It was so ridiculous, everyone reacts the same no matter is it just a small weird flower or a giant monster animal right beside them.

>>81765375
you got a lot of real orcs around your way? you must live in Florida.

>>81763724
>overused
>doesn't look genuine no matter how advanced
>gives almost all film an identical aesthetic

Sometimes CGI works for stuff when it's like magic or something, because that's how you actually imagine it to look? If that makes sense.

Like HP or Doctor Strange or whatever. Same for like lasers, beams, space and stuff.

But sometimes doing stuff like having CGI explosions or what have you end up looking really phony. It is better now across the board, and is really good in some movies.

Honestly sometimes you can't even tell they are using it cuz it's sprinkled into scenes that are mad up of 98% practical stuff. Most big budget productions have cgi somewhere in it

File: MV5BMTc1NTM4NDExOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjE2NzYzNQ@@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,989_AL_.jpg (283KB, 1777x989px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1777x989px

>>81763724
100% CG is the future. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is the most underrated movie of all time and it never got fair reviews simply because of the name.

Also I fucking hate lens flare/diffraction spikes/chromatic aberration/shallow focus/lens distortion/film grain/etc. CG frees us from the limitations of real world optics. Simulating this crap is as retarded as low pass filtering your music because you listened to analog audio tapes as a kid. 8K noise-free 120fps deep focus under candlelight or starlight? With CG it's possible.

Nothing beats the real deal

>>81765375
just use niggers

>>81765988
Avatar was cool, and I'm not denying it looked nice, but it also looked beyond fake, like to the point where it took me out of it a little

>well duh everything was fictional when they were jacked in

I'm aware, it still looked silly.

>>81766394
it was a bad movie with bad voice acting. the cgi was okay in places but it was really awfully animated.

>>81766394
Why did they name it that. They were aware of what they were doing, weren't they?

>>81766570
After all the normalfags bought FFVII, I think they really believed the franchise could be mainstream popular and it wasn't just the novelty of pre-rendered video on a games console.

>>81766394
But most films aren't 100% CGI, so they artificially insert lens flares/diffraction spikes/chromatic aberration/shallow focus/lens distortions to match the rest of the shots which are filmed with a real camera infront of lights and actors.