Just saw A:C today. The whole time watching, I couldnt stop wishing

Guardians of the Galaxy felts like it was shot on a single set which was just a big green box, then they drew the movie in around the actors. Yeah the drawing was great but it never felt like any of it was happening. In these old sets the actors could actually feel like they were there.

>>83038812
I dont understand why movies dont use miniatures anymore, it looks much better than CGI. A:C couldve looked a lot better had they used a miniature for their ship

When David and Walter visit Shaw's grave, the camera goes to a wide shot that shows them standing among what looks like a stand of cypress trees in a ruin. That frame is a recreation of a painting, but I can't remember the name of it.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

>>83038969
>I dont understand why movies dont use miniatures anymore
money.

>>83038559
>practical effects
I'm really getting sick of this meme. Most practical effects looked like shit.

>>83039996
You know what? Just fuck off you fucking faggot. I'm so sick of autists like you "Oh? HURRRRRRR FUCKING DUURRRRRRRRRR"

You're opinion is as fucking retarded as your existence you fucking faggot, kys

>>83039926
Surely 3D printing is cheaper than CGI.

File: IOTD.jpg (986KB, 2418x1288px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 2418x1288px

>>83039899

Found it, Böcklin's Isle of the Dead.

>>83040090
>I'm so sick of autists like you "Oh? HURRRRRRR FUCKING DUURRRRRRRRRR"

That's literally Alien cuck fans in a nutshell. You're all nothing but a bunch of fickle contradicting bitches.

>>83040090
Hes right though. Most practical effects look like shit. Just like most CGI looks like shit.

It's safe to say most special effects look like shit. So bitching about one or the other is idiotic.

>>83040381
That looks like the island in Conan the Destroyer.

>>83038559
i just wish that action/drama scenes could be done professionally again
literally every movie uses 3-5 second cuts and it destroys any impression
the only thing 1 minute takes are used for in movies is crybaby shit

>>83038559
Ironically, the movie uses tons of life size sets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_kr8mAM5Dg

>>83040192
Yeah but first you'd have to make the object in CG before printing it

>>83040667
Practical done right >CGI done right

Compare the parts in Jurassic Park of the T-Rex. The practical always looks better.

>>83040813
Yeah the sets where good. I'm honestly just refering to the ship.

>>83040381
>Böcklin
aka. Gary Oldman.

>>83038559

What I missed is people looking like actual people. Sure, there were actresses and actors that had superb facial features but their bodies were more natural and average. Now every fucker looks like their on the cycle and women look like their in a porno.

Seeing that wake up scene from Alien and Aliens really made me miss that. Makes the actors more relatable if they aren't a like completely jacked.

Like in Terminator Genysis, the guy playing Kyle looked like he just got out of the gym and was eating healthy every day and not constantly trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world with scarce resources.

>>83040923
negro I'd bet money you can't even tell when they swap from CGI to practical.

>>83041270
Lol come on now, its obvious which is which. Show me a scene from that movie where the dino looks as good CGI as practical and I will concede.

>>83041393
its a trick assertion because there isn't a single pure CGI or pure practical scene in Jurassic park.

>>83041433
>there isn't a single pure practical scene in Jurassic park.
nigga wat

>Congo (1995): People complain about too little CGI
>Avatar (2009): People complain about too much CGI

I just don't get it.

CGI has always been shit, by the way.

>>83041063
Remember when actors didn't have perfect teeth?

File: jurassic-park-t-rex-car.png (285KB, 916x425px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 916x425px

>>83041433
I meant to say shot

It's not the CGI.

It's the way the movies were made because film was expensive and camera weighted 100 pounds. How the fuck you cut a movie who has the equivalent of 30 gopros filming one scene ? Hardware limitation is always good in art.

>>83041513
>Congo (1995)
Pretty sure people complained about more than CGI with that one. Not really a great comparison to Avatar, which didn't really have a CGI problem so much as a bland story with cookie cutter characters.

File: iotd-gL.jpg (271KB, 1200x856px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1200x856px

>>83040381
Don't forget Giger's version.

>>83041981
Where are the vaginas?

>>83038674
This looks like shit. Who dosen't think this could be improved by cgi?

>>83042367
What the FUCK dude, it looks fantastic

>>83041513
People don't complain about CG when it's seamless.

See David Fincher's Zodiac. You probably didn't even know there was CG in it.

>>83042367
>This looks like shit

Opinion discarded

>when it was ok to have varied real colors in films and not mandatory to have an autistic as fuck faggot color filter over every frame

>>83042446

I was probably being unfair, I don't disagree with this.

Definitely seems to be overused and used more as a cost cutting measure in so many movies today unfortunately, though.

File: Stalingrad.png (190KB, 1677x469px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1677x469px

One of the greatest scenes in film history