Why Modern Movies Suck - CGI Overload
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2022
- CGI is everywhere now. Its tough to think of a single big budget film that doesn't have some kind of digital effects shot in there somewhere. And well, it's starting to get pretty tiresome.
- Zábava
![[실시간] 전철에서 찍힌 기생생물 감염 장면 | 기생수: 더 그레이](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4nkFvwxGAfA/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to help support this channel?
Check out my books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Will-Jordan/e/B00BCO7SA8/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_ebooks_1
Subscribe on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker
Subscribe on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the-critical-drinker
Jurassic Park was great. 300 killed CGI for me. On a different note. Were you waiting for the show to end with Obi-Wan thing to make a video about it? Or you're done with Star Wars? Or it's too painfull to even watch? Yeah I know all the jedi mass shooting is pretty triggering. Some escaped...
You don't mind computer-generated images for Transformers
It's not CGI, it's how it's used czcams.com/video/bL6hp8BKB24/video.html
Quick question, how do we contact you if we have movie suggestions or recommendations?
Shoulda done ya boy vomiting after your Natalie Portperson bit. I know I did.
It's ironic how CGI is so overused in live-action yet the medium of animation itself is so undervalued
mad facts
Damn right! Imagine the kinds of animated movies we could get if you took a CGI-heavy live-action movie and stripped out the live-action.
I wish I could like this a 1000 times.
Sure. But what's ironic is that you yourself separate them. It IS animation in the live-action films. The only real difference is sometimes the level of detail but mostly how it's rendered/the aesthetic. Hell even the same programs are used for both live action/hybrid films, and animation. But we're stuck in this old/myopic mindset. Lion King is a good example. The new one, while being completely redundant and pointless, is an animated movie. But marketed as live action, because the rendering is photoreal. But both movies were completely hand/keyframe animated. No mocap. because duh.
And semantics but notsomuch overused as misused. An important distinction. Anyway my 2c.
@@halfvader8015 Your right dude , Live action film is just animation, there is a reason they use to call it moving pictures lol.
“Terminator 2” is the perfect example of how to use CGI properly and efficiently. The CGI in that movie is still respectable, by today’s standards. The fact that they relied mostly upon real life effects and used CGI, only when necessary is what makes it great.
Always love that they flew a real helicopter under a bridge.
Definitely
@@doomkeepercanada it has badass written all over it
i think it all plays into that "uncanny" effect that comes with CGI the more "realistic" it becomes. we have evolved as a species to spot when something is off or unnatural.
And Linda Hamilton got herself JACKED for that movie. No CGI on her.
Possibly the saddest side effect from overuse of CGI is that audiences are so ruined by CGI that they don't trust actual effects and aren't in awe the way they should be.
That car flip initially seemed fake to me, and I thought the scene was lame, but then he said it was real. My jaw dropped at the talent and danger that went into it!!
@@matthew8505 For another insane 70s vehicle scene, watch Sorcerer if you haven’t seen it.
@@matthew8505 you seriously couldn't tell that was real?
I'm so glad I grew up in the day of practical effects
Critical! I saw you mentioned Aberdeen and on the tiny chance you read this please reply cos I live in Aberdeen and I barely get to see anyone even mention them.
I find it interesting that in the same movie you had Natalie Portman, who couldn't be bothered to even get a little toned for her role, and Christian Bale who goes to absolute extremes to match his physical appearance to the role he is playing. Goes to show that some people really don't care about the product they are putting out and others REALLY care.
I've been saying it for years, Natalie Portman is just a poor man's Keira Knightley.
That's why Dennis Quaid's portrayal of Doc Holliday was the closest you'll ever come to seeing the real Doc. He lost 40 pounds for that role and nailed it. Val Kilmer's version was a clown show, a puffy sweaty actor in makeup.
Natalie *Portperson
Actors take a lot of steroids to get in shape. Natalie Portman would have had to train for years in order to look the way she does in the film. Chris Hemsworth did months of training, and also steroids, and he is a man. The same result cannot be expected from anyone.
Keanu Reeves literally trained months with Taran tactical to film the crazy action scenes in John Wick while everyone else just does cgi bullets and cut every 5 seconds to hide the fact they didnt train anything and just try to make it look half convincing
dont get me started with Tom Cruise, mofo has broken the most dangerous scene filmed ever record twice
Watching Top Gun: Maverick reminded me just how visually impressive movies can be without a constant barrage of CGI nightmares. CGI can be incredibly useful, but I've really gotten sick of it over the years.
Tom Cruise is one of the last movie stars not to fall completely to the woke mind virus
*CZcams link*
Finally, it’s here.
Cgi in movies is like pronouns in artist's bios: It used to be a novel concept, but now it's inescapable.
@@strategery101 no,,he just believes evil alien spirits are inhabitanting our bodies
Also Dunkirk?
I missed when movies actually pushed the boundaries of film making and weren’t just cgi objects hitting cgi objects
In a cgi location
Ah yes, I aldo think that Transformers was terrible
@@Rexog90 the first one was good
@@Deicide777 With cgi weather
tbf watching the behind the scenes of Avatar paints a whole different picture…it’s a miracle nobody died doing that and it’s actually inspiring.
That's why I love the pirates of the carribean movies, the original 3 at least, the cgi was only implemented when absolutely necessary and they still went into extreme lengths to get all of the real sceneries and movements they could before adding the cgi
Don't forget that the cgi that was in the movies was done outstandingly. Just take a long look at Davy Jones' beard.
Exactly, it makes it so much more immersive and you can connect with the characters when you know that they’re actually human and pirates of the Caribbean did that perfectly, and the fact that it was actually shot in the Caribbean again makes it so immersive
Huh? A ton of the footage from these 3 movies was shot in the studio. I agree that the CGI was good, but there was a SHIT-TON of it. When you look at the making-of, all you see are dressed-up actors in green rooms. Except maybe in the first movie.
In the 4th, however, they actually dragged all these actors to Hampton Court in England to shoot one scene. That's impressive.
@@trinelangohr6661 Either way, the first 3 movies (specially 2nd and 3rd) had some of the best aging cgi. 4 was real to me too while somehow they fucked up the cgi in 5.
Davy Jones is fking great
One of the best cgi i have ever seen
It's like the time when Sir Ian McKellen cried in the set of The Hobbit because 'everything was greenscreen and that wasn't the reason he became an actor'.
I totally feel him now, and although the crew cheered him up by decorating the set, it's heartbreaking that it is still the norm.
You can't cgi a bond between people and at the end of the day, the actors are the emotional core of any movie, if they can't feel the magic, how can you invest on it
Practical effects with a bit of CGI where necessary is the best approach for film and television.
The Thing had zero cgi, and its better than anything in modern times with cgi
wise movie making in one sentence
I think the risky scenes can be CGI but every thing else can be practical effects.
Exactly. CGI isn’t evil, it’s just overused and often poorly utilized. It’s a tool, like anything else
the exception is where you absolutely cant do it with sets i.e. Avatar (when you want to show something where your not just confined to a space or scene but the entire movie is set in an impossible to reach place [and is not new zealand/some desert or arktis])
As the saying goes, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Fits perfectly for what studios do with CGI
Thing is: it's clearly not ALL the studios have, it's more like ALL they chose to consider amongst their tools
Maybe I'm nit-picking... but that's now how the saying goes. Close enough to get the gist of the message, though.
@just i c e let's report you as spam
Regarding CGI-enhanced Natalie Portman, it makes you all the more appreciative of the work and dedication of Linda Hamilton to get in shape to portray one of the all time great REAL strong female characters in Terminator 2
Only a movie. Portman still turned in the performance.
Ghost busters all over again
And T-2 is one of the greats action movie of all time the actors and James Cameron really cared the special are some of the greatest ever I mean when it came out it was so unique I remember when that movie came out I was young but it was one of my favorite movies and it holds up today but I could. See Natalie not wanting to go all out for that movie that she didn't even really. Want to be in that's why Jane died at the end I've seen her put in effort for movies she actually wanted to be in like. When she shaved her head for that one movie I know Christian Bale and Hemsworth went all out her acting wasn't bad but Tikia wanted to very much tried to make a bad movie and he all but said it and it's a shame he had 4 major actors and stars
One thing that should be mentioned: the reason a lot of CGI looks terrible is because film producers couldn't be bothered to consult the visual effects studios they employ. A lot of the realism of CGI depends on very controlled conditions and decisions during filming. However, producers tend to just film what they want, hand over the tapes to the studios, and expect them to magically finish the movie. They do the best they can with what they're given (and are often overworked and underpaid), but are limited by the material they're given. It's a shame the CGI artists are often the first to blame, when it really comes from the top down.
How do you know this?
Yeah pretty much CGI isn't bad because it's overused as he says it's bad but because it's either used as a last minute bandaid during post-production or it's rushed like off course people always bring up stuff like thor love and thunder, she-hulk or the flash movie to sh*t on CGI but always ignore the ones that rely on it and look fantastic like bayformers, Godzilla and avatar. Don't get me wrong I'm not sh*tting on practical effects all I'm saying is that CGI is bad because producers don't know how to use it properly
This is one of the reasons the first Iron man, Mad max fury road, Mission impossible franchise, Indiana Jones trilogy, Terminator 2 & Jurassic park has aged so well. They used also great practical effects
Practical effects for the win.
Your brain instinctively knows cgi is not physically there in the scene. It holds no weight the way practical effects do
The first iron man is a perfect example for how to do CGI. Most of the time the suits were animated, but the actors were wearing an actual costume made of metallic materials so that the CGI artists knew what the lighting and reflections would look like
Don't forget Aliens and Predator.
@@strategery101 you think that, but it's because you're looking for it. Most non-snobs aren't going to notice well done CGI, especially with today's tools. I had a surprising number of people remark how much the actor for Tarkin in Rogue One looked like Peter Cushing, not even realizing it was a digital face, and that effect is a favorite for "muh uncanny valley!" CG haters to point to.
I am never going to forget how Ian McKellan, a LEGEND in the acting profession, practically CRIED on the set of The Hobbit because he was forced to act alone with some puppets and green screen in the back instead of a real human being and some practical effects and how he thought he was total shit and didn't deliver a believable performance.....that's one of those cases where CGI hurts the production more than helping it.
For real?
Do you have a link or something?
Old school actors often came from theaters or otherwise had to work their way up. Modern actors' performances though can often just be "enhanced" with effects. They're probably used to green screens. Doesn't make them better actors, but likely easier to work with than people who've been doing this shit for decades.
Yes, it definitely damages acting.
@@pyromaniac709 there’s a video we’re the director modified his room to make him comfortable, Ian became depressed from the green screens
@@pyromaniac709: Just go watch the behind-the-scenes mini-movies from "The Hobbit" Blu Rays...specifically, "An Unexpected Journey".
The crew decorated his trailer with unused set pieces from LOTR in the hopes of cheering him up again.
Recently rewatched the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and the CGI used for Davy Jones is still some of the best I have ever seen.
Oh, for sure. Honestly surprised how well they hold up when everything released today looks so… bad. Movies today just aren’t worth seeing.
@@ohapplesaucethis
Remember when the cgi in Jurassic park was absolutely mind blowing? It was limited use and the animatronics were fantastic
But even then they made models for dinosaurs. But god fuckng damnit that T-rex roar still terrifies me
It was so well done that 20 or more years people still milk it
And the CGI dinosaurs were designed and animated by a stop-motion animation expert using computer graphics...
Tom Cruise is one of the very few left in Hollywood purely interested in making entertainment instead of lectures. And willing to work hard.
Shame about the cult stuff.
Its just that his involvement in the scientology cult
has utterly ruined his reputation the man is a great actor tough
@@Boomslayer19 ruined what !? , Man's reputation still intact and still one of the biggest movie stars to ever live and had the highest box office grossing movie ever, over the past weekend.
@@weiSane Terrible people are successful all the time.
do you know him?
"It's basically just a live action cartoon at this point." And therein lies the sad irony. Disney, Dreamworks and other studios purposefully killed 2D animation to replace it with live action and 3D animation. And then they started focusing so much on CGI that whole movies are now done with every frame having some form of CGI on it. They killed one form of animation to replace it with...animation. Just a lot more expensive and unrealistic looking animation. And despite the claims from Hollywood, CGI is not cheap or efficient. Cost for CGI has only risen as time went on. So many of these movies like Avatar or Lion King "Live Action" ended up costing $200 million to produce. Where their 2D counterparts would have been done for half that (or less). But since Hollywood has spent the last 25 years pushing CGI as the most important thing and linking 2D animation to "kiddy shit", they can't go back to 2D animation. Then they go full Pikachu face when some Japanese anime destroys them in profit because it was made for under $40 million AND sells more copies.
Also, the original physical models from Star Trek still look better than any of the CGI ships. The "stealing the Enterprise" scene from Star Trek III is still the best looking special effects from the series. And makes JJ Abrams "throw as much junk on the screen possible" look like a Michael Bay film.
I miss Disney 2D animated films.
I think Michael Bay is way better than JJ Abrams.
I couldn’t agree more.
Yep, and the actors probably take all the credit 😒
CGI is not more expensive. Not 90s anymore. It's used for a reason. Make it fast and on the cheap. Stated price is BS.
I’ve felt this for a long time. That’s partly why I loved Maverick so much. Tom Cruise insisted on no CGI. Good for him. It’s so lazy to constantly resort to using it, and far more impressive to me when it’s done for real or with clever camera trickery. I miss the days when you really were impressed with CGI before it became so overused, like in 1993 with Jurassic Park. That was jaw dropping when I saw it. Now CGI is so prevalent, it just doesn’t impress anymore.
Yeah a massive amount of Maverick was CGI
Jurassic Park look so real. I first saw it when I was a kid.
Fun fact: Even a lot of the planes in the new Maverick movie were completely replaced with CG except the cockpit in a lot of scenes. It disappointed me a bit. I mean of course the stealth fighters were clearly CG because there is no such thing. But even if I didn't notice I feel cheated. No matter if it looks the same if you really risked your life for something it inherently hits differently.
You could also mention Jackie Chan here. God, he is like from a different world, a true hero who broke so many bones and risked his life just to make what he loves
Jackie Chan-No Fear, No Stuntman, No Equal!
Interesting fact from that Lord of the Rings fight. The most memorable part of that is where the Orc throws the knife at Aragon and he parries it with his sword. With special effects that would never have happened. The Orc guy was supposed to throw it off to the side of Vigo, but because of poor vision due to the prosthetic, he threw it straight at him instead. Vigo just reacted and deflected it for real. Bad ass. So, obviously, Jackson put it into the film.
I mean it could have happened. There are cases where artists just do something unexpected in CGI which gets left in. It also happens in animation.
Great. We should throw knives at people in real life to entertain the audience. Spartacus? Terrible CGI. Would of been much better if the actors were REALLY fighting to the death.
FUCK THE OTHER REPLIES!! i completely agree with you LOTR is legendary!!
@@IMCJODAN I think what he means is that for instances like that, where it was by total accident but it looked awesome and is real, it’s more worth it to leave it like that rather than butcher it with a cgi alternative.
@@IMCJODAN czcams.com/video/FR976PhMbDM/video.html
Honestly, all this CGI overload just makes me thing "If you wanted a movie focused on computer generated graphics, just make an 100% animated movie so it doesn't stand out".
I know animation suffers the stigma of being lesser than live-action, but if your main appeal is the CGI, you might as well go all in!
Yep. A lot of movies might as well be animated. CGI breaks me from the movie if it is live action but if it is all animated/CGI then I can be fully in the story and not break out of it. Animated Ninja Turtles movie...fine it is all the same so my brain lets me into the world and it seems "real", Ninja Turtles with live action and CGI turtles? Nope brain just goes "that isn't real"...old Ninja Turtles something about the suits lets my brain go..."real" and I can let myself into the movie.
it is not only the CGI though - often the scenes are just bloated. Maybe they put so much $$$ into the CGI, the producers may feel, a fight scene or action scene should go on and on and on and one... like the Matrix 3. Maverick on the other hand had the timing down! The other thing I have not seen in a long time is several scenes were quiet and the audience in my theater were also really quiet during those scenese - its not 90+ minutes of everything dialed up to 11, which can also take away from the movie, unless it is the Rockumentary about Spinal Tap (half joking)!
Bro that’s what I’m saying. Some of these movies might as well be fully animated with how much CGI they use lmao.
reminds me of something I saw in the behind-the-scenes of Ender's Game: they initially did the null-g scenes with the actors on wire rigs in space suits, but ended up deciding they didn't like that, so they just rotoscoped out the actual actors and replaced them with CGI bodies. Literally the only thing that was left of the original footage was the actors' faces inside of the visors. by the end, There was no reason for the live action scenes to be shot in the first place, and they wasted a shitload of money when they could have just done the entire scene in CG with projection mapping (which is significantly better nowadays than back when The Mummy movies were relevant). And after a certain point, the entire movie might as well just be CG with mocap'd actors.
Hell, video games are going that direction, and while I think it's a terrible choice for that medium, I would be 100% okay with doing the same Norman Reedus treatment they did for Death Stranding in a fully linear movie format.
I was thinking the same, exact thing ! If people love computer animated effects so much, then just do the whole damned thing in CGI 🙄 !
that Terminator 2 scene with the helicopter was easily one of the greatest practical stunts ever filmed - the pilot was just like “oh yeah i can definitely get this under the bridge” 😂
Christopher Nolan is one of those few good directors who doesn't rely on CGI and actually does most of his effects using elaborate sets and mock ups. No wonder his movies look so real and gorgeous.
Nolan hits the exact middle ground between looking great and terrible, due in part to his insistence in using interpositives for his 35mm footage. 70mm always looks great. 35 is hit or miss, and it's a great demonstration of how much better off he'd be if he gave up on film entirely.
Oh yeah BM really did fly that nuke out and drop it at sea.
@@GalanDun I think his BM films look mostly terrible.
The thing I noticed is that you can become desensitized to CGI, as in the awe-factor diminishes after a while, but good practical effects always look amazing, no matter how many times you've seen them.
Disagree. Plenty of practical effect that impressed me years ago now look just as fake as a CGI effect that aged poorly. CGI is definitely overused in recent movies but saying that practical effects don't age/are timeless is just straight up false.
Facts
@@naunau311 For those, they probably weren't that good to begin with, but you didn't have much of a frame of reference to compare them to back then
exactly...thats why everyone likes james bond movies
Practical effects will always be better the only impressive cgi I've seen to come out of the modern age is Prehistoric Planet
What's also strange is that some old movies have better CGI than the ones we get today. The Lord of the Rings trilogy with the battle against the mumakil still looks incredible, and the T-Rex in the original Jurassic Park holds up really well.
The trex wasnt really cgi was it?
CGI is the cheap option, that's why. A lot of modern CGI heavy movies, if forced to forego the CGI, would turn out like the sort of thing Ed Wood made. So I think the use of CGI may be unfairly demonized.
The main problem I think is suits believing that CGI gives them a licence to cut corners.
@@Theycallmethek3 some things are, like when it first appears after climbing out of its enclosure, and also at the end when it roars after fighting the velociraptors.
@@Theycallmethek3 The shots where the T-rex was partially on screen were practical, using a giant animatronic head.
The shots where the T-rex is fully on screen are CGI or at least partial CGI.
But the visuals are done well to hide the fact it's CGI, by using atmospheric effects and such.
it's not that strange when you consider that people will turn up to the cinema and watch any old shit so long as it has "Marvel" in it.
You've absolutely nailed the reason I almost never choose to watch an action movie.
The CGI is over-the-top and unbelievable 95% of the time.
This made me remember an old school mate of mine in the mid 1990's when he considered the "quality" of a computer game by how many MB it took on the Disk Drive instead of the gameplay itself...
wow lol 😂
"How many discs are needed for installation?"
As someone who was a decade-long and top-level stuntman in the industry, its nice to see the public understands what we've been dealing with. We consider the entire process of "talent and skill being replaced by CGI when its not necessary or beneficial" as a steady downfall of the action industry no matter if its a martial arts flick or a new fantasy film. Its been decades long and we've watched our roles dry up for real talent as more and more "mo-cap, greenscreen, and wire proficiency" roles have been demanded. Our industry is already mostly dead and anyone who has been at the top of the coordinator/producer level of this industry without being placed there or fking people to get there for at least 20-30+ years knows this.
That’s sad to hear. I think about John Wick, which should’ve told the industry that folks love great, practical stunts done well.
It's really sad that such a valuable asset to the film industry has been cast aside in the quest for profit.
I hope for the sake of you and your co-workers this trend in dull cookie cutter films full of CGI ends very soon.
@@danielcohn-bendit701 yeah until the next chapters where they started again to rely on unrealistic looking effects and over the top action sequences. to me the original john wick will forever be the best in the series.
@@scrappydoo7887 I hope Hollywood withers and dies so a Phoenix can rise from the ashes
You have a vested interest though, I could give less of a shit about real stuntmen if the CGI is good enough to replicate it.
Although we all know that even today CG takes a mostly supplementsry role, stunt workers are still doing amazing things.
Honestly, this makes me appreciate directors like Christopher Nolan even more. Say what you want about his movies, but in the era of CGI overload, he still devotes as much to practical effects as he can.
That comes at a cost though, like in Dunkirk the movie didn't really show you theres hundreds of thousands of British troops waiting, it just looked like a couple hundred, maybe like a battalion or two, because Nolan wanted to stick with practical effects. Other than that, Dunkirk was a fucking masterpiece.
ugh
@@eazymethod01 till this day i can't believe how bad (mostly) those choreograph are
Tarantino as well.
Which is awesome, except that Nolan outright lies about those things though. And doesn't admit when he messes up, or spends much much more on practical approaches when he knows full well the audience wont notice.
This is why Nolan is my favourite director. He uses practical & in camera effects as much as possible (like crashing a real 747 into a building in Tenet), and when he does use cgi, he grounds it with practical effects (like the helicopter crash in The Dark Knight). He doesn’t not like gi, he just uses it when it’s needed. AS THE TOOL IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.
That spinning corridor in Inception... that was an awesome huge prop
For some things, there is no substitute for practical effects...
I know that the 747 crash gets talked about a lot amongst movie fans. But if you want to see the biggest and most expensive stunt/crash scene ever created for a movie you should CZcams "The boat scene" from speed 2. And keep in mind that almost everything there is completely practical. Like they literally did this in camera and spent about 50 million dollars (in today's money) to build a whole ass town to make it happen. It's insane, and as many issues as that movie might have had, it still holds the record for the biggest stunt ever done in cinema history. It's WILD.
Right, Batman really did fly that nuke out to sea. LOL.
A lot of his stuff is staged and looks lame.
And he still uses digital everything to process and improve it before putting it back into the film.
@@jordanfelt5978 Did the building collapse into its own footprint? Oh nevermind, I just watched, it just kinda drives into an empty hangar. Heh. Heh heh.
"Monsterous and deformed" Oh thank you, thank you, thank you. I was sitting there wallowing in my tail end of shingles misery when THAT gag flashed up. It improved my mood an order of magnitude.
I still remember finding out about the latest LOTR hobbit films... and how Ian McKellen broke down and stated " I never became a actor for this... ". As he sat in a green-screen room with his head in his hands... CGI has it's merits, but has become a cancerous monster as of late.
Wow is that true? Did they really break Gandalf's heart with CGI? Bastards
Good gods, that makes me so sad.
I can imagine that his idea of what an actor is is quite different from what acting has become.
Remind me now.....did he still take the money? And did he have a big smile on his face as he walked off with it? Truth is McKellen knew exactly what he was in for and did it for the cash, just like everyone else who earns a living.
i would also break down crying if someone cut my head then made me hold it in a green room
In the Hobbit, yes. Not LOTR.
If you think that the Revenge of the Sith fight was bad, it still had highly trained actors doing real stunt with real choreography work. The Star Wars sequel trilogy, especially Abrams's films, really lacked in giving us good lightsaber fights.
There is nothing redeeming about Disney Wars anyway
Drinker may not be a big fan of the 2005 Anakin vs Obi Wan duel but that contained 2 developed characters fans continue to love.
It's one of the awkward things about having a female main protagonist vs an obviously stronger, faster, highly trained male antagonist, especially for what is a male-targeted audience. They're not really an even match, so it feels very contrived to have a long, drawn-out duel between the protagonist and antagonist. In the end there's no feeling of danger and the audience is left feeling very unsatisfied.
@@prince-solomon Disney Star Wars is the Van Hagar of Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Yeah and I feel the drinker's point about the duel between Luke and Vader being focused on the emotions of the characters doesn't work against kenobi and anakin, since the latter's duel very clearly shows this emotion too. Anakin is filled with rage and hatred, and so is reckless, whereas kenobi doesn't really wamt to kill his padawan and so often draws back and is defensive.
I still love the fight between Obi-Wan and Anakin in ROTS. These are two warriors in their prime that have been fighting a war for years. Their swordsmanship is at its peak, and duels between force users involve a great deal of premonition and force sensitivity in order to keep up with your opponent or best him. This is the same force sensitivity that allows them deflect literal fucking light with their saber, so it makes canonical sense that it appears choreographed.
I love Critical Drinker but imo he was a lil off being so harsh on Obi Wan and Amakins fight. The epic set piece they fight on is literally unmatched. You can see in the sequel trilogy where they tried to replicate it but nothing comes close.
I was o board until then. when he got there I was like "oh no you don't"
Yes, exactly, besides, their fight is mostly real. Some ridiculous flips aren't, but their attacks and parries are mostly derived from real swordsmanship. Shadiversity did a great deep dive into that fight scene. I mostly agreed with him until it got to this part, that lightsaber fight is absolutely legendary and imo the best in the franchise.
I see the wisdom to both sides. On the one hand, it's an awesome fight scene, with lightning fast flurries that show how much concentration and swordsmanship are at play between these two legendary warriors. On the other, I can see how the set-piece for the fight could get a bit convoluted, and some of the CGI doesn't hold up as well. I think the Duel of the Fates (Darth Maul vs Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan,) is a much better fight, not just for the novelty of the double-bladed lightsaber, but at how grounded and well-executed the fight was, the tension of "holy crap, this guy is fighting TWO jedi at once, and he's still not down yet." and the cunning of Maul to use the terrain to separate and try to finish off the jedi one by one, a tactic that ends up backfiring.
Overall however I totally agree with Drinkers assessment. The Best movies are those that use Practical effects, and only use CGI to touch up scenes rather than making the entire thing digitally animated. I mean at that point you're just watching a video game cutscene. Predator, Terminators 1 and 2, the first two Alien movies, Mad Max: Fury Road, all use either no, or little CG, and they all hold up really well for the most part.
They're supposed to be like marionettes:
Ben: Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.
Luke: You mean it controls your actions?
Ben: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.
Another great example of great use of practical effects is John Carpenter's The Thing. Those monsters were damn cool
I can never make myself sit through that movie it's so fucking gruesome and horrible (as it should be seeing as it's a sci-fi horror film) but that's because of it's practical effects that I will applaud Carpenter and co on.
Which makes the 2011 movie more of a tragedy since the crew made the practical effects and then got some fuckwit producer made them use CGI instead.
@@indiajohnsonyea, the thing is a wild ride. One of my all time favorites. And everytime you watch it you discover something new
I always thought The Lord of the Rings was a perfect blend of CGI and practical effects. Especially for a fantasy movie full of otherworldly monsters.
lord of the rings? yes.
the hobbit triology? no, too much CGI in the wrong places.
I remember watching that one scene where Sauroman is wiping the floor with Gandalfs face and how weird that looked
@@piggynatorcool668 weird, but i'm pretty sure that was all practical effects and stuntwork, not CGI.
@@xerxeskingofking , the only CGI I really enjoyed out of the entire Hobbit movie was Smaug. He was a dragon, so of course you're going to have to do something amazing with him. Although to be fair, the 80's movie Dragonslayer did some awesome practical effects on Vermithrax. But some of the action sequences with Smaug went too far: for example when he got covered in molten gold and was plated. In addition to that never happening in the books, it was unnecessary and the way he just shrugged it off with a few flaps of the wings made me wonder if gold in Middle Earth weights as much as feathers on real Earth? And why didn't the molten searing metal cause any problems with his missing scale or running up his nose or into his eyes? Liquid gets everywhere and molten gold is hot! We should've had partially cooked dragon.
@@xerxeskingofking you’re completely right, the Hobbit movies were so disappointing. The Lord of the Rings movies were just amazing, so beautiful even now.
Films like Aliens and Predator still look amazing decades later.
They look far superior than anything out today. They hold up completely while movies from 10 years ago look terrible
The Thing still looks amazing.
I couldn't agree more. I have a coworker that loves Alien Covenant, but refuses to watch Aliens because "it looks so old." Frustrating beyond belief.
@@antgto Weird. I love Aliens, and refuse to watch Alien Covenent because it looks so shit.
The Thing..... the old one with Kurt Russel still looks bether than the cgi follow up
I’m a CG artist and some of my favorite VFX are the ones that combine practical and visual effects. Take Titanic for example, the shots of Titanic leaving port from Southampton are some of my favorites of all time and looking into it, they filmed a physical model of the ship and composited everything else around it. The people, smoke, water, background and birds are all fake or comped into the shots but the main focus, the ship, is real and it looks stunning in the final result. Keep in mind, this was in 1997, when CGI was still in it’s infancy in regards to cinema. They did this throughout the whole movie. Hell, a lot of the sinking scenes were done on a 500 foot sectional replica of the ship. People were actually standing on a set as they lowered it into a huge water tank and what did they CG in those shots? Stars.
CGI was reasonably mature by 1997 although obviously it was limited by computing power to a much greater extent than today. The first use of CGI in a movie was Westworld in 1973 and the first all-CGI character in a film was used in Young Sherlock Holmes in 1985 so there was a decent amount of industry experience by the time Titanic was being made. That said, Cameron did a great job of using enough CGI but not too much, and relied on actual sets and practical effects as much as possible.
@@trolleriffic Photorealistic CGI in cinema didn’t come around until the 90’s. The Abyss, Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 were pioneers in this field. Young Sherlock Holmes looked great for 1985 but as far as 3D animation goes, there were like 20 polygons going on in the stain glass knight scene and the tracking and shadows were definitely wonky. James Cameron knew they couldn’t pull off a full 3D computer animated model ship in 1997, not one as complicated/detailed for hero shots. I’ve modelled this ship myself in 3ds max, you need millions of polygons.
"CGI should enhance practical effects, not replace them." Exactly. Awesome commentary. I hope Hollywood takes note.
The sadder part: the Matrix fight scene WAS shot in a studio green screen room, they were smart and would 360 photograph locations and layer it onto green matting. And it still looks more real than films 20 years later, including its own re-boot 👀
You would think they would stick to shit that looks more realistic and lifelike ! CGI doesn’t even look real!
@@zkkauffm9140 tell me Smaug doesn't look real?
@@zkkauffm9140 maybe it’s cheaper? It seems like all they care about is profit now
@@ChickenJoe-tq6xd I’m sure it is cheaper
@@zanido9073 Smaug isn’t just cgi
I recently re-watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and while I was watching one of my favorite childhood films. I realized something, the mix of live action and animation looked more convincing than most CGI these days. That movie was made back in the 80s, using hand drawn cartoons, and it looked better than most of the shit Hollywood is putting out now.
Look behind the scenes at that movie and it becomes even more spectacular that Disney was able to pull off that movie. Mixing 2D and live action wasn't new at that point but to do it that well was probably something only Disney could achieve as a studio thanks to their amazing animation department and work behind the scenes. I hate that studios like Disney rarely take risks like that when producing a movie as experimental as Who Framed Rodger Rabbit.
Lets be honest we all enjoyed this video by having this:
czcams.com/video/LE7DSUoGCAw/video.html
You've given a great example of filmmaking at its best. The craftsmanship in that movie of its hand-drawn animation and marrying it with the live-action was painstakingly done a single FRAME-by-freaking-frame at a time. And it was so entertaining and a great movie experience too!
That's a great, timeless movie!
A good example of a consistent style trumping realism. If it's silly but consistent, it'll end up believable.
The recent movies of Dune and Elvis definitely felt authentic to me out of all blockbusters and popular movies that have come out in recent years. Even though both of them were quite long, the shift towards shooting as much raw material as possible and using CGI when it's needed, made those films interesting and captivating to me. In terms of Elvis, Austin's performance was so real and captivating, that even at some points I was confusing him with the real man himself. He actually took time to prepare for this role, and did an outstanding job. I would rather see more actors and studios actually taking time to prepare for such creations, and not rely fully on the marketing, and pumping out content to stay relevant.
Another good one was the first of the Star Trek movies, the new ones. They did a good job of actually building sets and models and mixing in a little CGI, made it feel really good. Guiermo del toro movies are good about mixing practical effects and CGI too
Dune also benefitted from having a much bigger budget than Lynch had at his disposal so they could afford to use real sandworms.
"Elvis" was indeed a real person. He came out before CGI
@@trolleriffic Actually Lynch's Dune had a huge budget for that time. I don't know what you mean by REAL sandworms.
Elvis went very artsy and surreal with its intro, but once it grounded itself into his story I really ended up liking it. It showed me how Elvis came to be as someone who was born about 30 years after his death. Id seen him referenced in pop culture, knew he was called "the king of rock 'n' roll" but never really understood what that meant. My mom and I watched it together, and she was a teen when he died, but had heard his music, watched a couple movies he was inback then. I asked of people really acted like that around him (fangirl screaming because he shook his hips a little) and she said "oh yeah." As much as I liked it, couldve done without the near constant crotch cam during his songs, lol.
The fact that Tika Watiti is writing the next SW film absolutely petrifies me. Not only did this movie suck but he also didn't know Natalie Portman played Padme in SW alread. I can only imagine the amount of goofiness and mistakes he'll make in that film. God speed SW fans.
I appreciate you including Davy Jones as an example of CGI done fairly well, he's got to be one of my favorite digitally created characters of all time
The actor and the character were perfectly timed
People give Dead Man's Chest a lotta guff but I loved that as much as the first. Third got weird af and was more confusing than intriguing.
@@bozbozman1575 Had they taken any other actor, davy jones would not have been as succesfull. The CGI and the actor, Bill Nighy, melted together and created the perfect dish.
@@SirEpifire agreed. The second movie is probably my favourite
Another good thing about the movie is that not everyone of the Dutchman’s crew was CGI a couple of them still had makeup and outfits only the really deformed characters were CGI over grey suits.
Another thing that has been lost to CGI: Matte painting has become a lost art. Many of the breathtaking scenes in pre-CGI films were painstakingly painted on glass, backlit, and carefully filmed.
Agreed
Business Idea: Matte paintings in computer generated environments
Blade Runner for example. That movie is still more visually stunning that most modern movies
@@Wellington-nl7vm You know the matte paintings with problematic perspective have been updated/replaced, right?
Practitioners of what was called "the invisible art" do it so well now you don't even think of the good stuff, because you don't notice it. Which is the point. You only notice the bad stuff. Which was always the case with traditional matte painting anyway. I understand you're probably talking about slapping paint down on a bit of glass and you're absolutely right about that even if the most important aspects of the process are still there, but if that's more important to you than not bastardising the filmmaking process it's meant to support, then it's backwards logic.
The paint/tools were never as i important as the illusion and freeing the storytelling. People often miss the forest for the trees. And again lazily saying lost to cgi instead of cg being misused/bad use of that tool, blames the tool not the implementation. Which is ironically what you're doing if you're talking about paint on glass not the storytelling intent and final context. No-one ever howls about how traditional matte painting ground everything to a halt and forced still shots and changed pacing into films that otherwise had a different and dynamic style, especially genre stuff. Fair's fair...
When I was a kid in the mid 90s I wanted to be a film maker when I grew up. There was a tv show called “Movie Magic” that I watched every week. Each episode went behind the scenes of a different movie to show the creativity and ingenuity that went into practical effects and stunt coordination. Every movie was different and pushed artists and engineers to innovate in new ways, so that the audience could see new things. A creature would require animatronics that didn’t yet exist, or a scene would require some creative trick to pull off a seemingly impossible shot.
Today these things are all done inside a computer. Like you said, it’s taken the “magic” out of movie making. Thanks for reminding us what movie making once was. Next you need to talk about how trash film scoring has become. Great video.
I usually hate the "behind the scenes" programs because it ruins the illusion of the movie. Today's "behind the scenes" is some pimply 24-year old eating cheetos and drinking pepsi while sitting behind a computer.
And it was so fun to get that little glimpse into those crafts, get inspired, and actually dabble and learn for myself. I learned how to do monster make-up, how to do basic facial prosthetics, do basic latex work, and even built a Halloween prop of a guy swinging an axe down from our roof at trick-or-treaters. Real crafts done by real people in real time. Great stuff that I found inspiring.
Back in my day, there were short videos made by Robinsnest Films that would show the BTS stuff now put on DVDs as a "Special Feature"...
I work in the VFX industry. The CGI needs to be so good that it should convince the audience that there wasn't any CGI involved. This is an extremely difficult task to achieve but we will definitely get there.
let me ask you a question: if your CGI task was to create a mouse the size of an elephant, what would that mouse look like?
Its not enough that it looks good, movement/physics etc has to be realistic.
Well work harder cause it aint working
The problem is the scenes they create are so unrealistic in their defiance of logic and common sense. People care far less about how perfect it is but whether it was necessary, adds to the film, and makes sense. For most CGI, no, it doesn't.
@@clownshow5901 That's less about the skills of the VVFX artists, it's the fault of directors who want sequences that don't look real.
I'm a pretty average film consumer and never really noticed what people were talking about when they complained about CGI, it all looked fine to me yet I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt so disconnected. But seeing your LOTR comparison shots between the orcs really opened my eyes to it. Thank you for giving me a missing puzzle piece as to why I keep finding myself preferring old movies to new (aside from them not openly displaying "the message")
Nope. It's the message alright.
You may not have noticed...but your brain did.
Watch everything everywhere all at once, if you want your movie juices flowing again
@@_ripVanWinkle_ One CG-related thing I loved about Everything Everywhere was seeing actual fight scenes...Like actual choreographed great fights, without 15 cuts a second and all kinds of CG characters running around. The movie had lots of CG in it, but the important parts that make you care about what's going on were generally using real people and things. I say this as someone who's been into CG art for decades, and who still loves it - I stop caring about characters the second I see them flying around through CG worlds - I get completely detached from what's going on because there are no stakes to what's happening and the actors stepped out for 6 months while the CG artists like animators, lighting people, hair people, particle people, texture people and everyone else worked on it.
The correct attitude to the use of CGi is to remember that it is one more tool in the tool box - it is not the entire tool box. You need the right tool for each job, and there certainly are situations where CGI is that right tool - usually when it would be entirely impractical or too heinously dangerous to achieve the effect any other way - but much of the time CGI works best in a supplementary role, helping to enhance a practical effects based scene by subtly tweaking the odd variable here and there when it is needed in an unobtrusive manner. When it comes to CGI, the old saying that 'less is more' generally holds true.
Blade Runner 2049. That’s perfect example how well practical and cgi can mix
I think that's what makes Christopher Nolan so respected, especially around TDK era he did as much as he could in frame.
The other thing to consider that older movies had to deal with is "Should this scene exist?" If the scene is too costly and dangerous to do without CGI, does it really fit the movie? Far to often CGI is used to make Trailer bait "epic scenes" that have very little to do with the actual movie. Just look good on screen.
CGI is to cinema what 3D printing is to making : people tend to overuse it and tend to forget it is a tool. Like people are genuinely 3D printing regular plastic boxes with kinda standard dimensions one would be able to buy in any hardware store (junction boxes, for example).
Modern CGI works alright in portraying stuff like ships in space or large machines in certain environments. When it comes to portraying humans, animals, and related biological things like blood, it blows.
I grew up in the 60s watching the late show movies. All the stuff from the 30s on. In January of 69, my father took me to see 2001. I was 10 years old and it blew my cork! Douglas Trumbull models and analog special effects. This movie will always be a stand-alone masterpiece.
I love watching the PANAM shuttle line up and make its way towards the space station as the Blue Danube plays and seeing the stewardess move around in the other spaceship is till remarkable to me. Seeing movies from the 60-70's where they actually wreck trains or even sunk a true ocean liner to make the film realistic as there was really no other way. Or even film a scene during a true eclipse to get the true shot.
I have loved most of your commentary, but the Anakin vs Obi-Wan fight is perhaps the greatest 10 minutes in cinema. Especially the scream "I hate you" at the end...chills.
My real problem is when they use CGI on stuff they can do practically, or when they just use CGI instead of mixing practical and digital effects. Don't get me wrong, a good CGI effect is a good CGI effect, no matter how much it is used. But, look at the first 2 Iron Man films. They used a mix of practical effects and CGI for the Iron Man suits, and they look amazing and realistic to this day.
Yeah I kind of miss the clunky old Iron Man suits that had a bit of weight to them.
Another example is the Remake of The Thing where they had practical effects for the monster until they decided to use purely digital monster. Sigh...
I think they eventually swapped them out for 100% CGI Iron Man suits which, of course, feel less real.
CGI is over used now days.
Top Gun is a great example of real world stunts and effects. CGI has its place but they need to go back to more realistic effects.
@@greenarrow219 Exactly, that was one of my favorite things about that film.
Its crazy how the first Jurassic Park films CGI is still better than CGI used today almost 30 years on!
Its even more baffling how The Thing still holds up 40 years on!
The Thing has become a cult classic because it is in equal weights pant-soiling horror and gut-wrenching hilarious. The effects are so grotesque that you could legitimately either laugh at the absurdity of it or shit your pants at the terror of it all. Its in limbo, neither point of view wrong or right.
Ots not baffling its because the dinosaurs were practical effects enhanced by cgi whereas nowadays its fully cgi monsters
No the original Jurassic Park CGI is not better than todays. It do look good mostly because of how tasteful it's implemented, but it's still easy to spot it's flaws.
@@gurratell7326 yet nothing in the new jurassic movies can top THAT T Rex scene. The reason is because its a mix of practical but also clever CGI which masks the capabilities of that yime. Issue is with CGI progress, dinosaurs in full daylight still look off...
It also helps when the movie and script are good. Many of the films made today are too formula and diversity driven. The stories suck and even well executed CGI doesn't save them...
Honestly I'm too young to have seen most of the movies with practical effects you talked about here, but just seeing a few moments of them intrigued me so much honestly I'd love to see more real people fighting in real locations doing actual explosions. I like cgi and animation in general but it would be nice to get something live action once in blue moon.
Movies are recorded. You don't have to only watch them when they come out. They have ways to watch older movies online.
You need to watch some old movies! I recommend 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' ( the first Indiana Jones film) as a great place to start
I'll fight you on the Anakin vs Obi-Wan duel. Lucas was limited by the technology at the time for the OT, but could shoot the duels in the prequels like he wanted them. And sure, this epic long duel on Mustafar can either seem obviously choreographed... or showcase the closeness of two Jedi at their prime who know each other as well as themselves.
With everything else, however, I agree. Well, personally, I don't mind CGI all that much. But I also am a fan of animation in general, so maybe that has something to do with it. Yet at the core, it is as you say Drinker, it should supplement a filmmaker's toolset to get the results not possible otherwise, but it shouldn't replace everything else.
This is another reason I adore a certain part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, specifically the part where Aragorn, Legolas and Gimly are chasing the Uruk Hai horde across the Rohan steppes. All of that was done in real time, in real place, with some real stakes on the line. Hell, all 3 actors had a serious injury at some point in the production of that sequence and they still performed to their absolute limit, with it culminating with the group reaching the border of the forest and Viggo (actor for Aragorn), making the best damn cry of frustration, sadness and anger ever and paying for it with his toe. Yes, the cry you see from him in the movie in that situation is actually him breaking his toe from the kick.
I remember watching a behind the scenes of LOTR and they built the set for weathertop months in advance and just let it sit in the elements so everything looked old and grown in. They also inscribed poems on the inside of the helmets of the Rohan riders for no other reason than to inspire the actors to be more immersive.
Ah that kick! Virgo had a moment. lol true story: Viggo thought the cameras were off and the were done so he ran up to the first thing he saw and went to punt a 15 yard goal...and hit a real helmet.
@@gorkskoal9315 Wouldn't have liked to have been an extra next to him that day once someone yelled cut. Guess it was lucky no one was and the actor paid for his anger immediately.
About "CGI is cost-effective": How can movies like Top Gun, where they used REAL fighter jets or Dune, where they shot on location in the jordanian desert, be cheaper than something like WW84 or The Eternals AND they both look visually much better, that these CGI-dumpsterfires?!
EDIT: I'm not talking about *marketing* budgets, I'm talking about PRODUCTION budgets.
*PRODUCTION BUDGETS*
Dune-Part 1: production Budget 150-160 Million $
Top Gun Maverick: production budget also around 150-160 Million $
WW84: production budget 230 Million $
(All numbers estimated via IMDb)
Probably because of marketing and the actors paychecks
I'm gonna paraphrase your question
"Why does the real thing look realer than the fake thing?"
Like I get what your intent was to talk about cheaper cost and cheaper quality, but honestly the wording was hilarious.
The answer is that franchises like Marvel are primarily built upon marketing and prefer to outsource a lot on their movies rather than focusing on making the best technical project they can.
Building a brand and focusing on the characters and the jokes and the memes while having a fuckton of CGI is what loads of people actually want, and is a lot more risk averse than making a movie with a great storyline.
Navies and for that matter, air forces and armies are normally only too happy to get some real flying time in and given an opportunity to show off. It's great P.R and an advert for the aeroplane manufacturers, while the taxpayer is fitting the fuel bill.
Dune had over 2200 VFX shots, more than in many Marvel movie.
Thanks for shouting out Mad Max! As an Aussie, I’m so proud of this movie. One of my favourites, just loved it as a kid because of all the chaos and now that I’m older I can truly appreciate all the work that had gone into it.
What a superficial way to love something. Who gives a fuck if you’re Aussie.
Well said. Top Gun: Maverick is a shining example on how to do action scenes, stunts and effectively use CGI (mainly the SAM's/surface to air missiles). CGI should be an enhancement and not a replacement to trying to do as much as you can with real people, places and things.
One thing that makes CGI feel unreal is the freedom it gives the director to employ all sorts of unnatural camera shots and sweeps. It messes with the audience's sense of scale and perspective when the camera is doing all sorts of wild movements and changes of angle that a real life cameraman would never be able to feasibly capture. That's one reason why much of the best uses of CGI are when the CGI is featured within a grounded, on-set shot, because the director is restricted by real life physical constraints and is forced to keep the camera movements consistent and in-tone with the non-CGI parts of a movie.
Another important factor is the use of real life objects and sets to give CGI artists invaluable reference material, so that they can create CGI that matches the director's desired lighting conditions for a scene, for example. One of the reasons LOTR looks so great with its CGI, despite being so old, is the wealth of miniatures, physical locations and costume work that allowed the CGI team to seamlessly reconcile the lighting and texture of CGI elements with the physical aspects of a scene.
In a sense, the freedom of CGI can be seen as a curse because the artistically beneficial constraints of real life film making are taken for granted and not always understood.
I am reminded of Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun’s cutscenes. They were not all that big still after EA bought Westwood, even with the expanded budget. They used a lot CGI and green screen, that is all they had. They did use a full on set for the respective command centers. The Philadelphia’s command center was all green screen, but it was all modeled and the actors had something to react to, all the CGI did was “paint” the scene. Particularly when it came to backgrounds, the green screen CGI had a atmospheric effect to it. The actors did a good job acting in the cutscenes.
True love = the love of God!
*God himself went to the cross for you out of love for you as a human being*
Philippians 2:5-8
@Flare He does have a point, but I don’t think he had that much disdain for it. The Duel of the Fates was awesome all the CGI did was just give a background. Fun fact, the actors actually practiced swordsmanship before shooting, Christopher Lee and Liam Neeson were swordsmen. Unlike the Prequels, they just pretty much threw their lightsabers around.
Denis Vileneu (or however you spell his name) does CGI right.
@Flare
"dud _baiting in CZcams comments is better than Reddit . I'm also a trap in Final Fantasy_ 14"
literally his channel description
Don't take him seriously everyone , he just loves creating arguments
Anakin vs Obi-Wan actually had very little CG. The landscape was a miniature-set, Hayden and Ewan were actually doing the coreography, and they were actually that fast.
@I'm David Hasselhoff no, not very little, a lot of CGI. The fight in Empire Strikes Back was tight with limited space and plus the fight was real.
Weren’t they so fast that they were told to slow down because viewers might get confused at what’s happening?
Ya that’s prolly the only thing I disagree with in this video. Was it over the top? A bit. But it’s not done at the sake of character development. ROTS has some great character building, even in that duel obi and anakin have a lot of great back and forth about their views. And I’m not gonna lie the duel itself is fucking epic. Again, maybe a bit off the top? Prolly. But the score, imagery, and raw emotion are fantastic and the dueling maybe be choreographed but comes off quite epic. I always saw it as master and apprentice knowing each other so we’ll they see each others moves before they do them hence why they do that whole spinning thing where neither gets hit. But hey that’s just my opinion
@I'm David Hasselhoff I'm a fan of Drinker but claiming that the difference between bad CGI and practical effects is very obvious while proceeding to show a scene with mostly practical effects as an example of bad CGI is hilariously ironic. I have a feeling Drinker doesn't do any research before writing because in his TDKR review, he made fun of the wings ripping off in the opening plane scene as being ridiculous when, in reality, the plane was real and the wings detaching was completely unplanned.
@@sean_michael_kenny yeah that was almost completely CGI, because they couldn't exactly find a two foot tall swordfighting gymnast in time, but even the set they were in was completely real
A good rule of thumb is every time a remake comes out rewatch the original instead and be happier
A brilliant drinker. You get him started, trigger him right, he'll take a swig from a bottle and give you an epic telling that is full of insight, rationality, and wisdom. Then he wants you to go away and he'll return to his deep thinking.
"I don't watch animated movies, those are for children."
*Watches Marvel movies that are 80% CGI*
Bad Guys is better than most "mature" cgi superhero movies out there. Tighter script, more satisfying character arcs, much more pleasant to look at...
And yet my friends who love that mcu stuff think it's too "childish"
This is the most infuriating sentence I've ever heard. I see people say this and it just isn't true. Animation is a MEDIUM. It can appeal to different audiences like live action. You can have animated projects for adults, children, or even both.
Hollywood has DESTROYED the reputation of animation and it honestly pisses me off.
Your comment reminded me of a joke from RLM’s old review of Revenge of the Sith. To paraphrase:
“Whole movies can now be made entirely in a computer, even without any actors onscreen at all, films like Toy Story… and Transformers.”
Go watch Batman The Animated Series and try saying it again. Animation is great if used right. Better than most live action movies these days especially Marvel movies.
@@mollywoodshots6503 I know, I don't actually think that, I'm just imitating people who say that, using sarcasm.
"The absence of limitation is the death of creativity."
- George Orson Welles
Sky’s the limit, buddy.
This is a great video! I remember in the 1980s, whole television shows were dedicated to explaining how such and such a movie accomplished their scenes with special effects. People talked about it at work and school, how the special effects crews were made up of some brilliant and creative people. It was magical, and gave Hollywood an allure that was endearing. Now you could do one show about CGI and apply it to every movie, and call it good. Or bad.
I'm old enoufhbto remember when the networks would fill in the time after the movie was over with BTS shorts about the movie from Robinsnest Films...
Viggo Mortensen said this about the LOTR trilogy. Paraphrasing here, but he essentially said that while the Fellowship was great, Two Towers and ROTK relied too heavily on CGI and they suffered for it. And this was Peter Jackson, a man who'd earned a reputation for preferring practical effects. Viggo lamented how Peter had become obsessed with CGI. Although it's hard to imagine how those two sequels could have been done without a lot CGI.
I think that the main flaw of the sequels is that there is a lot of cartoony violence in them. Violence in general is bad, and so it should be quick just to get it over with, and Legolas jumping on elephants just feels out of place.
The first pirates of the carribean comes to mind when it comes to blending practical effects and cgi perfectly. Yeah the skeleton pirates are obviously computer animated but everything else from the ships, sets, swords, and action sequences are all real and have a sense of weight to them
Wish Disney would go back to making movies like that
Say what you want about the original Pirates of the Caribbean but that movie knew 100% what it was and played up to that full stop.
I agree completely. When I think back to the Matrix Trilogy, I remember the story, characters, and live action set pieces over the CGI ones. The enchancements worked great there though since that was its world. Like with the Pirates
That tv show Black Sails takes the weight and realism of pirate scenes even further.
I am still amazed by the CGI they used to bring Davey Jones to life.
It's still extremly convincing and beautifully made.
This is why I loved the older James Bond movies…. When you saw crazy stunts you kinda knew it wasn’t the actual actors but you knew it had actually been done by some crazy ass stuntmen and that added so much.
Poor Blofeld's cat didn't like the practical effects czcams.com/video/H0FcOPb-9rE/video.html
There’s lots of stunt work in the new Bond movies as well
James bond movies still rely on practical effects and stunts
This is an extremely insightful video. I've always thought this but never expressed it in words. Especially the closing statement of movies being animated features with occasional appearances from actors hits home hard. Oh and Natalie Portperson got me good 🤣
I sat in the theater with a friend (a small plane pilot) and we marvelled at the crazy pilot who flew the chopper under the bridge. We both wondered out loud "How were they allowed to even do that?"
I suspect they didn't bother lodging a flight plan or get any permits, thinking it better to apologize afterwards than to ask and be refused.
CGI should only be used:
1) To enhance or improve a visual effect
2) When you can't afford to do it practically
3) Or when the shot can't be achieved otherwise
"Bu-but, underpaying and overworking the animators instead of putting in the money and risks is not as cost efficiant, we lose money over this"
"Who tf cares about you getting a bit more or a bit less money, make the movie good and the money will come by naturally over time"
Or if the entire story is supposed to be in a CGI world like TRON or READY PLAYER ONE that fits the story your trying to sell.
Completely - used as a tool upon many, rather than the only tool
Master and Commander, a great demonstration of using CGI to enhance real world effects and achieve scenes that would cost just too much money to recreate 100% in reality
Three bots on one comment, someone grab the flamethrower
The 2.3 seconds after you see the flashes in the fog and all absolute hell breaks loose on the ship is still one of the most amazing moments in cinema.
Yes! CGI works when it supports rather than replaces the plot.
Gollum is an example of how a cg character can far exceed a puppet counterpart
I was always impressed by the continuous fight scenes in the green arrow show. They would go two or three minutes solid without a single cut and you could tell it was very well rehearsed and the camera followed the scene from room to room and even up and downstairs and around corners. The fights themselves were not all that phenomenal, but just the fact they did long sequences without cuts showed me that they went through a lot of trouble to make it happen.
I see two issues with modern cinema:
1 - Bottomless Disney Budgets: Back when you had a limited budget, you were forced to get creative, with your set design, with your narrative elements, and with your camera angles. This ultimately made for a more artistic and creative vision, true movie magic. Instead now we get CGI on CGI and this means there is no creativity (CGI creativity sure but I mean restriction enforced creativity)
2 - Ideological writers: Instead of writing a story and creating a world for the audience to indulge in, they instead priorities "The message" first, and the story second. It doesn't matter what the story is, we must enforce our ideology first, even if it completely diverts the narrative flow and even if it runs counter to everything else about the fantasy adventure we are taking the audience on.
Good points. It reminds me of what it was like to produce records before the digital era. I mean, digital tools are amazing, but many sound engineers rely on them too heavily. In the old days we didn’t have a literal infinite number of tracks with infinite non-linear editing abilities. In fact, we had to commit to pre mixes to mix down into fewer tracks. Don’t like the sound of the cymbals? Snare isn’t sounding quite right? Too bad, you’re stuck with your L/R mix of the kit. Proper planning and focus is clear in the final product. Our modern tools don’t hurt the quality directly. It’s when we rely (no, *depend*) too heavily on these tools, we inadvertently lose the discipline that is required without them. This lack of discipline had had a horrible impact on the quality of our media.
On the ideological writers, is that they do indeed prioritize message over story when there have been countless movies that have a message that are also enjoyable. Happy Feet was an environment lecture dressed like an animation, The Bee Movie (which wasn't amazing but still pretty decent) has a story beyond "Save the bees"
I was just talking about this very subject over the weekend. The most overlooked thing in CGI is dirt. All too often, everything looks super clean and pristine. Trying to make things - rooms, vehicles, starships - look used and lived in takes work. Look at some of the models in the original Star Wars movies - that's some outstanding craftsmanship. They've got dirt around fuel and exhaust ports, damage from previous battles, they look like ships that have seen some action. They are simply exquisite. Don't get me started on the art of matte paintings, we'll be here all day!
Reminds me of the inverse in the Transformers movies how they go from clean, shiny sports cars to scraped, dented robots lmao
That's why I adore pacific rim, and subsequently why the sequel looks so bad. In the 1st one there's always rain or debris giving the mechs and monsters so much more texture
@@cabnbeeschurgr6440 Don't forget the weight that movie pulled off ... the sequel felt like a Transformers movie ... and I even kinda like the Transformers movie as a guilty pleasure ... PR 2 though was a disaster I still refuse to include in my collection, but I'll happily watch the 1st one again and again. Probably time to stock up on good, old movies on Blu-Ray now. Most modern stuff just isn't worth it anymore.
That's what's funny about period piece movies where the cars, streets, and clothes all look pristine. It's not CGI but they're not doing that little bit of extra effort to help suspend disbelief.
That's why I love the FX in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The starships looked and moved like giant grimy metal boats floating in space. I never want to see those re-done.
John Carpenters The Thing was a film I only watched once I got into my adulthood I was 21 or 22 when I watched it and the practical effects were amazing to me just how much work must have gone into each piece and how much time and effort went into ensuring everything went according to plan or they’d have to restart from scratch like when they burn the Thing or when it breaks stuff while killing one of the Survivors. It’s movies like The Thing that make me appreciate practical effects.
Another brilliant piece. We speak the same language, you and I.
And just for the record, I particularly appreciate that you are keeping your videos focused on big budget, blockbuster style films. I have repeatedly insisted to anyone who will listen that the 'great' films from 20-40 years ago were often also the big blockbusters, but today people reserve those for Oscar bait, and then write off all the blockbusters as just being mindless fun "for modern audiences" as your other video puts it. No - the big blockbuster films of not that long ago were also well-written well-acted, well-directed, and well-produced works of art.
I really miss the feeling of wonder and saying "wow, how did they do that??" when watching a movie. It's something that really struck me while re-watching 2001 Space Odyssey. Sadly, even when a movie does go beyond and use practical effects, I still can't have that feeling anymore because I just assume it was done digitally.
Get your eyes tested mate.
well the average movie goer can spot CGI nowadays. I just takes you out of the movie when you know they are just in front of a green screen.
@@purefoldnz3070 it doesnt bother me at all personally, what bothers me is when its all blatantly CGI. We have the technology to make CGI look almost indistinguishable from whats real.. but it obviously takes a lot more time/$$$. Directors need to realize that the "consoomers" will generally like a movie will like quantity>quality as much as quality>quantity.. but us more "serious" movie fanatics are likely to only enjoy quality>quantity.
Like the beginning of the new Obi-Wan show, i lost almost all hope in the first 5 damn minutes because as awesome as it was seeing the order66 prequel scene with modern CGI, watching the damn clones run into the Jedi to die, not even shooting, takes ALL the excitement out of the action. (Unrelated i guess, just venting lol)
@@purefoldnz3070 I disagree. I honestly believe that if you showed many younger people old Bond movies (they are just the best example) they would simply *assume* certain shots to be some kind of digital trick.
they wouldn't really have a stuntman ski of a mountain cliff, right?
(and don't get me wrong, that stunt in particular is also a good example of the benefits of cgi. because I don't want someone to die over filming of some thing for entertainment)
@@purefoldnz3070 No they can't. Not the *average* moviegoer. Which means people who don't care too much about movies it's something to do on the weekend/a date. Not people who are interested enough to comment on the internet or the armchair experts.
And it's not even cg. You don't even have to go that far to work it out. Does the movie have a fantastic or genre premise? That doesn't happen in the real world? There you go. The alien is an effect. Duh. :Lastly, how is being in front of a green screen any different to the old/pre-cgi days when they were in front of a blue screen? It isn't. And you could tell then too. Even more easily...
I still regard 1982's "The Thing" as one of the greatest horror masterpieces out there. Almost entirely done with practical effects. The only "CGI" was five seconds in the beginning when the UFO crashed into Earth.
Yes I was just now saying this I was really hoping he brought that movie up
The UFO at the start is practical effects, a woman made that spaceship
Yikes, that movie looked so bad.
It was so obvious that the aliens were just plastic, with some jello painted over them.
Though tbh I don't even get why people like that movie in general, it's just really boring.
@@janisir4529 you have impossibly high standards and might be dead inside. Leme guess - you also think transformation scene is bad in American Werewolf in London
@@grantous67Nah, the Thing just happens to be something that would have looked much better with CGI.
Also yes, but I don't see how that's connected to 40+ years old movies.
And I didn't watch that movie, never even heard of it.
I used to work at haunted houses when I was younger. There were kits actors would buy for their faces and some were pretty good. But the problem was repetition. These makeup kits were pretty exclusive and so there weren't many around. Plus it was before the internet we know today so finding them meant knowing the right magazines and mail order houses. As a result, there were too many actors who dressed the same.
Then there were the Dead Boys. We bought our own stuff and ad-libbed our makeup so we looked different, not totally terrifying but we didn't look like everyone else.
We glued fang prosthesis to our teeth. Used wool and hair from old wigs we bought at thrift stores to make the hair pills we glued to our faces. Bought acrylic nails from beauty shops and carefully painted them so they looked right.
Our style was different too. We didn't jump out, we appeared. We didn't yell, we broke twigs or rubbed our nails together which made an eerie sound like stepping on cockroaches. And while the guys with the one size fits all makeup kits couldn't let anybody touch them, we were not afraid because our craft was solid. One girl looked at me laughing and grabbed my fang and wiggled it. When she saw that it wouldn't come off, she screamed and ran. I doubt Super Glue would put that in a commercial but it was fun.
Good Times.
I personally think the battle between Anakin and obi-wan in revenge of the sixth is perfect because it shows us the skill the two characters had while in their prime. And one would expect nothing less from someone who had trained in combat for their entire life. Where as in the ot, Luke was relatively unskilled and untrained, obi-wan hadn’t touched a lightsaber in years and was well beyond his prime, and of course Vader’s suit restricted all agility that he once had allowing only heavy sweeping blows
The problem with CGI is its lack of limitations, or rather that is a problem for people who overuse it. What makes a shot obviously CGI is the fact that there is literally no way it could have been filmed practically. In my opinion, the most convincing CGI mimics or enhances practical footage.
CGI is one of my big problems with Marvel. They seem to be addicted to CGI; best example being some action hero's suit, they CGI'd it. Are they seriously telling us they couldn't make an outfit? Also their CGI doesn't look good and it ages like milk.
especially Marvel movies are so lazy. They dont even film outside of Atlanta anymore except for Eternals. So we know NYC is CGI and it takes you out of the story.
@@SpareSomeChange8080 Blaming CGI in general seems a bit lazy. Ultimately, the fault is on the producers, directors, and writers. If the story were actually engaging, no one would care how much CGI it used. Since you’re already taken out of the story, spotting mistakes becomes infinitely easier.
@@thevfxwizard7758 I don't blame bad or rushed CGI entirely, I give it partial blame. My biggest fault with the MCU is it's now the McDonalds of the film industry, just formulaic crap.
@@SpareSomeChange8080 Fair enough. I enjoy it from time to time but, like a McDonalds cheeseburger, it’s not the most substantive of cinema.
“Total Recall” was a rubbery mess, but was also hugely entertaining. I’d take rubber masks, and a good script over CGI every time.
Same here. I love that movie
2 weeks
Aaaaa 2 weeks
@@johanschimt3761 2...weeks!
Total Recall is still better than anything today. Great movie
@@strategery101 It’s a classic
When you're watching CGI, you're watching a cartoon.
Actors used to actually earn their massive paychecks. And I'm glad you keep mentioning the brilliance of Terminator 2. One of my all time favorite movies.
Of course they didn't . Six weeks on set, some prep time, and the usual publicity tour. For millions. Nice work if you can get it..
This is why a lot of 80's action flicks are revered, even if some are a little cheesy: because they are a Hell of a lot more authentic.
Reals stunts, real explosions on set. I'll take 80s movies any day.
@@patrickkavanagh7371 Yeah, and sqibs instead of crappy CGI blood. 😁
80's "cheesy" is 100x better than today's woke content regardless of image quality and CGI.
@@Cryo837 Yeah, I remember in "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" they called each other a "fag" after a glad-you're-alive hug ...you know that wouldn't fly nowadays!
Because, of course, teenage boys NEVER say crap like that ever. 😉
There's bad effetcs in all of them. Also the past was a different time for movie making. People were forced to go to the cinema to watch movies or wait an eternity for them to eventually release on VHS. There was no torrenting no online streaming etc. Movies were about getting people into cinemas. Now most of them are churned out like a production line based around maximizing profits.
Thank God that John Carpenter made 'The Thing' before CGI. A true master class in practical effects.
Couple of decades later and we get a taste of cgi the thing. Did you see the remake/sequel or whatever it was. Just horrible
@@noobdave It was a Prequel but it actually used practical effects but the studio made the director use CGI in the final product.
@@dericjames2018 in a way it’s good that’s it’s a prequel. That way we get a far superior sequel. Even though it came a long time before😂
@@noobdave Yeah that's true
You nailed it-again.There needs to a better balance between cgi and actual stunt work and makeup.These ridiculous scenes have become tedious from just being so over the top.Loved the quip about Natalie Portman,lmao.
Well, I would have thought that you would like the Anakin/Obi Wan fight. The actors trained months for it and except for a few jumps it was real and done by the actors. Also Shadiversity considered it one of the best swords fight in movie history
I remember when Jurassic World was being hyped for putting emphasis back into the practical effects/CGI balance that helped the original hold up so well and then trailer was released and it was more CGI than ever before. Even the iconic gate... Like why did the fucking gate need to be CGI?? 😂
CGI was just the tip of the iceberg. Those jurassic world films are so poor!
"Like why did the fucking gate need to be CGI"
it's probably cheaper to let a programmer program that gate than to create a model 🤫
@@bengraham5699 Good point, slave labour is cheaper I guess. 🤔
I agree with you on that. Overuse of CG effects just makes movies nowadays look like video games or animated film.
It's called pushing the medium forward, whats wrong with animated films or video games, all 3 take from each other and grow.
Modern blockbusters meld together CGI, practical effects, stuntwork etc to create some amazing visual spectacles, the cynics around here that hate on marvel can't even deny that endgame and infinity war have the best large scale actions scenes ever, it's not replacing practical effects you just literally cannot make that fight without heavy use of CGI and the subtle but powerful emotions of thanos are an evolution of motion capture in a very nuanced way.
@@WookieWarriorz be honest. How will modern movies look with overuse of CGI that are released these days are gonna age 10 to 50 years from now?
@@WookieWarriorz You take out the work that it takes to make live action films and you put stunt men out of a job.
And they have that video game aesthetic from the PS3/360 era with bloomy lighting and washed out colours, typically seen in shooters at the time.
The thing about ROTS Anakin vs Obi-Wan fight is that most of their actual moves were choreographed, not cgi. And also remember that it was during a time where cgi was still very revolutionary and new, so of course they were gonna use it
Anakin and Obi-Wan's duel is allowed to use CGI as much as it wants,it is a marvel to behold.
I honestly like these videos a bit more than reviewing a movie. Don't get me wrong, when Drinker analyzes a movie, he does it like no other and it's great, but this content sees the bigger picture and I'm absolutely here for it
I agree. The Drinker's reviews are very well done but it's interesting when he shows some features that films share; some good, some not so good.
Personally, I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy has a near perfect balance of practical effects and CGI. The overuse of CGI has really taken the heart out of films.
yes yes totally agree
@@h.a.edinburgh7879 he cherry picks bad cgi movies, look at the mission impossible franchise, nobody, capt America and the winter soldier, civil war , the batman, Nolan movies, Jason bourne, they’re all action films that use cgi well, there are mainly only a few standouts like the other marvel movies and justice league.
Imagine if I cherry picked the prequel trilogy,the mummy, the Christopher reeves superman franchise, Spider-Man action scenes as examples of bad overused cgi.
If you haven't already seen them, the Drinker has done some excellent videos about the "bigger picture," in that we have heroes that no longer have to overcome any obstacles in order to achieve greatness, and we have villains that are very watered down versions of their "inspiration." In 3 movies, Kylo Ren never had anything close to the malevolent screen presence of Darth Vader. Compare Kylo's Force grab of an officer and having him spin on a conference table as if this was the set of _Breakin' 3: The First Order Boogaloo of the Next Generation,_ to Vader simply raising a hand and saying "I find your lack of faith disturbing." Real power and menace doesn't have to be over the top and theatrical to get the point across.
@@righthandwolf306 Star Wars and Star Trek were goofed up by the same person JJ abrams, it didn’t have wokeness, just had bad writing. Even marvel and dc movies are a sliver of modern Hollywood.
Imagine pretending Michael bay films were a representative of modern Hollywood ignoring great directors like Michael Vaughn, Christopher Nolan and franchises like mission impossible, Jason bourne, kingsman and pretending they’re not modern movies. Every year has a stand-alone action film that is extremely good like nobody, too gun maverick, mission impossible, kingsman, baby driver, free guy and many more that I haven’t seen yet.
The drinker casually ignores modern movies even made by Hollywood legends like Martin scorese, m night Shyamalan, Francis ford coppola, instead pretending marvel movies dc and Charlie’s angels are the only majority that exists.
CGI can be a good thing
*when handled properly and used sparely*
When it goes wrong IT GOES WRONG
No it can't. There is no such thing as "good CGI." Yet most of CD's fans, and CD himself, assert that there is. You guys sound like shills or simps or something by pushing that BS.
@@True_Christian Oh, but there is - mostly one you DON'T SEE and DON'T NOTICE.
@Bonka Well, look at 1958 A Night To Remember.
@@True_Christian Okay, then please build me a space ship, and film on location.
@Bonka LotR CGI looks awful by modern standards. The New Zealand landscape is great, and then suddenly a ps2 cutscene shows up. Okay, maybe ps3.
As a former night club goer in Aberdeen, that statement is accurate. Painfully accurate.