Why is there an anti-CGI backlash | The no-CGI trend
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 12. 2023
- Why is there a so-called ‘anti-CGI backlash’ trend in social media today? Why do we have so many articles, Tweets and CZcams videos complaining about CGI and ‘explaining’ that, ‘back in the day’ it was ‘all so much better’? In this video, I try to get to the bottom of this backlash and try to find some solutions so the VFX industry can move forward. Join me in this debate, and don't forget to leave a comment below. Enjoy.
If you like my videos, consider supporting me on Patreon: / hugosdesk
Or become a member on CZcams: / @hugosdesk
#cgi #VFX #noCGI - Krátké a kreslené filmy
To celebrate springtime my Nuke compositing courses are 60% Off until the 1st of April. This is the biggest discount ever! Don’t miss this offer. Use the promo code SPRINGSALE during checkout: hugosdesk.myshopify.com/discount/SPRINGSALE
Two courses are available to buy:
Nuke Compositing course:
👉Access to 150 classes (already available, extra classes dropping soon)
👉More classes soon!
👉50+ hours of training
The Workshops course (pre-order):
👉Real Production Workshops (some classes already available. More classes dropping in 2024)
All courses include:
👉Student license path available (paid separately)
👉Showreel material (200GB+)
👉Private Discord (2000 students)
👉Fully endorsed by @TheFoundryTeam
I hope you can join our amazing community of 2000+ students.
Nolan is all about "I wanted a real explosion for Oppenheimer's Trinity Test because CG explosions are not frightening". I'd say the nuclear blast I saw in "Godzilla: Minus One" was pretty scary. Oppenheimer's explosion was just a tiny explosion, not "frightening" at all. There's a balance as always. Great video Hugo :)
oppenheimer and barbie suck! rubbish movies
I wasn’t a big fan of Oppenheimer or anything, but the trinity test was really well made and was perfect for the film.
The CG explosion looks really fake. It takes you out of the movie. There is no substitute for the real thing. Look at 80s action movies and you'll understand why people loved these flicks. There is a certain type of texture you can't get with CG. Also someone doing something for real will always hit differently because of the risk of their own life, and sheer dedication elevate it to a whole other level.
I disagree, with good CG and direction it's possible. Hipster film students all about "practical effects!" don't understand and are too lazy to understand that badly executed VFX is what makes bad VFX, of course there are limitations but the execution is what matters. Dune Part 1 is excellent example of doing it right. @@EbonyPope
@@art_means_artificial Disliking popular movies doesn't make you cool.
Everyone is overlooking the real problem, I'm tired of these movies being ruined by lenses, the best films are lens-free, pinhole cameras only.
I know you're joking, but the amount of times I have had to remove and rebuild lens flares, and undistort, track, and redistort footage makes me think that shooting with lenses with as close to zero distortion as possible and then adding all the lens distortion and lens flares in post, if done well, could be a viable option if the artists and supervisors had enough experience working with actual real lens flares and lens distortion to make it work. Depth of field is not impossible to fake either. With a full 3D environment, a depth map is easy. The tricky part will be using something like a LIDAR scan to map practical elements of a shot and merge the depth maps so we get practical depth of field. It all comes down to budget, and I think it's worth looking at the cost benefit ratio of using zero distortion lenses.
@@magusofthebargain Yeah, we are testing out running an IR modified gopro on our camera with IR spots projected for backup tracking data. There are some interesting pre-built on-camera tracking solutions that also get focus info (ncam). I think they are using the intel depth cameras which should have some 3D output that might be usable. You'd think that some sort of solution like that would be irresistible from a cost savings point of view and that it would be standard equipment on productions. I'm not sure there are zero distortion lenses? We use mostly Arri Signature Primes which someone tried to convince me were zero distortion but Nuke still corrects them when you shoot grids with them. Maybe once everyone catches up with the new wave of camera obscura film making, lens distortion will be a thing of the past.
It was actually a guy back in the day when something called "Dogme 95" (basically -crappy and shaky is "real") was a thing in filmmaking, who wrote an article about how modern movies were destroyed by modern inventions like color and sound.
The fact that they are now even erasing the blue screens from behind the scenes videos to hide the use of vfx is astonishing
I was really amazed when I saw that VFX breakdown of that John Wick Arc de Triomphe scene. Similarly to when I saw a vfx breakdown of the John Wick 3 bike chase & fight scene.
People really like to complain about digital effects because they just notice the noticeable ones, not all the ones actually being done.
This is a very good video about awareness of a very well systematically neglected topic, VFX or say Post Production is so underappreciated and disregarded.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I think part of the problem is that “CGI” (Computer Generated Imagery) is a misleading term, a baker produced a bun. CGI makes it seems like the work is spit out of a computer with no human involvement. Perhaps a shift of the term CGI to something more like CAI (Computer ASSISTED Imagery), would help make it clear that us humans are the ones making creative and technical decisions about our VFX, not the other way around. People don’t seem to be complaining much about the craftsmanship that’s missing in modern video games even though a lot of the tools used are similar. Glad to see more awareness being spread around on this topic, it’s frustrating to see so many hardworking artists not getting credited for their work.
I completely agree but CAI is problematic because it reads like AI and that word is also not helpful for this debate. But agree we need new terms and more mainstream explanations
@@HugosDesk Yeah, that had occurred to me, anything with AI in the abbreviation probably doesn’t help… Point being, a more realistic abbreviation would help communicate the very human craftsmanship that goes into VFX to the public.
I've been leaning toward DVFX or Digital Visual Effects.
but yeah. I spent alot of time in the film fandom online and the general view from "cgi" haters is that the "computer does all the work". they literally believe "cgi" is made by someone just pushing a button marked "make movie" and thats it. not understanding or even caring that it actually takes the same amount of time, effort and talent (or sometimes more) to do a DVFX shot, then to do one practically or with miniatures.
Agreed. I would disagree on having to re-title artists to suit the mainstream - maybe mainstream should learn a bit about the VFX world 😉 - Thanks for the video. I feel the CG community is really coming together on this 'no cgi' narrative. Keep it up!
Imagine a VFX strike, probably wont happen cuz smaller artists would step up but I'd like to see productions make movies, not adapted to the lack of VFX (alien settings, cool powers, just without vfx) without VFX for a year and then compare the outcome to movies with VFX. Pretty certain movies would look shit or very dated very fast.
Really a nice video, bravo.
I remember that when cgi was used in movies in the firsts years every director was proud to say that they used it. I suppose at the time they want to attract the audience with the promise of showing them something new and spectacular. Nowadays i guess they hide how massive is cgi in movies for marketing reason.
Practical effect for some viewer can have a nostalgia effect for example or to say "no cgi" for other viewers makes the stunts more real i suppose.
The sad thing is that the vfx industry is suffering of this "no cgi" trend and they are blamed of movies failures instead of bad script or poor directing.
Also the people who doesn’t know CGI think the digital art is easy and it’s just mouse clicking, they don’t know to be a senior artist you need 5 to 7 years after graduating. And to be supervisor you need at least 15 years.
The section between 15:44 and 16:30 was excellently articulated and perfectly stated. I want to put that quote on a billboard here in Los Angeles for all to see! Thank you for making this!!!
Thanks so much for saying that! If I were rich, I would post this video as a commercial on TV and CZcams so we have as many mainstream media and non-VFX people watching! We need to break this narrative!
Great speach ! Here, with this video, you exactly do what you said. Fix it in prep. We must educate the public and the media. We must enforce the recognition of vfx artists by the directors, the studios and the distribution. That's exactly fixing in prep.
I love hearing people say that Top Gun Maverick had no CGI. Like where do they think they got Su-57s from? If people put 0.2 seconds of actual thought into this they would immediately realize how wrong they are.
Good video Hugo! I would say the main reason why they are saying this its because the lack of budget and time ( + bad decisions, not enough pre prod) there is so many movies that the critics was bad because of that so it s not doing a good press..They avoid the subject and cross there finger they put enough money on it and pray for the audience not noticing any CG ;)
Great video Hugo! All well said. I think the source of the issue here are the NDAs. There should be a law or agreement that automatically voids all NDAs after the movie has been released. The main point of a NDA is to prevent spoilers and therefore potentially ruining the show before it comes out. But once it's out, maybe after a week or two that's it. No need to stay silent anymore because the movie is right there, available for everyone. So I don't see why we cannot show how it was made.
Let's be honest there is no secret sauce behind VFX. Many studios work together and share the same techniques anyway so there is no big secret. Not to mention that this industry, like you said, is so specific and technical that even if you show a breakdown, people would still not understand what's going on or wouldn't know how to replicate it. You could show me step by step how to build a rocket but still I wouldn't be able to do it. That's because there's so much research and study behind it that it's basically rocket science. Or shall I say... Nuke science... get it? 😅
We need more honesty and acknowledge that a lot more people than someone can think actually worked hard on a project. And I believe that every VFX artist will take pride for a breakdown showcase of their hard work.
Great video, thanks Hugo!
Nice take Hugo! thanks for spreading awareness and advocating our craft :)
I don't know why vfx studios make a public statement about this issue, I know they have NDAs for all of their project but a general statement (just like you do in this video) would make a precedent in the film industry. Right know almost every director is making absurd comments underestimating all of the work vfx companies do for their films
Thanks, Hugo for do not let me throw the towel, and continue believing in this industry.
All of it is real....😐. Of course, Mr. Scott. Of course.
I don't get why the guy that made Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator and The Martian is trying to diss visual effects. When he definitely knows that is not the case. He owes his career to the artists.
I believe VFX studios should make some changes in their contracts (most of the Big Vendors working together on that) to implement some terms in their agreements that doesn't allow clients to remove Artists names from the Credits and use "NO CGI" term in their marketing, also having the privilage to release VFX breakdown after the Digital release.
Hollywood "journalists" are quick to show their ignorance when it comes to anything computer related. Most people think you just push a couple of buttons and make CGI like magic in movies. They have zero concept on how much work, how many people and how much time goes into producing seconds of believable CGI and VFX in films. Often what you think isn't CGI is and what you think is... isn't. THAT'S the magic.
Thanks for speaking out Hugo. Agree with everything you said, as usual.👍👍👍
Much appreciated! We all need to speak out about this nonsense. I will make more videos about this issue for sure. It drives me mad!
Great speach ! I think there are several reasons why they are blaming CGI. First - AI, artificial intelligence, everybody afraid that AI will take their jobs. So anything digital and artificial is now something bad for them. Second - CGI artists do not have strong unions as actors and writers have. And the problem is that if CGI artists will have a union and do the strike - they will be replaced with artists from other countries where there is no union and overtime/cranching is a normal thing.
Just like everyone was afraid that CG generated characters were going to take away their jobs. CG characters have maintained employment for actors, not eliminated it.
Because some people live to hate and hating something together with others makes them feel part of a community. CGI is probably one of the last things people can hate without much or any opposition.
You can see how there is a group of people who always try to start a hate bandwagon and get people on it. They will brigade media to push their own opinions as fact, influence public opinion and derail discussion. They actively try to get people to hate. And when they manage to create a big enough bandwagon at the start, then those who like something don`t even try to bother oppose them, because it`s a vain effort. But when they don`t manage to get enough people on board to drown positive public opinion and something does end up getting popular despite their best efforts to trash it, they try and claim that it is only succeeded because they did "good GGI" and because "it wasn`t woke". Because Barbie movie was so successful, rightwingers started saying it`s because it`s against wokeism and against feminism. These people are mental. These people also try very hard to trash popular franchises and get people to hate them. Favorite targets of theirs is Disney and the MCU.
And then there are those who buy into that shit and jump onto those bandwagons thinking they are being critical and sophisticated. Movie snobbery.
How is it Morally “superior” to build a full sized barn and set it ablaze destroying perfectly good wood sending real smoke into the environment.
or even wasting MILLIONS of gallons of perfectly drinkable water to do a flood scene instead of using Houdini or Bifrost
to create it on a PC.
Very cool video. If CG was really ruining movies then pretty much all movies would've been unwatchble since most big times hollywood movies have thousands of VFX/CG shots, but you only notice 5/10 "bad" shots at the end of the day and see people complaining how CGI is ruining movies lol.
Well said.
I love seeing the combination of practical effects with VFX in big budget films it's absolutely incredible what can be done, the bay bridge scene in MI:3 is pure magic and you'd never know it was filmed on replica of the bridge on a hill in Calabasas.
I do think sometimes there's a good argument for reeling in how much you use them, it forces you to do things a certain way and can change the tone and art of a film but as you said if the director has a clear vision and the budget to make it happen it's probably going to go well. I think you can sometimes see directors who start out with something and get tempted by the idea of doing something big even when it doesn't fit.
There is NO correct way, it can be full CG or can be mix of practical and CG or practical full. The only thing that matters its that it looks good doing its job, other times is not that is bad, is just people dont like the ART DIRECTION, not the CGI otself even if phisically grounded. Avatar 2 Full CG shots beats all those mix of practical. The animated movie Top Gun Maverick where everything had to be replaced is another one, but good for them serving as reference material as all these movies are that have to be done on post basically. Even your favorite "practical" ones.
Hi Hugo, thank you for the video :) Do you have a link for the Todd Vaziri's thread you're talking about ? Thank you :)
Of course. Here you go: twitter.com/tvaziri/status/1178743115185655808
Misuse of the VFX workforce is really driving the artists down after a certain age. This is horrendous.
Excellent video, Hugo! Spot on!
Thanks Hugo ❤
It's sad to see that VFX keeps being thrown under the bus.
I used as a child and teenager to be very excited when a new movie with a lot of CGI AND special effects would be launched.
im an absolute layman but there is a difference between making a scene "real" and then enhancing it and making a Marvel movie that looks like a bad videogame, i think most people are pissed because of the latter, there is a difference between invisible CGI and _"if even i can see CGI it is bad"_
i think it is true that there is a broader problem with movies today and CGI is just a scapegoat
there is a funny story with The Dark Knight when the Joker does the magic trick Nolan wanted the pencil to be CGI so that the stunt guy cannot be hurt and the stunt said he could do it with real pencil and they let him do it
2 digital characters that come to mind that gave CGI a bad rep: that white orc in the Hobbit trilogy and Snoke in the Star Wars sequels. Why not just have a person in make up? Not that they looked bad, it’s just a poor choice when an actor in make up (maybe enhanced in post) would have looked better.
Thanks for this video!
Key to successful CGI/VFX is mentally of "enhance and finish in post, not fix it in post". Makes a world of difference. This extends to everything in film-making. Scrip writing, set building, costume design, rehearsals, acting prep, primacy of cinematography as well and not just monitor village with 20 people who all have anything but good cinematography on their mind, telling the camera guy where to point the camera. Too many cooks in the kitchen, spoils the Vichyssoise.
And also less talked about on this channel, but also important is soundtrack or music score. You go watch almost any 80's movies even straight to VHS and you find memorable compelling, appropriate and original music. You watch blockbusters costing millions today and you would be hardpressed to remember what kind of score it was.
Fix it in post, ended up a full CG shot with completely new camera and character animation and only using the original plate as reference lol
@@starwarz8479How true. Sadly. They might as well be making a video game instead of a movie. I think it was in that Zombies in Las Vegas movie, I forget the name, where they replaced or added an actress after the movie was shot. Impressive technical feat to be sure, but from a storytelling and acting point of view.... WTH?
I think someone else commented here; "CGI used to enhance the movie.........now it is the movie. " @TonyBraun
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo Not sure what you are implying. As far as I know Jurassic Park from 1993, was largely done with good old fashion, tight script, good direction, good acting, good actors, well written characters, good plot, great cinematography, lot of practical set, costumes, sound design, and the creatures themselves were largely animatronic with only a handful of well though out and expertly animated shots. While CGI shots were important for that movie at that time, they were sugar on top, unlike new money grabbing attempts to re-capture the magic of the original Jurassic Park, but just throwing millions at the wall and thinking that diversity hire film-making, giving bunch of cash to original cast to show up and tones of CGI is all you need. Quite the opposite.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo I don't think so. I don't know if you are aware of this, but originally Jurassic Park full body movement was supposed to be done with stop motion animation, and someone suggested it could be done on a computer so after some tests they have managed to make it work. In part it was a matter of animating extinct creatures that don't really exist anymore, so the movement cannot be referenced with living animals. In other words, anyway you move dinosaurs as long as you don't completely ignore physics will work for the audience since they have never seen a live Dino. And that is also the reason why CGI humans even to this day are hard to make really convincing, but dinos could work back in early 1990's. Anyway, the animators for stop motion dinos were there to create movement, that was actually filmed, the dinos were sculpted back than before Zbrush, they were made for real and scanned for computer animation. And so as much as it could have been done practically it was, the stop motion puppets were animated as they should move, and than replaced by CGI animated versions to remove jerky motion, but base for animation was done practically. And in as many scenes as they could, animatornics were cut more or less seamlessly with CGI. Actual props on set were use and it was not like today, where you have whole sets build virtually.
Speaking of practical sets and virtual sets, even this thumbnail Barbie movie, although full of CGI has many practical references and real practically built elements in shots that were color corrected, stylized or enhanced somehow in post production. "enhance and finish in post, not fix it in post" phrase is what I encountered from photo retouching industry, where it signified attitude, meaning do as much as you can with good prep during the shoot and enhance it in post, don't have attitude where you are lazy and think its all going to be fixed in post. This simply means good pre production and production stages of filmmaking so that post production can really bring it all together. This applies to sound as well as coverage, meaning shooting all the footage you need, rather than doing expensive re shoots later. Storybording or today its more common to do previs, is just about good preparation even in heavy duty CGI movies, so that they can prepare what they need ahead of time as much as possible. This means that if it is done correctly, the end results will be that much better and it will save on overall cost. Modern Hollywood does this, but because of many political and other reasons they also do far more re shoots and fixing in post that never works out well. Under budget and time pressure something always gets missed. But well prepared shoo and well executed shoot with post production in mind is on a whole other level. even if its the same VFX team that worked on it.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo You don't understand. Have you ever tired to animate something, like an animal in virtual environment by yourself with no assistance or reference? If you had, you would understand why most animal and human and other type of animations today in movies look off unless they are motion captured or preprogrammed or referenced frame by frame. Now, go back to 1992, where they had almost no modern animation tools for computer animation, while stop motion artists had wealth of experience and tangible puppets to play with as well as seeing how real light hits real objects in real environment. That kind of information is indispensable for top notch animation even today, and it was of vital importance back in the early 1990's. If you don't understand that, I don't know what language to use to explain it to you. But you can always go any try to create a camel from scratch and animate it in Blender with no reference. Do complex animation of that character / creature, no post production in Nuke, Fusion or After Effects, no color grading nothing. Than show us what you have made and what you have learned. I think before you ever reach finish version you will know what I'm talking about.
Love your videos.. Great topic 👍
Glad you like them! Thanks
Most of the time when people are upset, they have no idea why. I've always been pro-CGI. People saying the Star Wars cantina scene is more realistic than anything in the prequels. No, the cantina scene is a Muppet show. The reason you don't notice that is because the story makes you suspend your disbelief.
Well if they mean it’s realistic in that everything you see on screen is actually there then yes it is realistic in that way. I think the thing that hurt the prequels the most is that the CG tech just wasn’t there yet. I like that George took a big swing on new technology it just wasn’t always that good in execution.
@@tylerjames805 you could say the same about the original trilogy. Lucas said in interviews that certain technologies literally didn't exist. He had to start ILM because no other studio was doing what he wanted.
thanks Hugo ❤
Wow I'm speechless to hear someone is so ignorant to say CG is killing the cinema.
It's like saying digital cameras or non linear editing are killing the cinema. LOL
Why all the CGI hate? Simple. The current wannabe movie snob(s) think that only practically filmed movies are "pure cinema" and that CGI in any form taints the experience. Sadly, as much as I love Nolan's films, I hold him partially-if not wholly-to blame for the trendy mindset on this. Choosing to shoot practically or with CGI is a creative choice for lots of different reasons. Of course, there are levels of CGI quality, and one film's effects may be better than another, but to dismiss a film as low-brow or terrible for containing CGI smacks of amateur criticism, especially considering that it is only one aspect of the whole film. I recently saw a stage production of Mean Girls, and it was pretty fantastic... I was especially impressed with the set direction and the effort involved in the production... and a few weeks later saw a relative perform in a high school play where the sets were WAY less than spectacular. Did the differences in set expense affect my enjoyment? Not one bit. These days, movies need to mean something, or have a message, or be deep and earth shattering, be pure and unadulterated... honestly, I think most cinema goers just forgot how to movie.
Many vfx artists on reddit are like "who cares, we still get paid so what"
Sure, but in the long run they will have a more difficult time getting a better pay and a better work environment. The more we loose respect the worse it will get.
@@HugosDesk Exactly what I told them. Their reply was "respect doesn't pay my bill". I told them that asking for respect it's free and will do no harm anyway so why complaining about it? No reply back, and they were senior with many years of experience. I really don't like the attitude of some vfx artists and I think this mercenary mindset is also one of the cause of why we are going in a bad direction.
I think the real issue is the over reliance on cg. I’m for cg in instances where something could harm someone or it’s not completely possible in practical. But not overused like in marvel movies.
I would love to sit down with some of these "no CGI in MY movie!"-filmmakers and watch their movie with them and comment in real-time with rhetorical questions and comments. "Oh, so you filmed that crashing C-17 for real? No? I figured. Oh, that erupting volcano was done practically? No? Okay. If there's limited CGI in your movie, why are there 850 VFX artists across ten different VFX vendors in the credits?" So much of what they brag about is empty posturing and chest-puffing to try and appeal to pretentious Internet nerds who have no idea how movies are made, but think that things were better in the 1980s because that's when they were born. Keep fighting the good fight, Hugo!
CGI is being RINSED!! The original predator looks more real than films today…because it was real! It was a suit worn by a man using animatronics. CGI should be used to “enhance” effects!
The other problem is that with action films they absolutely abuse the use of CGI. 2013s Man Of Steel was a brilliant film, but I feel the fight scenes were just cgi over kill, there’s way too much going on, it’s sensory overload.
Great video!
This is on point. I'm exhausted that, as you perfectly put it, VFX is a scapegoat for the sins of filmmakers as a whole. I believe it started during the Sequel Trilogy of Star Wars, when every article was like "OMG THERE'S PRACTICAL EFFECTS!!!111". Yes, as a movie enjoyer I adore some practical effects here and there and Im still stunned how movies like the original Bladerunner looks even today.
But it is totally spot on how if a movie is well-made, the amount of VFX work is being looked past at, even belittled.
A lot of cgi modeling and effects seam to carry too much information bo be easily digestible and enjoyable. Best thing in my opinion is to blend practical and fill it up and refine it with cgi. Cgi also removes a lot of pre conceptual decisions, which do carry usually to the feel of the film. I recently watched Star Wars despecialised ed, and at least half of space shots look and feel extremely exciting still. Much more then from the new sw movies. I think that's because it is so physical and thought out. But with a touch up on the computer they would be perfected. I think that's what they did in Dune.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo The blue was processed out via chemical process. Ik about it. That's why I said practical needs tailoring it out on computer is needed to make it look better. But CGI straight from computer just looks too clean.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo True, there are, but because of that movies are extremely clean today and I don't like that look. it looks artificial, and feels hollow. My ideal scenario is a mix ot models and cgi. Filming real thing, track the camera on one hand and on the other scan real model to 3d, improve the look and vibe, use tracked cam movement and then mix both shots. This to my eyes looks most spectacular. The other way of using cgi that I'm cool with is only adding some elements to the real image, preferably background elements, and this way it still retains that real feel while looking fantastical.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo Of course you can. But it is always looking digital, because how sharp and mathematical it is. When you looking at let's say miniatures or bigatures you can feel the density, mass of these objects, and you can see all these little details in the way light is projecting real shadows. It's just different, and I think it feels better. On top of that, because of digital movies became either flashy ( marvel) and very static ( because of roto ). Look, as we speak I' just rendering backgrounds from Unreal for a short film, ok. I know a thing or two about this too.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo yeah, it is. And it's very boring. Very static.
I love your channel
Thank you 🙏
He has a second video out tho. No CGI, it’s just invisible….
This video was made for the World VFX Day stream so it was edited and finished before the second video.
@@HugosDesk yeah I just noticed. I love the ranting bit tho
Great video! sad that you need to make it though...
👏👏👏👏👏
Yeah! People need more History of VFX lectures, like the ones I do for a few years - those explain how many scenes were done in the past - a lot of effects on non-effects films, just because the sound recording wasn`t possible on location and was done on stage indoors with rear-projection and stuff. Very simple scenes. VFX/SFX was always part of the moviemaking process. But the movies were better storytellingwise. I love old films - they are very tight on telling only the stuff needed for telling the story, without omitting something important or including something not needed. Like nowdays films do. It`s not the matter of VFX or CG, it`s the matter of telling the story right.
Films today are just as good storytelling wise. You just are more exposed and are just looking at the good movies of the past because nostalgia but not the bad ones. Compare John Wick to any of the 80s action classics the difference is staggering, compare an A24 film horror movie, and there are probaly few that you could compare. Compare recent Comic book movies with the ones before the 2000s and the quality difference is staggering. Just TV, not even Cinema is on another level, Compare Dune today too. Compare all those classics to just HBO shows and you will see. Is just Nostalgia for no reason.
im not sure how much people actually look at it this way, but when considering the production "story" of films, it definitely seems more interesting when you ignore vfx. when you say you "did it for real" people intrinsically know roughly what that would entail, but if you say "this was a lot of vfx", what some people hear is "it was all done on a computer" and for a lot of people, doing things on computers is incomprehensible wizardry; black magic that only few could ever understand. similarly this also makes it seem less impressive, as the whole pipeline is compressed into "vfx", "cgi", or "computer stuff", completely ignoring the complexity within.
The CGI-hating crowd seems just to want some pretty models to watch at a museum.
Its superhero movies fault.
The problem is when the CGI is poorly done. And in recent years, it's been a lot worse, especially when it comes to the big Marvel movies. Just look at that final shot of Tom Holland in No Way Home as he swings around in New York City before it goes to credits. There is something clearly wrong with the costume and New York City as a whole. It's shots like this that cause why so much hate. It feels "half assed". By comparison, people don't complain about the Fast and the Furious movies or Barbie because the CGI is well done.
Well said Hugo. I want to add that It is the terminology and the accessibility to programs like Blender and near photo real video games that are major issues. CG and CGI are seen by the public and news media as this thing that's basicly like a videogame. You pick up the controller and you see photo real worlds being animated and moved though. This unwittingly has taken the art and craft perception out of the eyes of the general public at large. They see it as a super easy no skill needed thing, and with that simple amount of knowledge they assume its just that easy and therefore not good enough anymore and not worthy of their investment. If I can do it, why is it in my TV shows movies? That's lazy. Just look at the coverage of VFX in the press. Even our beloved Cinefex magazine of yesteryear or on Before and After's... We used to get photos of people sculpting dinosaurs, or building miniatures. For a while we got a picture of a supervisor standing over the shoulder of a person using a computer. That didn't work the same. Now we just show the plate and wipe to a finished shot. Our own industry by in large removed the people, even though the Same skill and craft goes into sculpting a clay model as it does sculpting in zbrush. Same skill moving lights around on a soundstage as it does moving lights in Katana. Same skills. but we remove the human part in our own reporting. We might get a VFX supe talk about it, but you never get to see the process. Its a mysterious box and the publics only connection is how easy it is when you pick up and play a game and get treated to instant gratification.
I constantly fight with all the parrots on YT comments going "this movie is so great because it has no CGI" DUDE this movie has 1800 VFX shots just stfu
Even back in the early days of CZcams, when watching things like the red letter media prequel reviews, I always thought sure bad CGI look bad, but puppets aren’t any better, I watched terminator 1 and just thought the stop motion puppet looked terrible, sure it kind of played well into the premise that it’s a robot so it’s not as bad as say, old King Kong movies, but it’s not any good at all, way worse than T2 with the CGI effects.
VFX CGI + Computer Generated Imagery have came a long way, yet it's status is not as high as traditional media is not because of Conservative culture, but due to Big production studios given so tiny and small time to VFX artists to perfect' as well as - smoothing out inaccurate unrealistic geometrical details' that screams "I am experimental - unfinished or rushed" due to last minute changes and short deadlines' that just put unnecessary stress and pressure on the artist as whole. Those inaccurate qualities are visible by the human eye, even with Lens flare, another "focal shifting" lens effects will not be able, to cover the unrealistic high fidelity on their person's face etc.
your suggestions are very vfx artist-centered. What benefit does a studio get from allowing artists to talk about their contributions to a film? the studio is about the bottom line and they don't care how we vfx artists feel. It is about whether they make money.
Well, it's for our own benefit. We need the credit and respect so we can get better paid and have a good work environment. We need to join unions and make a stand against this! It's up to us since the studios DO NOT CARE about any of this.
the tarantino comment is one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. I already had lowered respect for him as a person, but damn it's even worse now.
I cant watch this with the bad CGI hair
I think one problem is the fact that VFX is so overly spoken about nowadays. There are thousands of reaction videos out there which tend to go viral and get millions of views ("VFX Artists React To", for example). VFX wasn't spoken about at this magnitude before - it was a hidden art, as it should be. Now we have to talk about VFX just to try to save it from dying out and losing popularity.
Films have sucked ever since the talkies became a fad. 😂😮
If all computer generated VFX would be removed in todays films the audience would instantly think it‘s lame.
Its not CGI, its that CGI goes hand in hand with low effort formula based remake trash. When I think "bad CGI" I don't think about the scorpion. I think about the plague of super heroes saving the world from a vortex in the sky again, and I think about bland faced shitty 6pack actors with nothing unique about them.
CGI used to enhance the movie.........now it is the movie.
Maybe don't take the marvel movies as role model?
@TonyBraun Your cinematic universe is very limited, and you made a stupid generalization ...
@@studiodevis hahaha.....my cinematic universe.......what a silly comment
@@TonyBraun Thank you!
I think part of the social media hate towards CGI isn't even about CGI. The best way to get clicks/likes/revenue on social media is to hate on something. So they are always spewing hate about one thing or the other even if they don't actually hate it. It's all about them clicks!
I'm 63 years old. When I was 10 years old, laying on the living room floor, watching the movies from the 1930's, 40's, 50's and 60's I didn't pay much attention to the quality of the effects. What kid does? Kids just accept things at face value. I realise as an adult that most of the shots I saw of WWII ships plowing through the ocean or getting blown up actually didn't look very real. Water on a small scale cannot mimic water on a large scale. I've seen so many bad examples of practical effects: mis-aligned optical prints, silly rubber monsters, matte paintings that didn't match the real footage. But I've also seen some spectacular examples of practical effects.
I always tell people that practical or CGI effects are simply tools. Either one can create some truly amazing, or utter garbage. It usually comes down to budget and time. I know a guy who worked on one of the newer Star Trek movies. Because they were given far too little time for the shots that were needed, most of the shots were only 70% finished. I defy you to watch those movies and pick out the one where the VFX were not polished 100%.
When people are complaining about CG stunts vs practical stunts I always point out one extremely important difference: CG stunts have never killed a stunt person, a camera operator or actors (including children). Practical stunts and effects have killed people, including children (the Twilight Zone Movie helicopter crash). So I don't care whether or not you like, love or hate CGI, practical isn't worth the risk to human life. Shut your mouths and let these people do their jobs without risking life and limb.
Marvel. The disdain for VFX is literally all because of Marvel. They made a thousand half-baked scripts no one asked for, just for an excuse to employ state of the art VFX. Now people are sick to death of even great looking VFX due to overexposure and a perpetual association with the shallow kitschy garbage that is Marvel “filmmaking”.
I’m one of those “practical over digital” people, and the comments on here are clearly pro-CGI so it’s a bit of an echo chamber here, but I’m going to explain to you from my perspective why I hate CGI and everything digital in modern movies. I don’t watch movies made past 1997 anymore. A lot on here would act outraged by that, but I would like to compare them to the types of people who would enjoy a 480p DVD movie over a 1080p blu-ray. I used to not know the difference between the quality of the two when I was a child, but then I got to know the difference and I could never go back to DVDs. But a lot of people don’t notice a difference and those people are probably the same types posting on this video acting all mind-blown over the fact that “good CGI is invisible.” It’s not invisible to me. Yes, I noticed the sidewalk was CGI. Just because most people don’t pay attention to minute details doesn’t mean it can’t impact my enjoyability of the film. I will concede that the acting and the directing can be good, but I won’t ever enjoy modern movies. There is a visible difference between movies shot on film and those shot with digital cameras. The latter just looks worse in every way. I notice the “color correction” and it looks horrible compared to movies made in the early 90s and prior when that wasn’t the case. I notice the color coding in modern movies and they are frankly an eyesore. Even those that are “subtle.” It just doesn’t look good and never will. I also hate modern animation compared to hand-drawn. And I mean real hand-drawn drawn on paper and coloured by hand, not the fake “hand-drawn” animation today drawn digitally and inked digitally on a computer. The quality just doesn’t match the raw and genuine quality that real manually produced art has. And I am tired of being guilt-tripped into thinking I’m wrong for this opinion because people like you feel like you might end up unemployed. You won’t. Mainstream movies will be CGI for a long time and that won’t change. But a lot of people stopped watching mainstream movies and go for low-budget movies that purposefully avoid anything digital because they know how bad it looks. And the big studios noticed that and are trying to market films as CGI-free to appeal to that demographic while blatantly lying to their faces. CGI is lazy. It took years to create a masterpiece like Wizard of Oz and it shows. Nearly a century later and children born today still grow up with that film. Do you honestly believe any CGI movie ever will be looked at with the same level of awe that many years later? It won’t. Sure, people can mention a plethora of films they enjoyed with CGI, but the fact of the matter is those movies would have been even better if they were made practically instead of digitally. The point isn’t to mention films that you thought were good, the point is those movies would have been even better if the director wasn’t lazy to go for digital instead of practical. I can’t believe people actually watch modern digitally coloured, colour-coded, digitally shot CGI-fest movies made today. They won’t ever be as good as what used to be made back in the day. And that’s a fact. Enjoy your computer garbage, but the fact that you might very soon end up unemployed because AI will do the exact same work you do in a couple of years is proof that the stuff you make won’t ever compete with the stuff legends used to make in the past.
Just compare Scorsese with Scorsese. His best movies were made in the 80s before he resorted to CGI and cutting corners with digital solutions in his modern movies. The Irishman and Hugo are garbage (again, the stories are irrelevant, I’m solely talking from a visual perspective) compared to a visual masterpiece like The Last Temptation of Christ or Raging Bull in his earlier career. You must wonder why none of his modern films are as good as his earlier ones. It’s because all of these directors (including Herzog, Polanski, Woody Allen, Ridley Scott etc) all became lazy once they realised they could achieve what they wanted using digital methods than the costlier but more rewarding practical methods.
You won’t convince those who hate CGI to suddenly like it. We don’t just hate CGI. We hate everything digital. Including digital cameras, digital color correction, digital color coding, and so on. And that won’t change.
"i dont like movie after 1997"
i dont think you like movies in general, man. This is like saying you don't like food outside of your mother's cooking. you're not a movie fan, you're a nostalgia fan. So many great filmmaking achievements in the past 20 yrs and you're just sidelining them, because they dont star Joe Pesci or whatever. you dont long for moviemaking, you long for what you feel when you were a kid.
Irishman was literally Scorsese's passion project, it's been in his hard drive for decades until VFX enables the film to be achieved the way he wanted. Yes, he could just hire different actors for the roles, but he doesnt want to, because hes Scorsese and he doesnt want to compromise his vision. Are you saying Scorsese is lazy for putting on hold an idea until the right time comes along? So I guess doing your passion project is lazy now? What you said made no sense.
@@tlabd9582 With all due respect, what a bunch of nonsense. This is like saying you don't like food in general just because I hate and refuse to eat the cheapest and unhealthiest types of food. I love films and I have always loved them, and nostalgia isn't a factor since I'm not that old in the first place. I don't care about the actors. I think a lot of modern actors are amazing and I have a few favourites who are just in their late twenties. It's about the visual quality of the films they're in. It's just not as good as it used to be because in the past people had to put effort into it unlike now when anyone with a computer can do the same thing. I still watch modern movies sometimes, but I've never watched one where I thought "the fact that it's digitally colour-coded/digitally filmed/has CGI in it makes it better than movies in the past" - there is just no artistic merit to films having digital interference in them. It's purely a budget issue at the expense of the art they attempt to create.
Irishman could be Scorsese's passion project, but it's ridiculously bad and the fact he opted to have an 80-year-old digitally de-aged to look like he's in his 30s is a big part why I think he's become a hack compared to who he used to be 40+ years ago. I could try to enjoy the film despite the digital aspects making it worse, but that's like asking someone to enjoy and take seriously "The Room" despite its ridiculous acting and bad storytelling. One _could_ do that, but why? It's not too much to ask for to just not have a movie without CGI and digital degradation. Old Scorsese would have known that if you couldn't get the actor you wanted for the lead role, you'd have to compromise and try to get another one. Filmmaking is all about compromise. The plot to The Godfather 2 wasn't at all what Coppola intended to make due to all the old actors dropping out, yet it was a better movie than the first. The original Star Wars trilogy required all types of compromise and they ended up much better than the prequels when Lucas no longer had to compromise as a visual storyteller. Compromise is more often than not good for filmmaking.
Guy who creates nothing yells about people who are more talented than him.
@@tmac3d320 You don't know what I am talented at though, and do you tell film critics the same thing? Weird thing to say. I have nothing against people who choose to do CGI for a living, I have something against those talentless hacks who decided to hire them to make movies. The stuff they make belongs to video games, not the big screen.
The fact you call CGI lazy shows you have no idea what goes into it. I've worked with many CG artists and digital compositors over the years who come from fine art backgrounds , everything from fine art illustration to photography. These are people who spent years honing their craft and developing their art before they ever brought those skills, talent and artistic eye to VFX. You can't talk with such reverence about the filmmakers of old and talk about their incredible artistic talents whilst at the same time completely dismissing the amount of artistic talent it takes to work in VFX.
CG has its place but please stop calling it art. Is it a lot of work and does it need dedication? Yes. But you don't need special fine motor skills or other gifts to create it. You can create a better version of Mona Lisa with a computer but it will never have the same value to people like the real one because every idiot knows that they are inherently different. Something done with your hands will always have greater value than something made with a computer.
What a load of bullshit. You have no idea what you are talking about. Digital sculpting and painting for example is done with a pen tablet. There is no meaningful difference between drawing on a piece of paper and drawing on a tablet - the same hand, the same brain networks, the same fine motor skills are responsible for creating the end result. The input is identical, only the end result is in a different media. Every artists who can draw on a tablet can draw on a piece of paper and every artist that can draw on paper can switch to digital painting very quickly. The difference between digital and traditional sculpting is bigger, but the same applies - traditional and digital sculptors can adapt to each discipline very quickly because doing art is separated from the method of input.
@@RyoMassaki I was talking about animation in CG which gives you tools to develop models. You don't need any artistic ability for that and that is what most people mean when they talk about CG.
I would agree in so far that yes as an artist you still have to have certain skills to draw on a tablet too so the input would be the artistic component in that regard. But not the output. The output are only approximations that try to mimic how acrylic paint or other drawing materials behave. They aren't organic nor natural and therefore not art. In real life there is a certain element of chance which influences the outcome of lines and makes a visible difference when compared. Nobody will ever appreciate digital art as much as the real thing because it's too far removed from what we admire in art. It's exactly the precision and expression achieved WITHOUT the help of technology. The least amount of things between you and what your hand creates. A true expression of yourself and nature itself generating all the little variations and imperfections that make up real life. And even if you could replicate it. Nobody cares about digital art. It makes for a nice Wallpaper in windows but there is a reason why nobody would consider anything digital equal to let's say the Mona Lisa. It just isn't.
@@EbonyPope I am sorry to inform you about the fact that you have no clue about art. Your definition is arbitrary and has nothing to do with what is academically understood as art nor what is taught at universities. Organic and natural are non-issues when it comes to what defines something as art. They may play a huge role in your subjective perspective on what art is and what you value in art, but in the grand scheme of things your personal opinion is irrelevant. You are arguing with fallacies, biases and what you say is showing clearly that you are a layman pretending to know, while your arguments are only demonstrating your complete lack of understanding.
@@RyoMassaki Exactly my opinion does not matter. But the majority of people do. And I have yet to see anyone regard anything digitally created as something so valuable, so incredibly precious that it is worth preseving it in a museum. Why? Because you can just copy and therefore multiply it without any change in its characteristics. The copy is exactly like the original and therfore has no value. Just like inflation it obeys the same principle. If you can produce a perfect copy at will how makes that the original anymore valuable? You throw around accusations but you haven't addressed a single point of my argument. No you just resorted to ad hominems and stopped at that. But I'm really curious that's why I will repeat my question? What makes the original of digital art more valuable than its copies? Why do you think no one values digital art as high as the classical stuff? Where are the tons of pictures and drawings that people would give their right arm for just to posseess them? Any answers?
@@EbonyPope More irrelevant arguments based on fallacies. The opinion of the majority of the people is not relevant unless their opinion is based on truth. Truth comes from understanding.
All the values you try so desperately to tie to the definition of art have no influence on whether something is art or not.
Monetary value, fame/popularity - completely and absolutely irrelevant to the core definition.
The quality that makes something into art is independent of these, they are mere reactions to it.
Artistic value stands on its own and even if there is very little of it, it doesn't turn it into non-art.
Bad, worthless art that nobody knows and that nobody cares about is still art like a falling tree in the woods makes a sound even if nobody is there hearing it.
You are free to dislike specific forms of art and consider them of little or no value, but declaring them to be no art because of your personal preference makes you look like a fool.
At the very least, if you want to judge something truthfully and if you want that people take you seriously - you have to fully understand it which means you have to do it yourself.
You don't understand it, I am calling you uninformed and reject your argument completely.
CGI which pretends to be real SUCKS! hollywood sucks today so big