pouët.net

even in the 90s, FUCKING CGI EVERYWHERE

When I look at Star Wars, the old trilogy is so much better than the newer one. Real models and puppets still look much more convincing than CGI. Maybe except animation which with CGI isn't choppy and erratic, but modelling and materials/texturing and perhaps lighting aren't there yet IMO. Vistas seem to be on par.
The same can be said about Hobbit/Lord of the Rings, where creatures, especially Gollum look very artificial. Puppet Yoda from beginning of 80s looks so much better than the CGI one. Most of the CGI content added to original trilogy plain sucks.
Look at the movies like Labyrinth with David Bowie where every creature is made by Jim Henson and looks just right (maybe except fire gang juggling their heads...).
Some things sure can't be done without CGI, but mostly it's just costs cutting and people who don't put as much effort and dedication as classic special FX artists did, even in movies costing hundreds millions of $.
I dream about good movie with classic special FX only aided by todays technology and only where absolutely needed.

Most movies would be a lot better if even 5% of the CGi budget would be used for screenplays and actors.

lmao these threads mayne, these threads.. only on pouet.

yeah, computer graphics suxx!!1

No! Compjuter Grpahics are COOL! I think there is too little CGI in movies!

Example fo a Good CGFI scene:

Looks like something achievable in realtime in 2005.

The film is from 2002.

You know, the same year:

Agreed.

classic special effects:

Looks ideal for a proper remake of Jurassic Park.

Gargaj: 2 years after 2002 there was HL2 and Doom3 which had GFX comparable to the one from gif.

farfar & ham: gotta admit Jurassic Park had decent CGI. At least the 1st one, didn't watch the others.

and there was quite a lot of puppeting and classic special FX in Jurasic Park.

I'm a big fan of the models in the original star wars (and e.g. lord of the rings) - I also do like animatronics and puppets - another movie VFX thing that should really be mentioned is classic matte painting

anyhoo..

CGI is a tool like any other. It has strengths and weaknesses.

the movie Moon is a good example how you don't need CG... especially when you try to capture that 70s sci-fi charm :)

what ticks me off bar none is disney/pixar animation shit
if i have to sit through that (often accompanied by humour lamer than desperate housewives) i need a swift 2-by-4 to the head or something else that shuts my brain off

Superplek: If you've watched The Incredibles and felt nothing, you are dead inside.

I just didn't read that , i just didn't read that , i just didn't read that...

Disney had a dismal period for sure, but Pixar can do no wrong (okay, Good Dinosaur) and after Disney bought Pixar and got put on the right track again, they've done some seriously cool stuff as well .. Big Hero 6, for example.

and Plek, I know you like cheesy 80s/90s action, so let's not get started on shit humour, eh? :D

Go Make a demo About iT .. Oh wait

They still could not get the quality right, maybe that is why they produce quantity.

Hoild: That's my general opinion too.
Just btw, I disconnected cable on my TV at home - that is to say, I haven't watched TV, in about 1 and a 1/2 years!!

Good for you

Same, at about the same time. But I spend time watching movies I physically own and YouTube videos, so I'm no better off.

I enjoyed Good Dinosaur. Much better than Brave and presumably Cars 2 (never seen it, but everyone and their dog is shitting on that one :). Inside Out was an instant classic, though.