Why CGI sucks and The Thing (1982) is the GOAT special effects

First of all....The thing special effects suck. It looked fake as fuck.

2nd of all, it wasn't a good film. Perhaps at the time it came out, it was good to the people of that time but I saw it a couple of years ago....and it's crap, feels like a straight to VHS movie.


As for your hipster attitude towards CGI


A shitload of movies use it and you never notice it...Why? Because the CGI is very good....But it's the cool hipster thing to say "OMG CGI sucks, special effects are better".


I like special effects but CGI are good as well.


Just because the thing 2011 CGI was crap, doesn't mean CGI as whole is crap...That's like sayng all special effects are crap if somebody does them wrong..You don't like bad CGI, nobody does, but don't say all CGI sucks because it clearly doesn't.
 
Form Voltron said:
First of all....The thing special effects suck. It looked fake as fuck.

2nd of all, it wasn't a good film. Perhaps at the time it came out, it was good to the people of that time but I saw it a couple of years ago....and it's crap, feels like a straight to VHS movie.


As for your hipster attitude towards CGI


A shitload of movies use it and you never notice it...Why? Because the CGI is very good....But it's the cool hipster thing to say "OMG CGI sucks, special effects are better".


I like special effects but CGI are good as well.


Just because the thing 2011 CGI was crap, doesn't mean CGI as whole is crap...That's like sayng all special effects are crap if somebody does them wrong..You don't like bad CGI, nobody does, but don't say all CGI sucks because it clearly doesn't.
Click to expand...


Love that video, good stuff.
 
I've seen some of the biggest modern movies of today, loaded to the gills with action out the ass (mostly CGI) and I couldn't have felt more numb watching it. Simultaneously, I'm still discovering older movies that I haven't seen yet, and time and time again I find myself totally in awe and completely invested in the experience of what's going on on screen. It's amazing how well older movies hold up and the ease at which they inspire and elicit a deep visceral reaction. But even when you spot fake looking practical effects it's still not nearly as numbing or insufferable as fake looking CGI.


Pinyin said:
Cronenberg films had the best special effects.

Scanners is the obvious one.

This scene from Videodrome was pretty amazing at 2:20
Click to expand...


Ew, that was downright uncomfortable to watch. Brilliant!


Btw, the "hipster" thing to say nowadays isn't that CGI is bad........ it's to say that CGI is good. Because 9.995 times out of 10, anybody with half a brain can spot CGI a mile away regardless if it's good or not. Good CGI is tolerable but bad CGI is downright insulting and completely ruins movies. It's lazy and easy and safe, totally lifeless and uninspired. The fact that most movies nowadays are flooded with CGI is just sad and a testament to how far Hollywood has fallen. It's as if Hollywood has lost their will to be creative and just decided to do everything as quickly and easily and lazily as possible.

Nowadays if you want to take some risk and put some effort into it, you do things practical.
 
Something about cgi blood can really ruin a movie for me. I need the real messy thing.

Well, not actually real blood, but a real liquid made to look like blood.
 
Form Voltron said:
First of all....The thing special effects suck. It looked fake as fuck.

2nd of all, it wasn't a good film. Perhaps at the time it came out, it was good to the people of that time but I saw it a couple of years ago....and it's crap, feels like a straight to VHS movie.


As for your hipster attitude towards CGI


A shitload of movies use it and you never notice it...Why? Because the CGI is very good....But it's the cool hipster thing to say "OMG CGI sucks, special effects are better".


I like special effects but CGI are good as well.


Just because the thing 2011 CGI was crap, doesn't mean CGI as whole is crap...That's like sayng all special effects are crap if somebody does them wrong..You don't like bad CGI, nobody does, but don't say all CGI sucks because it clearly doesn't.
Click to expand...



First off, I put a video that I did not make from a guy who specialized in film psychology. It is not about being a hipster douche, it is about your mind can tell CGI is fake.

Your opinion on anything means shit corn to me.
 
I just watched Kong: Skull Island. I'm not talking about the quality of the movie itself. However, the special effects of Kong himself destroy any practical effect ever made. The wizardry is that amazing.

I mean, I get the argument. A lot of CGI is rubbery and it can seem overused when something practical would have given a better impression of weight and presence. But there's basically nothing in Skull Island that could have been done with practical effects.

Like I said, I'm not talking about whether the movie was good. I'm just talking about the CGI used to bring Kong to life. It was astonishing. You can see I've talked about The Thing countless times on here, as it's one of my favorite movies. However, the special effects in CGI nowadays are more than capable of surpassing it, even if they don't always accomplish the task.
 
The Thing (1982) is just brilliant. CGI has truly taken away the realism from the movies.
 
Great cgi beats the best animatronicts, makeup, claymation. Etc. The Thing was a masterpiece though.
 
breadfighter said:
The question I've always had is why CGI costs so fucking much? Isn't it just a bunch of art nerds sitting at a computer? How do the costs for CGI run into the trillions (exaggeration) when they're not paying for anything physical?
Click to expand...

there isn't some database with every monster and creature. every single thing needs to have a wire frame created a texture mapped onto it, particle effects, interactions with other items, its like writing code for a video game, it isn't just like copy and pasting shit out of google. it takes shit zillion man hours to make the smallest things look great.

bad cgi looks bad when studios expect small numbers of artists to create a shit ton of cgi effects for little money in no time.

check out the documentary on the studio that made Life of Pi, where the studio/director had the entire movie made by cgi artists and were constantly given notes to invent scenes/images/animals etc. people were working 21 hour days AFTER receiving their pay in lieu of services. They basically went bankrupt completing all the work for Ang Lee, and when the studio won their oscar they cut their mic during their acceptance speech when they said industry standards needed to change so that artists got paid for the insane hours and time they put in to make movies look good.

CGI doesn't cost nearly as much as people think.

IT should cost millions and trillions of dollars, considering the number of artists that put hours in, but those studios get shafted, unless of course you're with ILM or Disney, in which case you are technically an in house CGI/visuals studio that works on every single Disney project.

All the smaller visual effects/compositing/pre-vis/3Dartistry/3Dmodeling companies that have work farmed out to them, do it for way less than industry standard because they need the film credits to book more jobs.


All the millions of dollars in the movie industry goes to bloated actors/actress salaries
 
Form Voltron said:
First of all....The thing special effects suck. It looked fake as fuck.

2nd of all, it wasn't a good film. Perhaps at the time it came out, it was good to the people of that time but I saw it a couple of years ago....and it's crap, feels like a straight to VHS movie.


As for your hipster attitude towards CGI


A shitload of movies use it and you never notice it...Why? Because the CGI is very good....But it's the cool hipster thing to say "OMG CGI sucks, special effects are better".


I like special effects but CGI are good as well.


Just because the thing 2011 CGI was crap, doesn't mean CGI as whole is crap...That's like sayng all special effects are crap if somebody does them wrong..You don't like bad CGI, nobody does, but don't say all CGI sucks because it clearly doesn't.
Click to expand...

mad max is a great compilation of special effects and CGI. I think it's the right way to make movies, CGI only those pieces that would really benefit from it, build the rest. Real cars were awesome!

Also it could have been even better if Charlize hadn't been so stubborn about amputation...
 
mad max is the goat special effects
 
the ambush said:
One thing I enjoyed in the older movies, especially horror movies was the haze you will get with the film. Reference Rosemary's Baby, Jaws, or The Omen (1976) for the classic grainy film. It may be difficult to explain yet I can't stand the contemporary movies and the clear, glossy look to them.
Click to expand...
Holy shit someone else think like me. And I tought I was eccentric. Old Westerns are better becose of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,466
Messages
58,286,891
Members
175,994
Latest member
Doomer

Share this page

Back
Top