The best way to make CGI look good is to make scenes dark so I don't know I can really fault anyone for that. People always bring that up about Jurrasic Park and the Trex scene, or Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean, or Alien (which was a puppet I guess but same principle maybe?), and so on and so forth.
I mean I can fault them for it. There are plenty of great looking movies that have CGI in them and sometimes the CGI isn't perfect but often times movies will just be squint-inducing the entire time and the CGI isn't even that convincing, it's just that if you turn up the brightness you can tell it's super garbage with tons of blurry shit lines around it
I don't know how much of it is "cheaping out" so much as it's pushing the limits of the amount of CGI you can fit in a movie. I guess that could still be considered cheaping out. But most movies just keep a real-world setting and edit in or out parts of a scene. Looks especially dumb when you have things happening that make no sense physically, like super heroes jumping too high or falling too hard. Or materials and construction that doesn't exist in real life. But it does seem like a lot of the CGI is pretty "muddy" looking.
I love the transition of CGI over time:
Hokey crap because the tech just isn't there yet, but it's still exciting because "graphics".
Blurring the lines, it starts becoming "scary" because it's almost realistic.
Effectively "enough", it's possible to make most things photo-realistic.
Cheaping out on the labor costs is ubiquitous so eveb though realism is possible, everything starts to revert to 1.
Absolutely. That's why so many of these recent goddamn movies are DARK. You can't see how bad the graphics are because they are so DARK.
The best way to make CGI look good is to make scenes dark so I don't know I can really fault anyone for that. People always bring that up about Jurrasic Park and the Trex scene, or Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean, or Alien (which was a puppet I guess but same principle maybe?), and so on and so forth.
I mean I can fault them for it. There are plenty of great looking movies that have CGI in them and sometimes the CGI isn't perfect but often times movies will just be squint-inducing the entire time and the CGI isn't even that convincing, it's just that if you turn up the brightness you can tell it's super garbage with tons of blurry shit lines around it
Another thing that makes Avatar: The Way of Water impressive is that large parts of it are set in BRIGHT TROPICAL SUN and it still looks great.
EXACTLY
deleted by creator
Spy Kids is special ha. They fully committed to "we're gonna get weird with this stuff"
I don't know how much of it is "cheaping out" so much as it's pushing the limits of the amount of CGI you can fit in a movie. I guess that could still be considered cheaping out. But most movies just keep a real-world setting and edit in or out parts of a scene. Looks especially dumb when you have things happening that make no sense physically, like super heroes jumping too high or falling too hard. Or materials and construction that doesn't exist in real life. But it does seem like a lot of the CGI is pretty "muddy" looking.