The Movie Thread Reloaded

[Bedrockbrendan]

I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.

The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI

Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.

Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.

I don't know gow you feel about youtube. Maybe you are one of those who have decided to boycott it. But here is a not to long video made about the subject. Take a look, and maybe you will come away with "Wait. THAT was CGI??!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

That's not my point. I am not against CGI in principle. It's just another tool. My argument that the video seems to agree with, is that there's a lot of bad CGI. But maybe more importantly, my point is that it allows filmmakers the freedom to do things that maybe aren't a great idea.
Again, back to Age of Resistance as an example. Digitally removing the puppeteers is neat. Using CGI to make a Skeksis jump around like a hyperactive jack in the box? Terrible, no matter what effects technique they used, but CGI facilitated that bad decision.

I agree that a big part of the problem seems to be this 'well we can do it so we should' attitude that has crept in with CGI. I also suspect it is just a part of how movies are made today with CGI and special effects being outsourced the way they are. I do remember being very impressed when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time. And there have been a few movies that managed that well for me (I liked how interstellar used CGI but also used practical effects in instances where they thought it was needed).

[Omega]

I agree that the Black Panther movie used way too much CGI. However, that trend is true of *all* mainstream fantasy and sci-fi movies.

Not just fantasy and SF. CGI is infesting just about everything now on the larger and even mid-range budget movies.

Weird thing is. Some of the smaller budget shows actually intigrate oft extensive CGI into a movie far far better than the big budget ones.

[Pat]

I've seen far too many rubbery monsters to consider practical effects to be superior to CGI, and the masks and makeup they used to use to age actors were usually found deep in the uncanny valley.

That said, a lot of very visible CGI is terrible. Monsters and digital super heroes still don't move right (Black Panther immediately comes to mind), and there are often problems with texture and conveying grime. While it's worth remembering that this is just the tip of the CGI iceberg, most of which is invisible to the viewer, that doesn't doesn't erase the terrible examples, either.

[Wntrlnd]

Are scenes shot in "the Volume" considered CGI?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErPsq5kPzE

[Ratman_tf]

I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.

The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI

Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.

Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.

I don't know gow you feel about youtube. Maybe you are one of those who have decided to boycott it. But here is a not to long video made about the subject. Take a look, and maybe you will come away with "Wait. THAT was CGI??!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

That's not my point. I am not against CGI in principle. It's just another tool. My argument that the video seems to agree with, is that there's a lot of bad CGI. But maybe more importantly, my point is that it allows filmmakers the freedom to do things that maybe aren't a great idea.
Again, back to Age of Resistance as an example. Digitally removing the puppeteers is neat. Using CGI to make a Skeksis jump around like a hyperactive jack in the box? Terrible, no matter what effects technique they used, but CGI facilitated that bad decision.

I agree that a big part of the problem seems to be this 'well we can do it so we should' attitude that has crept in with CGI. I also suspect it is just a part of how movies are made today with CGI and special effects being outsourced the way they are. I do remember being very impressed when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time. And there have been a few movies that managed that well for me (I liked how interstellar used CGI but also used practical effects in instances where they thought it was needed).

I will say that one issue is HD. We have movies and TV shows that are magnitudes more "crisp" than before. And that's not very kind to practical effects. Again with the Resistance, because that's where I first really noticed it. The puppets looked worse than the ones from the original Dark Crystal IMO, and I think that's because we could see so much more detail. They're great puppets, but they looked more puppet-like.

[Ratman_tf]

Are scenes shot in "the Volume" considered CGI?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErPsq5kPzE

Why do you ask?

it's a pretty neat tool, if used effectively. Since it projects a CGI environment on a screen around the actors, I'd say yes, it's CGI.
The first I learned of the thing was on The Mandalorian, and that show generally does many things right.

[jhkim]

I will say that one issue is HD. We have movies and TV shows that are magnitudes more "crisp" than before. And that's not very kind to practical effects. Again with the Resistance, because that's where I first really noticed it. The puppets looked worse than the ones from the original Dark Crystal IMO, and I think that's because we could see so much more detail. They're great puppets, but they looked more puppet-like.

That's very true for TV, but much less true for feature films. Projected feature films have always been in high definition, and puppets have always looked puppet-ish. The difference between 1980s film projection and 2020s is relatively minor - it's more that audiences are keyed to expect more of special effects these days.

[Ghostmaker]

I will say that one issue is HD. We have movies and TV shows that are magnitudes more "crisp" than before. And that's not very kind to practical effects. Again with the Resistance, because that's where I first really noticed it. The puppets looked worse than the ones from the original Dark Crystal IMO, and I think that's because we could see so much more detail. They're great puppets, but they looked more puppet-like.

Also, HD/60FPS remasters of older material (even relatively recent stuff) can look very, very odd.

I watched a Rifftrax of the 1994 Street Fighter movie, and the crisper video actually made some of the dated SFX look terrible (granted, the dated SFX were the LEAST of that movie's problems. But it really sticks out at a higher framerate).

[oggsmash]

     Anyone have any news regarding the Conan the Barbarian series netflix is supposed to be making?  I had some hopes the show might actually be good, but given Netflix's track record... I am unsure of what direction they will take and do not care to see a Soynan the seamstress instead.   I always thought the tales Howard told would easily make for a series (well produced series anyway) of tales that would lend well to screen.  If smart, Netflix will stick to the toxic masculinity and dismembering, and steer clear of making current year Conan.

[Shrieking Banshee]

I have a feeling the formula worked for him and me much better because we grew up reading marvel comics and saw MANY attempts that were pretty terrible to adapt those stories to tv and screen.

I grew up with marvel comics. I actually bought them at the corner shop in my home country reliably for over a decade.
In addition because of how TV worked in my home country, TV shows and the like where on something of a 10 year delay. So I grew up with 90s animated adaptations of Marvel stuff (its own mini universe in a way).

I just see no benefit to film adaptations. In terms of adaptation, a film is the WORST medium for a ongoing or long story. Maybe books (of a certain length) adapt sorta well to film. But thats about it. Give me animated series with a good voice cast and talented animation crew, if I want a adaptation at all.

Why would I want a hyper condensed version of the original stories condensed into the same bland formula? Like yeah they did make it more streamlined and cut the fat in parts, but in other ways they really removed the OOMPH from so many stories because they had to follow the exact same goddam formula.

And I am so fucking tired of films with buckets of animation in them. Just fucking make a animated film at that point and get somebody with a talented design aesthetic.

[oggsmash]

I have a feeling the formula worked for him and me much better because we grew up reading marvel comics and saw MANY attempts that were pretty terrible to adapt those stories to tv and screen.

I grew up with marvel comics. I actually bought them at the corner shop in my home country reliably for over a decade.
In addition because of how TV worked in my home country, TV shows and the like where on something of a 10 year delay. So I grew up with 90s animated adaptations of Marvel stuff (its own mini universe in a way).

I just see no benefit to film adaptations. In terms of adaptation, a film is the WORST medium for a ongoing or long story. Maybe books (of a certain length) adapt sorta well to film. But thats about it. Give me animated series with a good voice cast and talented animation crew, if I want a adaptation at all.

Why would I want a hyper condensed version of the original stories condensed into the same bland formula? Like yeah they did make it more streamlined and cut the fat in parts, but in other ways they really removed the OOMPH from so many stories because they had to follow the exact same goddam formula.

And I am so fucking tired of films with buckets of animation in them. Just fucking make a animated film at that point and get somebody with a talented design aesthetic.

   Fair enough, and I agree about film being a poor long term story telling medium.   I am curious as to how the next phase of marvel movies profit.  They will do it without me, but no idea how fatigued the general public is of the super hero movies.  I expected big budget deconstructions to start, but those tend to be a touch cynical and depressing.

[jhkim]

   Fair enough, and I agree about film being a poor long term story telling medium.   I am curious as to how the next phase of marvel movies profit.  They will do it without me, but no idea how fatigued the general public is of the super hero movies.  I expected big budget deconstructions to start, but those tend to be a touch cynical and depressing.

Other film genres like gangster movies and westerns had heydays that lasted multiple decades, continuing well after their basic tropes had gotten very tired.

I don't feel that quality is a simple function of time. Some of my favorite westerns were from after the peak, like Silverado and Unforgiven. There are many great classics - but it's also true that a lot of the early and middle period westerns were pretty dull.

[Shrieking Banshee]

Other film genres like gangster movies and westerns had heydays that lasted multiple decades, continuing well after their basic tropes had gotten very tired.

We might have another 5-8 years of this. Joy. But that sounds pretty accurate.

[hedgehobbit]

We might have another 5-8 years of this. Joy. But that sounds pretty accurate.

That depends on when you start counting. The modern super-hero movie trend started with Batman in 1989 (IMHO) so it's been going for 30 years now. I'd like to return to the days when we only got one super-hero movie every two years or so. That was pretty tolerable.

[Pat]

We might have another 5-8 years of this. Joy. But that sounds pretty accurate.

That depends on when you start counting. The modern super-hero movie trend started with Batman in 1989 (IMHO) so it's been going for 30 years now. I'd like to return to the days when we only got one super-hero movie every two years or so. That was pretty tolerable.

The mere existence of a few movies, which you don't have to watch, is intolerable?

You must have a lot of difficulty with everyday life.