• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Just me or has CGI in movies flatlines since around 2003?

A trailer about autonomous robots traveling through time to kill someone whose child is responsible for fighting a rouge super AI in the future looks fake?
 
Well yes and no. CGI still often looks obviously fake in certain areas (although the fact that you don't notice that it's used on nearly every single frame of modern movies and TV is telling that there are some areas where you can't - go watch those videos showing the CGI used on stuff like Ugly Betty and Grey's Anatomy). There's still this uncanny valley issue. Sometimes its they just skimp (time and resources) on little parts which causes it all to unravel.

The best thing seems to be using some form of practical effects that give things real world presence for actors to respond to, and then adding the extra to that using CGI.
 
One of my favorite movies is Startship Troopers (1997), and I'm still amazed how good the CGI is in that movie. It even manages to render bright sunlit scenes, which many modern movies still avoid since there's no where for the bad CG and textures to hide.

starship_troopers_1997_7.jpg


936full-starship-troopers-screenshot-e1334207476164.jpg


list_2_26_20101214_091919_957.jpg
 
Go check out the CGI in GoT's walk of shame.

Pretty flawless execution of a full nude body double, there was only 1-2 short shots where I questioned the CGI, while knowing it was a body double from the start.

edit: Oh, then compare that to the CGI floating head of the green lantern movies. The first flying scene was atrocious, and that's a big budget film vs. big budget HBO show.
 
it all just comes down to time and money. some movies have more time and money to burn on it so it looks better, some don't.
 
Printer Bandit said:
CGI peaked with Jurassic Park. Everything after that was meh.
Click to expand...

They used a lot of animatronics for Jurassic Park One, which why it looked a lot better than the second and third. Graphing 3D textures onto moving CGI and real life textures looks fake.

If the scene is primarily green screen, the comparison is more easier to blend. However as soon as you add a CGI element into a real plane with textures, it becomes a little more obvious.
 
Last edited:
As for my vote, I thought Lord of the Rings did an incredible job with Gollum. That was 2001.
 
vi edit said:
2000 actually...

http://www.thebigpicturedvd.net/bigreport8.shtml

Proximo in Gladiator
Click to expand...

I love everything about that movie. "Are you not entertained!?!" :thumbsup:

Another good comparison is the Lord of the Rings movies to the Hobbit movies. While they did use a lot more prosthetics and live actors in LOTR (particularly with the various baddies), the CGI that was there looked a lot better than in the Hobbit. Compare the troll fight in Moria to the goblin kingdom fight in the Hobbit. The elf and dwarf armies at Erebor looked like something out of a five year old computer game. The uruk hai at Helms Deep looked way better.

About the only thing the Hobbit got right was Smaug. King Dain was also pretty well done.
 
dainthomas said:
I love everything about that movie. "Are you not entertained!?!" :thumbsup:

Another good comparison is the Lord of the Rings movies to the Hobbit movies. While they did use a lot more prosthetics and live actors in LOTR (particularly with the various baddies), the CGI that was there looked a lot better than in the Hobbit. Compare the troll fight in Moria to the goblin kingdom fight in the Hobbit. The elf and dwarf armies at Erebor looked like something out of a five year old computer game. The uruk hai at Helms Deep looked way better.

About the only thing the Hobbit got right was Smaug. King Dain was also pretty well done.
Click to expand...

My only disagreement/thing to add is that i thought golum looked better in the hobbit. I remember watching the first one in the theater and being blown away by the facial expressions and whatnot. I was impressed by him in LOTR but was blown away in the hobbit.

overall though i do think it was a step down from LOTR overall though.
 
vi edit said:
As for my vote, I thought Lord of the Rings did an incredible job with Gollum. That was 2001.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they did a mediocre job with the ghost army IMO.

Phoenix86 said:
Go check out the CGI in GoT's walk of shame.

Pretty flawless execution of a full nude body double, there was only 1-2 short shots where I questioned the CGI, while knowing it was a body double from the start.

edit: Oh, then compare that to the CGI floating head of the green lantern movies. The first flying scene was atrocious, and that's a big budget film vs. big budget HBO show.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess it has to do with what type of CG and where they choose to spend the money. But not all of the GoT stuff is great. But a lot of it is. So much of the background is CG, but it just looks like location shots.

I also was not particularly impressed with some of the Spider-Man CG either. In contrast, I was much more impressed with the CG prawns in District 9, whereas the shot down ship in that movie looked like amateur hour.

I also think one reason Pixar never tries to render more accurate portrayals of human features is because it's too hard and too expensive. Just look at Tom Hanks in Polar Express and CRU in Tron Legacy.
 
I think the complexity, blending, and overall believability has generally improved. Top tier CGI today is better than top tier CGI a decade ago. The amount of shit blowing up and small finely detailed fragments flying around is really impressive.

The artistry in CGI textures and whatnot has certainly been around for a good while. Gollum, and the Fellowship movie in general is great example of well executed CGI over a decade old that easily holds up today. The big advances in the last decade come from being able to more easily and cheaply employ convincing CGI in everything, including simple TV ads. I remember they made a big deal about being able to render the Colosseum in Gladiator when it was released. Nowadays, that sort of backdrop is really no big thing.
 
Last edited:
Gooberlx2 said:
I think the complexity, blending, and overall believability has generally improved. Top tier CGI today is better than top tier CGI a decade ago. The amount of shit blowing up and small finely detailed fragments flying around is really impressive.

The artistry in CGI textures and whatnot has certainly been around for a good while. Gollum, and the Fellowship movie in general is great example of well executed CGI over a decade old that easily holds up today. The big advances in the last decade come from being able to more easily and cheaply employ convincing CGI in everything, including simple TV ads. I remember they made a big deal about being able to render the Colosseum in Gladiator when it was released. Nowadays, that sort of backdrop is really no big thing.
Click to expand...
I like this demo video from 6 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

And here's one from 3 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=clnozSXyF4k&v=WhN1STep_zk
 
Like anything else, CGI can be done right, wrong and mediocre; it's not at some set level. There can shitty and glorious CGI today just as there was shitty and glorious CGI 20 years ago.

The difference is the tech has advanced, so it's more widely available. The greats are still great (PIXAR, Dreamworks, Industrial Light and Magic, etc), they're just now joined by a bunch of mediocre players. In terms of raw capability and realism, the maximum potential of CGI has exploded over the years.
 
My kid likes to watch a show called Bubble Guppies. The animation on that drives me up the wall, partially because all the characters look the same, with the same facial expressions and mannerisms. They just differentiate them with different hairdos and clothes, etc.

Bubble-Guppies-Costumes-3.jpg


Luckily she prefers Curious George though, which is more pleasant.

giphy.gif
 
CGI still sucks when used indiscriminately, especially with excessive green screen type content. If its use is clever and done right, it wont look like CGI.
 
phreaqe said:
My only disagreement/thing to add is that i thought golum looked better in the hobbit. I remember watching the first one in the theater and being blown away by the facial expressions and whatnot. I was impressed by him in LOTR but was blown away in the hobbit.

overall though i do think it was a step down from LOTR overall though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I didn't think the original could be improved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top