Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » is having an issue with CGI age-related?
  1. Results 1 to 30 of 35
  2. Page 1 of 2
  3. 1
  4. 2
  6. Last

Thread: is having an issue with CGI age-related?

post 1662175213 06-01-2022, 02:32 AM
-
#1
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  3. Join Date: Feb 2012
  4. Location: Belgium
  5. Posts: 41,404
  6. Rep Power: 442514

is having an issue with CGI age-related?

so I was watching this new video of The Critical Drinker and he puts to words brilliantly my sentiment towards CGI

but it got me thinking if it's just an issue that people from the before-CGI heavy era have or is this just general?

in other words do 16 yo have the same problem with CGI or do they just not know any better?

++
post 1662175313 06-01-2022, 02:40 AM
-
#2
  1. PowerPal
  2. Registered Miscer
  1. PowerPal
  2. Registered Miscer
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: Perth, Australia
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 18,408
  7. Rep Power: 54460
ngl Hemsworth muscles look cgi in the new Thor trailer, not completely, just touched up heaps on a computer.I don't watch Marvel movies so idk if they are the same in the actual movies. They just look weirdly smooth and fake compared to say Arnold in Commando or some chit
see sig
post 1662175823 06-01-2022, 03:26 AM
-
#3
  1. maori-rap
  2. Dos hand signal
  1. maori-rap
  2. Dos hand signal
  3. Join Date: Sep 2004
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Age: 43
  6. Posts: 27,427
  7. Subscribers: 2
  8. Rep Power: 158311
Too many movies look like video games these days. That guy was pretty spot on with how lazy all this CGI chit looks. The Hobbit trilogy basically sucked partly due to the EXCESSIVE CGI, it looked awful at parts.

Look at Braveheart. Huge battle scenes but ZERO CGI, just loads of extras, stuntmen, real riders all on real horses (other than when the horses get impaled, horse models were used for that), real field.
Cook the man some eggs!
post 1662176803 06-01-2022, 04:15 AM
-
#4
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  3. Join Date: Feb 2012
  4. Location: Belgium
  5. Posts: 41,404
  6. Rep Power: 442514
Originally Posted By maori-rap⏩
Too many movies look like video games these days. That guy was pretty spot on with how lazy all this CGI chit looks. The Hobbit trilogy basically sucked partly due to the EXCESSIVE CGI, it looked awful at parts.
this, I'm not even "against" CGI or anything, but imo it should only be used as a last resort and not as a first choice

almost every superhero movie / action movie nowadays just looks awful because of the OVERUSE of CGI

biggest "joke" of them all is that there are movies from the 90's that were pioneering CGI that have never been topped with current day technology

f.e. Jurassic Park, T2, Starship Troopers, ...

probably got to do with the makers stil having the mindset of the old days with the cutting edge technology at the time that they used only when there was no other option
++
post 1662176953 06-01-2022, 04:23 AM
-
#5
  1. lightsarefallin
  2. Nukem
  1. lightsarefallin
  2. Nukem
  3. Join Date: Oct 2010
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Posts: 57,269
  6. Rep Power: 504833
If you grew up watching the magic that was Jurassic Park in theaters and witnessed those incredible life-like Winston practical animatronics, you'll forever have problems with cheapened CGI in film.
*Look at reflection in car window and flex every time crew*
*Use half the roll to wipe after a poo crew*
*Fart in the gym and blame rotten smell on faulty ventilation crew*
*Fart at home and blame it on the dog crew*
*Watch neutron-star density poop mock me as water flushes around it and it stays put crew*
*Drive 2 minutes in the summer and back of shirt gets completely wet crew*
*Coffee black as midnight on a moonless night crew*
*Fat shame my cat on a daily basis crew*
post 1662177093 06-01-2022, 04:29 AM
-
#6
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  3. Join Date: Feb 2012
  4. Location: Belgium
  5. Posts: 41,404
  6. Rep Power: 442514
Originally Posted By lightsarefallin⏩
If you grew up watching the magic that was Jurassic Park in theaters and witnessed those incredible life-like Winston practical animatronics, you'll forever have problems with cheapened CGI in film.
that's also what I thought

born in '86 and grew up with purely practical effects like Star Wars and the Harryhausen movies

still prefer the 1933 King Kong over the 2005 adaptation, actually ded srs
++
post 1662177143 06-01-2022, 04:31 AM
-
#7
  1. WABeast
  2. Registered Guido
  1. WABeast
  2. Registered Guido
  3. Join Date: Nov 2016
  4. Location: Washington, USA, Chad
  5. Age: 31
  6. Posts: 9,190
  7. Rep Power: 59182
This is why i mainly watch movies from the 1990s only.
*Sicilian Crew*
*Super Straight Crew*
post 1662177403 06-01-2022, 04:44 AM
-
#8
  1. jimbob007
  2. Keep The Red Flag Flying
  1. jimbob007
  2. Keep The Red Flag Flying
  3. Join Date: Mar 2007
  4. Location: From Anywhere He Darn Well Pleases, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 99,476
  6. Rep Power: 275015
Always thought most of it sucked-that thing with Harry Hamlin in from the early 1980's was terrible even as a child.
post 1662177803 06-01-2022, 05:09 AM
-
#9
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  3. Join Date: Feb 2012
  4. Location: Belgium
  5. Posts: 41,404
  6. Rep Power: 442514
Originally Posted By jimbob007⏩
Always thought most of it sucked-that thing with Harry Hamlin in from the early 1980's was terrible even as a child.
++
post 1662178333 06-01-2022, 05:32 AM
-
#10
  1. Jandels
  2. Yep
  1. Jandels
  2. Yep
  3. Join Date: Oct 2020
  4. Posts: 23,933
  5. Subscribers: 2
  6. Rep Power: 112895
I'm the same age as you OP and prefer the older style of effects with makeup, costumes, even puppets. Even though it looks fake it still looks better.

I do like cgi in sci fi films, I wouldn't like to do away with that.
Damn
post 1662178623 06-01-2022, 05:45 AM
-
#11
  1. justroberson
  2. Legen-Dairy
  1. justroberson
  2. Legen-Dairy
  3. Join Date: Oct 2009
  4. Location: Texas, United States
  5. Age: 42
  6. Posts: 4,467
  7. Rep Power: 19588
IMO the most egregious thing excessive CGI has ruined is traditional horror/monster movies. CGI werewolves and their transformations almost always look terrible and can never top the practical effects in American Werewolf in London or the Howling. Same with vampires, zombies, etc.
"I'm just a lat guy, you know? I've got these amazing lats, and I'm just living in an ab guy's world." -Workaholics
post 1662178833 06-01-2022, 05:54 AM
-
#12
  1. JaxBrah
  2. KAG
  1. JaxBrah
  2. KAG
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Posts: 16,521
  5. Rep Power: 49594
all of thr disney plus star wars shows feel completely dead because of that stupid rotating green screen thing they use. its impressive tech but literally EVERYTHING except the actors is cgi. they all have the same feel.

at the end of the day, its always feels better when the thing you see on screen is real and tangible, even if that thing is obviously a puppet like Yoda in ESB
Certified 1200 ng/l T
post 1662178983 06-01-2022, 05:59 AM
-
#13
  1. XiangYu
  2. u wot m8
  1. XiangYu
  2. u wot m8
  3. Join Date: Jun 2013
  4. Location: Germany
  5. Posts: 3,525
  6. Rep Power: 4134
I hate CGI. Real stuff is better, one of my favorites is Conan riding through the scenery

post 1662179063 06-01-2022, 06:00 AM
-
#14
  1. jimmybobjim
  2. Registered User
  1. jimmybobjim
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 2,764
  6. Rep Power: 20053
haven't seen a marvel movie since my GF forced me to watch the first Thor movie. After that I was pretty much done. They're the media equivalent of a Mcdonald's Happy Meal. I'm a fully grown adult male, that chit wasn't made for me.
post 1662179243 06-01-2022, 06:07 AM
-
#15
  1. janglingjack
  2. Ayy
  1. janglingjack
  2. Ayy
  3. Join Date: Sep 2014
  4. Posts: 11,854
  5. Rep Power: 76539
I don't think the CGI is the problem, it's just that CGI heavy movies are always total ass
*eggs crew*
*raiders crew*
post 1662179463 06-01-2022, 06:15 AM
-
#16
  1. HMFIC_BROWSIN
  2. Buy high, sell higher.
  1. HMFIC_BROWSIN
  2. Buy high, sell higher.
  3. Join Date: Feb 2009
  4. Location: Arizona, United States
  5. Posts: 73,524
  6. Rep Power: 348838
Theres something to the old way of doing everything....

Think about music, they would have the entire band in a room and sing the song straight through in one take.... The strain of the voice, fatigue, emotion, the skill of the band - you could hear it all. Sometimes a mistake made while recording would make the song better.

Old cars with manual transmission, crank windows hnnnnnggggg.

CGI is the same, cashing out raw talent in exchange for computers is a net negative.

The movie 1917 was awesome because it required talented acting in order to work.... We need more creativity in art that leans heavily on human talent the way it used to.

post 1662179513 06-01-2022, 06:16 AM
-
#17
  1. BraneyGumble
  2. Registered User
  1. BraneyGumble
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2013
  4. Age: 41
  5. Posts: 25,426
  6. Rep Power: 248871
I'm just glad I grew up with epics (mostly) working with practical sets and cinematography like Gladiator and Braveheart, those definitely won't make a comeback without CGI bullchit.

In general I don't mind CGI that much but I feel that it somehow became worse ever since they started churning out comic book movies. Infinity War did great, but the CGI in the flicks following that are just chit.

I mean this came out 15 years ago





And now we're being graced with crap like this




Or whatever Hack Snyder and co. did with BvS, JL or for example his godawful Army of the Dead movie.
post 1662180453 06-01-2022, 06:42 AM
-
#18
  1. WHChampion
  1. WHChampion
  3. Join Date: May 2012
  4. Location: Pennsylvania, United States
  5. Posts: 9,616
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 60006
CGI just makes the movie making process much less impressive. No more interesting stories of how they needed to use creativity to get a difficult shot.
post 1662180753 06-01-2022, 06:52 AM
-
#19
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 11,925
  6. Rep Power: 57442
Originally Posted By lightsarefallin⏩
If you grew up watching the magic that was Jurassic Park in theaters and witnessed those incredible life-like Winston practical animatronics, you'll forever have problems with cheapened CGI in film.
The thing is, JP used plenty of fully CGI dinosaurs.

The reason why those shots look so good is:

1) Everything else in the shot is real, and the dinosaurs are expertly blended into the environment. These days, they often do entire shots using CGI, and everything just looks overly saturated, overly "perfect" and video game like.

2) The camera isn't doing anything crazy (again because they are real scenes just with dinosaurs added in). If you watch Jurassic world, there are scenes where the entire shot is CGI and the (virtual) camera is moving in a way no camera could, like following right behind a pack of sprinting raptors. Your brain instantly knows all that **** is fake.

3) They put a lot more effort into giving the dinosaurs genuine weight and momentum when they moved. Just watch the T-Rex paddock escape and how meticulously they crafted the shot of it crossing the street. You can feel every shift of weight, it seems every bit like it could be a real animal. The new ones they hardly bother because they weren't labours of love in the same way JP1 was.

There are more reasons, but here are a few examples of why JP1 still looks so much better than some of the newer stuff even though from a technical perspective the CGI is far more primitive and less detailed.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1662180923 06-01-2022, 06:59 AM
-
#20
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  1. isingmodel
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 11,925
  6. Rep Power: 57442
That being said, when it's done well CGI is incredible. Davy Jones from POTC is still one of the most mindblowing examples of movie magic I've ever seen. Transformers looked ****ing insane even from 2007 like someone already mentioned. The second two Planet of Apes, Gravity, Reign of Fire, District 9 etc to name some more.

Problem is these days they just CGI absolutely everything and contract it out to many different VFX companies full of people who aren't even intimately involved with the project and just told to churn out some generic stuff.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
post 1662181413 06-01-2022, 07:16 AM
-
#21
  1. ChristmasFnatic
  2. Resident Rocker
  1. ChristmasFnatic
  2. Resident Rocker
  3. Join Date: Jun 2008
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 48,050
  6. Rep Power: 353496
It really depends on the CGI quality/movie budget. Even JP was a combination of animatronix and CGI, but that cannot work on other movies.

I mean for example, Avengers End Game, how else would you do it?
post 1662181463 06-01-2022, 07:18 AM
-
#22
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By TokenV⏩
this, I'm not even "against" CGI or anything, but imo it should only be used as a last resort and not as a first choice

almost every superhero movie / action movie nowadays just looks awful because of the OVERUSE of CGI

biggest "joke" of them all is that there are movies from the 90's that were pioneering CGI that have never been topped with current day technology

f.e. Jurassic Park, T2, Starship Troopers, ...

probably got to do with the makers stil having the mindset of the old days with the cutting edge technology at the time that they used only when there was no other option
It does make sense that younger people who have seen so much CGI of varying quality would be more accepting of it.
Originally Posted By isingmodel⏩
That being said, when it's done well CGI is incredible. Davy Jones from POTC is still one of the most mindblowing examples of movie magic I've ever seen. Transformers looked ****ing insane even from 2007 like someone already mentioned. The second two Planet of Apes, Gravity, Reign of Fire, District 9 etc to name some more.

Problem is these days they just CGI absolutely everything and contract it out to many different VFX companies full of people who aren't even intimately involved with the project and just told to churn out some generic stuff.
And I believe this lack of real passion/subbing work out/cost cutting has to contribute. Saw the recent Dr. Strange w/my daughter. We were waiting around for the little clip at the end of the credits...I lost count of the number of different effects/CGI subs that scrolled. It was way longer than I expected.
Originally Posted By HMFIC_BROWSIN⏩
Theres something to the old way of doing everything....

Think about music, they would have the entire band in a room and sing the song straight through in one take.... The strain of the voice, fatigue, emotion, the skill of the band - you could hear it all. Sometimes a mistake made while recording would make the song better.

Old cars with manual transmission, crank windows hnnnnnggggg.

CGI is the same, cashing out raw talent in exchange for computers is a net negative.

The movie 1917 was awesome because it required talented acting in order to work.... We need more creativity in art that leans heavily on human talent the way it used to.

^^^
Preach Grandpa.

Ex was a musician so I heard a lot about the crap quality of most modern popular music [drum machine, sampling, auto tune, etc.]
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1662181683 06-01-2022, 07:23 AM
-
#23
  1. TheAdlerian
  2. Registered User
  1. TheAdlerian
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2007
  4. Posts: 44,596
  5. Rep Power: 96349
I'm old enough to remember when there was no CGI and then how it evolved over time.

CGI is great and can make special effects look better than anything in the history of film.

It's dumb to complain about realistic looking CGI. Before that movies had fake sets made out of styrofoam and whatnot.

A lot of statues in Lord of the Rings were made of styrofoam for instance. Meanwhile, if you can make a statue look more like stone with CGI, then great.

It doesn't matter how things are made in a movie as long as it looks good since none of it is real anyway.
If you want to ask me a question:

Ask: TheAdlerian

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=150655983&p=1000366043#post1000366043

Read my science fiction novel:

http://www.amazon.com/Echelon-Adlerian-ebook/dp/B00RCFFTKC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419640250&sr=8-1&keywords=Echelon+the+adlerian
post 1662181903 06-01-2022, 07:28 AM
-
#24
  1. Postmort3m
  2. Chairman of the bored
  1. Postmort3m
  2. Chairman of the bored
  3. Join Date: Apr 2012
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 32,467
  6. Rep Power: 539821
Yes. There’s a difference betweencreatingsomething and justmakingsomething
post 1662182513 06-01-2022, 07:44 AM
-
#25
  1. squat_blaster
  2. Registered User
  1. squat_blaster
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2007
  4. Posts: 2,718
  5. Rep Power: 16016
CGI just doesn't look as real and to me doesn't look as good. Take for example the original Jurassic Park and compare it to the ones they make today. The original used robotics for dinosaurs so there was no need to suspend believability on the screen. The dinosaurs were actually there. If I'm not believing what I'm watching or if I'm supposed to suspend believability, then why am I watching?
post 1662183043 06-01-2022, 08:01 AM
-
#26
  1. Murph0408
  2. Registered User
  1. Murph0408
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Feb 2009
  4. Location: Connecticut, United States
  5. Posts: 16,586
  6. Rep Power: 46206
late 00's had the sweet spot between CGI and actually investing in massive set pieces. Pirates was the king of this. Davy Jones and his crew were full-blown CGI but the sets were legitimately out at sea with massive ships (or at the least, filmed in a gigantic water tank).
post 1662186033 06-01-2022, 09:07 AM
-
#27
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  1. TokenV
  2. I ❤ TECHNO
  3. Join Date: Feb 2012
  4. Location: Belgium
  5. Posts: 41,404
  6. Rep Power: 442514
Originally Posted By ChristmasFnatic⏩
I mean for example, Avengers End Game, how else would you do it?
I'm glad to say I haven't seen any of those movies lol
++
post 1662186343 06-01-2022, 09:15 AM
-
#28
  1. tehgosu
  1. tehgosu
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Posts: 10,913
  5. Subscribers: 1
  6. Rep Power: 33801
maybe, basically all aspects of movies have gone downhill fast, not just the over-usage of CGI

people of a certain age know how movies used to be and how they are now so will notice the sharp decline in average quality of movies throughout the years

the art of making a good movie is slowly being lost for the sake of profitability
post 1662186513 06-01-2022, 09:19 AM
-
#29
  1. TheAdlerian
  2. Registered User
  1. TheAdlerian
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2007
  4. Posts: 44,596
  5. Rep Power: 96349
Originally Posted By squat_blaster⏩
CGI just doesn't look as real and to me doesn't look as good. Take for example the original Jurassic Park and compare it to the ones they make today. The original used robotics for dinosaurs so there was no need to suspend believability on the screen. The dinosaurs were actually there. If I'm not believing what I'm watching or if I'm supposed to suspend believability, then why am I watching?
Did that movie use robotics?

I recall it be praised as the first to use really great CGI.
If you want to ask me a question:

Ask: TheAdlerian

http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=150655983&p=1000366043#post1000366043

Read my science fiction novel:

http://www.amazon.com/Echelon-Adlerian-ebook/dp/B00RCFFTKC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419640250&sr=8-1&keywords=Echelon+the+adlerian
post 1662187223 06-01-2022, 09:33 AM
-
#30
  1. EISOBAX
  2. Registered User
  1. EISOBAX
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Location: under your bed, Afghanistan
  5. Posts: 6,305
  6. Rep Power: 12271
i'm a 3d artist and do some cgi work, most of it looks like dog chit because of deadlines and budget, also because robotics like jaws and the trex from the first jurrasic park always have heaps of mechanical issues, so they are constantly under maintenance, but even then cgi is still more expensive i reckon, as it requires a big team of skilled artist who need to work closely with the video crew (more skilled personel and time = more money) and ofcourse the ridiculous expensive software and equipment needed for modeling/rendering etc.., its just alot more time effective.
lifting since 7/6/15

bench: 300

dead: 500

squat: 405

@ 6'5 227 lbs
  1. Page 1 of 2
  2. 1
  3. 2
  5. Last
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts