Zoomers are now nostalgic for mid 2000s cgi slop

Zoomers are now nostalgic for mid 2000s cgi slop

IMG_0613.jpg - 1284x1740, 1.28M

mid

show better cgi
pro tip: you can't

Was just different

I hate faggy zoomer language so much bros.

Those are all sovlful passion projects, not assembly line corporate products. Nice try though zoomtard.

If you can’t see how Davy Jones looks better than Iron Heart you are blind.

Someone manually drew every scratch and blemish on Grievous's mask, nowadays this would just be a procedural material.

The script is tedious because there are so few unique lines

bruh really took _ to another level

_ just hit different

_? weird flex but ok

Even the worst of Bayformers are a masterpiece of VFX technology, especially compared to the low-effort shit of today. Nowhere is that more apparent than in how vidya-like Rise of the Beasts looks.

blud thinks he's X

tell me you're Y without telling me you're Y

Its visually incoherent nonsense.

sybau

Can you blame them when the quality has cratered so far so fast?

we get it you're old. nobody cares.

ong blud the opps just hatin

boomer site faggot. fuck off to tiktok

Only Davey Jones looked good out of those, the others are garbage.

Worlds End is still the gold standard for modern CGI. Nothing has beat it yet

It'll happen to you.

What would you say instead?

L thread

I wouldn’t say anything, I would listen. And that’s what nobody did

Before CGI was outsourced to India

Blame movie studios outsourcing CGI from India

Some younger millennials who overlap with old zoomers started saying these things and I have the same reaction to them, it's more just the fact that it's brain dead

Like anchovies in SpongeBob. Momp

Over the years, they went lower and lower with cgi budgets until they found what they think is the absolute minimum. Similar with practical effects too of course.
So, nowadays, quite often you may ask yourself if they're even serious with the shit, the visual vomit, that you can see.

I must have seen some work print of Minecraft, most of the effects weren't even half finished.

Revenge of the Sith is a bad movie

People can clip unflattering frames out of it but Avatar is like Crysis in terms of relatively consistent visual fidelity

It seems like where they really gave up on cgi is in making it blend with the real environment, it's too obvious with all of the clipping and lack of decent shading in lower budget films

What's a modern example of good CGI?

This is a bad post

People have been talking about this for the past 20 years, zoomy.

Yeah, mostly they don't even try to hide that it's taken in front, and sides, of a green screen anymore.
Movies still cost more and more, but particularly Hollywood always has been somewhat shady business.
Now I remember how Peter Jackson, and a lot of other people, had to sue because the studios insisted that all the LOTR movies did cost more than what they brought in.
A classic scam where they promise you a share of the profit. Add a little bit of classic Hollywood accounting and it suddenly turns out the most successful movie in years was a huge loss. The studios only do it to, ugh, support the arts.

Based

Why can't they just say "better"?

weird flex but ok

This was a thing like five years ago. You're really falling behind the times if you think kids today speak like this.

zoomers should be shot on sight

These phrases are as interchangeable as they are meaningless

What a non-argument lol

um we say Shazam now, boomer

it's trolling and hijinks, but culture really has been compressed into whatever can fit in a <30-second clip and get likes/views

That would be taking a position which could lead to someone disagreeing with you and might generate negative social media feedback. Better to deal in vague notions that can't be quantified or pinned down.

Nah post dark of moon was retarded money grabbing nonsense, that design was when they tried to appeal to the chink market

I loved this and I don't understand why anyone wouldn't. I can't wait to show it to my son.

It was good but this shit is where CGI currently peaks and it's on a different level youtu.be/bByl1eQJfE4?t=784

And the funny thing is it got snubbed

file.png - 1961x823, 1011.37K

Are we even sure that shot of grivous is cgi? For a closup like that i could see george lucas creating a porcelain mask and green screening the eyes

Every Planet of the Apes movie has got an Oscar nom for special effects, which is about the best you'll do as a genre movie. I do agree that in a sane world one of them would have won one by now, though.

why? they did nothing that hadn't been done in king kong 2005

Wrong, there's a lot of progress when it comes to fine details like hair, skin, liquid and particle sims. The animation is kinda the same because both use mo-cap. And you can't say those don't matter but i think they do

Bottom right is from 2017

Please don't reproduce

How come we haven't gotten any CG character that looks better than Davy Jones?

Hey, I also saw this on insta earlier. How many edgy/racist reels do you get?

Bottom left looks impressive though and it's still one of the best uses of CGI to this day

Women, gays, and low t sois use the word 'just' way more than straight masculine men with normal to high t. Who else has picked up on this?

The original cartoon was popular for a reason. Kids like fighting robots.

it reads great and i have no idea what you mean when you say its incoherent.

most i can grant is maybe the upclose transformations can be visual-overloady but even then, thats the point of those specific shots. they dont want you to think about the minutiae of how exactly the robot works and how its parts shift, but rather, you are overloaded with this crazy alien technology and before you know it, there stands a heroic battle ready bipedal robot

Better Man?

saar, the zoomers don't do the needful please watch made in india cgi very good qualities saars

it's a millennial doesnt know that cynicism isnt trendy anymore post

episode III

lol a random closeup of two eyeballs instead of a video of what the actual film looks like

yo, let's goooo

Michael in the office: I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!

Zoomers: I'm no longer being ironic

Avatar: The Way of Water.
Avatar holds up incredibly well for 2009, large amounts of the film would actually still look good if put in a film released right now. And yet, Way of Water utterly demolishes it anyway, it's a huge leap.

Agreed. King Kong had great CGI especially the T-Rex fights and Kong’s final stand

hadn't been done

what does this even mean?

I like how the Transformers example is from The Last Knight, a 2017 film.

it's just you

Mr. Bay what do you to explode on this sequence?

EVERYONE

That Optimus isn't even from the 2007 movie, I think that's his robot mode from Age of Extinction.

Sure did.

Isn't it just whitewashed ebonics ?

Plot felt very straight to DVD to me

LOL this looks way worse than I remember. Are all the clones CGI?

The only part of that entire scene that isn't CG is Ewan McGregor.

Without exception, it's ALWAYS just a closeup still of a character in these "back in my day" visual effects post. It's never a video of a horrendous CGI stunt double wobbling across the screen like he's made of jello, or an actor floating by a Myst background.

The truth is it has always been a mix of great and terrible and that hasn't changed. There are parts of King Kong 2005 that looked like dogshit on release and look even worse now, and there are parts of King Kong 2005 that look superb and still look good now.

No, they aren't.

Dookin'.webm - 1700x712, 3.98M

We aren't talking about plot. The question was asking for a modern example of good CGI.

It was a different time. A time before pajeets.

yeah I can do random closeups of characters too

thanos2.png - 2560x1440, 1.9M

true to some degree, too bad the plot sucked

autismo

Give me an example of A

Here is an example of A

I didn't like C!

???

one of the films in OP is fucking Transformers: The Last Knight

how does conversation work

this deviation from my internal script is confusing

better become hostile

aggro'd NPC

cites Revenge of the Sith of all films as a supposed example of amazing CGI

hruaah.png - 1800x753, 1.92M

"slop"
Man this word has no meaning anymore because of how so many midwits misuse it. Practically the same word as the term woke.

woke

Anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-traditional

slop

Content for people who support the above

Aren't these applicable?

That's a lot of words for I've been filtered out

Millennials should be euthanized from their miserable state.

Chuds love ai slop tho

Not the same film. What's your argument exactly that the Attack of the Clones alone looked bad because the point still stands.

wokeslop post fr fr

Yes thank you for pointing out that Star Wars Attack of the Clones is not the same film as Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest, that was very unclear.

heckin lulz response

what "point"? claiming that CGI was better in the 2000s? why does a clip of Davy Jones looking good count but a clip of Dooku floating in front of a terrible greenscreen background does not? they're both from the 2000s

Holy fuck, you're really stupid

What's your argument exactly that the Attack of the Clones alone looked bad

No, it isn't. It's that for every bit of great CG that holds up, there is ten dogshit looking CG examples. And that hasn't changed one bit since then.

CGI very good in present bloody bastard fuck you

Cherry picking. Coruscant, kamino, Geonosis space battle, tattooine looked great.

Also first digital film, also went all in on full cg characters the way no other movie had before.

Davy jones was only really one guy that had to look good in closeups. They spent a lot of time on him and it looked great.

And 4 years of progress in these days WAS significant. AOTC was literally a pioneering movie and came out in 2002. Dead man's chest came out in 2006. Big changes were happening every year - not like now where CG has stagnated. See also Bayformers.

Cherry picking

No it isn't. How is it cherry picking to say "this part looked like shit", but not cherry picking to say "this part looked good"? The claim in OP's picture is trying to act as if CGI was better in the 2000s. It was not, it was the same. When given the right direction, the right artists and the right schedule, it looks good, and when it isn't, it doesn't, and we get a whole lot more of the latter than we do the former.

Also, you cite Kamino, that looks fine outside with an ocean and some metal buildings, but inside it looks like crap, just Ewan McGregor wandering uncertainly around a bluescreen with blinding bloom.

Why do they never highlight Star Trek 09? I rewatched it a couple of years ago and it really holds up visually, you could put most of it in a film release now and it would look good.

All the interiors were real, in the sense that Obiwan was superimposed on a miniature. I'm talking about stuff like the exteriors and the Obi wan cg stunt double, and all the clone stuff.

The issue of cg today compared to then is that limitations in cg *required* you to adopt a certain visual style,
So that weaker parts in the fidelity would hold up to the greater whole. Starwars was very good at this.

Newer projects feel extremely off due to cg work being furloughed to independent studios and so on (pajeets), and very little effort is being made to make effects blend together.

Starwars PT succeeded in blending several different style of effects, so that while your brain might know the fantasy spaceship is "fake" you don't know if it is computer generated or a miniature or something else.

Eventually, that creates immersion, which is the most important thing. Just simulating pores on a face will never be enough if it doesn't serve the greater movie in itself.

Oh no it's that fuckin retard who thinks because he saw a picture of some miniatures that EVERY single shot of the location must automatically be a miniature and not CG. Still retarded I see.

Because the rest of that movie was so mediocre nobody even remembers it enough to bring up in CGI arguments.

You can go look at the BTS docu yourself. All the interiors were real. You couldn't tell. The effect worked as intended.

The OP's image has a picture of Transformers: The Last Knight in it.

mid 2000s was 20 years ago so that makes sense

ST 09 is a better film than three out of the four films posted there.

I like how the fourth image is from a 2017 film

Unless they are hot.

How small is your vocabulary that you have to use the same insult twice in the same post? Are you an ESL or a child?

it's giving ick

King Kong's stampede scene looked awful even on release. Zero sense at any time that the actors are in the same scene as the dinosaurs.
youtube.com/watch?v=O06gkcP4SlE
It's easy to just grab a random publicity still of Kong. It's not all roses.

Is that Rich Piana ?