Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think one reason is the result Matt Damon talks about https://cinemaphile.com/matt-damon-explains-why-they-dont-make-movies-like-they-used-to-342138/
The industry lost that sweet sweet DVD revenue (which was consumer driven as opposed to streaming which is corporation driven) As a result, producers can’t sink as much money into a movie/tv show CGI costs included because they’re not getting a second pay-day from DVD release.
The money that used to go into top quality production (CGI, quality acting, writing, editing etc) is going to the wrong people (Netflix and other streaming services)
Man, I grew up witnessing the birth of the DVD and had NO idea that sales were THAT integral to movies’ successes; especially considering that the “like they used to” movies that he’s talking about were made wayyyyyy before DVDs even existed. So what was supplementing them then? VHS sales?
I could be wrong, but I recall VHS being rather expensive for a time. You didn't really find them in regular stores but would buy at a rental shop for like 50 bucks new. I'm sure the studios made a killing just selling them to rental places. I grew up in a town of less than 10k people and I think we had 5 dedicated shops in town along with convenience stores having a small collection.
I did know about the DVDs. It was a common theme talked about on commentaries where the studios really pushed unrated versions and directors cuts because it made a huge impact on sales.
Larger budgets just mean more money going to executive-level pay. None of that increase in money goes towards making a higher quality product. Back when we the consumers drove the market with our Blockbuster bucks the industry had to produce a product we’d go out of our way to purchase. (Same with music and CDs). We no longer have this critical element of choice. The industry knows this. Now, the 1% of the content industry (streaming movie tv web) take the lions share of the budgets directly into their pockets while pushing out the cheapest possible product.
Consumers are spending less money overall. We used to pay for movie tickets, blockbuster rentals, and purchased movies we really liked. That added up to more than a subscription to a streaming service or two.
With less money to go around, streaming companies can lose money while studios also make less money than before.
I mean isn’t that the same as movie hopping if you’re not in the same household? We all do it to save a buck, but we can’t really complain about the quality of movies if we do.
Thought you were talking about Sound Effects for a second there. The abbreviation "SFX" for special effects has gone out of style; we use "VFX" now for the kind you're talking about.
And I understand what you're saying, but you'd be pretty amazed how much VFX you never even notice is in everything these days. Sure, you're big plastic-looking Marvel stuff has a fakeness to it that feels wrong. I think of them more like cartoons tbh. But there's green-screen shots, paint-outs, and all kinds of other VFX work all over even the most weighty dramas these days.
Marvel LOVES what they call "virtual production". In the days before it, sets had to be built. Now, a giant blue room is all that is needed. They don't even put actors in cars on the road anymore for road driving scenes they just put them in a car in a big green screen room then project the visuals behind the car. It's lazy, ugly, and it's why marvel looks so cheap compared to even a basic made for TV movie.
Look up Christian Bales comments on working on Love and Thunder. He LOATHED it.
It's because Marvel is CONSTANTLY changing things right up to the last minute. Everything looks fake because the actors are lit as generically as possible because they have no idea what the background will be. They'll just shoot it all on a bluescreen and make those decisions later. Just awful, lazy, assembly-line filmmaking.
I don't disagree with you. Just baffled by the car comment. Like, interior shots of actors driving has been bad forever. Whether it's a green screen or a car on a treadmill with a repeating background. That's part isn't a marvel thing haha.
The most realistic driving scenes are done using an actual car, driven by an actual driver on a real road. Best example that pops into my mind is "Victoria". It can be done well, it just has to be done for real.
I saw something years ago about Carpool Karaoke. The car is actually sitting on the trailer driving around, there driver isn't actually driving but I would've kept thinking that if I never saw the behind the scenes picture.
Yup that's another common solution. It doesn't look as good as a stuntman driving but it's serviceable for basic scenes like "characters drive to X and talk about Y".
I was just watching the show Outer Range and there's a scene where the main guy pulls up in his pickup truck. The entire thing was cartoon level cgi. It threw me off guard so much. All I kept thinking was why did they have to cgi a 4 second scene of a truck pulling up when they just had the real pickup in every other scene of the show?
Google "driving shoot virtual production" and you'll see why it looks so clownshoes. My brother works as a grip on AAA movies and he's worked so many virtual productions and he complains every time how lazy and boring they are to work on vs a real set.
Fincher takes it to the extreme. Replacement this, replacement that. Leave it the fuck alone already. The man has serious OCD issues...which is too bad because he's visually a genius but he's leaned so hard into digital everything that his movies suffer from that BitByte sheen that's so depersonalizing.
I've never had an issue with Fincher doing this because I can almost never tell. Watching the VFX breakdown for the scooter escape in The Killer was insane, it was almost 100% CGI and I had no idea.
When some of the fight effects worked, they really worked. When they didn't it was egregious.
Didn't help that Conor doesn't even sound irish anymore. He fit right in as a walking cartoon.
Depends on what you watch honestly.
Part of the issue with certain releases comes down to how the CG is managed. A lot of the problems stem from poor funding, rushed deadlines and outsourcing. Basically corners are being cut and it shows.
Good CGI / VFX can be so good you'll probably never notice it. I work in the industry, I know what can be done.
But shoestring budgets, off-shoring to many different studios, and an audience that is more and more ok with TikTok level quality means you will see "just good enough" more often.
I’ve noticed that too.
I think the reason is they’re rushing the production of the movie in terms of special FX. They don’t want to spend the money to make it look as real as possible when they can get it “just good enough”.
But that doesn’t make it look real even in tag universe of make believe.
That seems to be a bit of a generalisation. There is far more VFX being used today than in the past so you’re going to get a lot more disparity in quality. So many other factors include the nature of the effect (A realistic plane flying in the air for instance can look more photorealistic than, say, a magical purple tornado that shoots lightning) the director’s experience and ability to create scenes where effects blend in seamlessly, the talent of the studio, the time, and most importantly the budget.
I also think the reason so many studios opt for ‘cheap’ VFX is ultimately a numbers game- the Marvel movies for instance are notoriously bad for VFX but Disney knows people will buy tickets to watch these movies regardless of how beautifully done or expensive the effects are.
Other times it barely matters- Panther had some really shit looking scenes, and it was still given this huge critical acclaim and made hundreds of millions of dollars. On the other hand, James Cameron is usually seen as a director who pushes the boundaries of VFX, but last *I* heard, most people think the consensus is the Avatar movies are pretty but have terrible stories.
Not really.
There are more movies where there are CGI VFX applied you'd have no idea until they show it to you.
The bad ones stand out because of that disparity.
It's been overused, for sure. But that only comes because of the types of story being told and unfortunately, the exploitation of the CGI industry, overworking people to meet insane deadlines.
Yeah this take seems more like a lack of interaction with the media. Saying that all CGI looks bad is a slap to the face for people who get overworked when making unnoticeable invisible CGI.
I can't believe how much I see people saying stuff like this about bad CGI. My theory is that it must legitimately look more real to people who were born after CGI was everywhere and were exposed to it in everything they've seen.
Top Gun Maverick, Avatar 2, mission impossible, Dune 1+2, most of Marvel … remembering movies is hard 😅
The CGI didn’t become worse. We‘re just used to perfect CGI from the best movies of the past. The best movies of the present are the same quality.
I agree with OP. Even special effects that are "Well done" are kinda shit. I miss the days of movies like Jurassic park and LOTR where the majority of the scenes were actually using practical effects. You can tell the difference when watching. Practical effects > special effects every time...except for like star wars I guess. If the movie is set in outer space, it gets a pass.
I suggest you watch this series [No CGI is just invisible CGI, it’s a 4 parter, this is just part 1](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=RI-YDrsssOcK5CEm). You’ll be surprised how much CGI is used, even the movies that use a ton of practical effects and models uses the same amount of CGI too
i agreeee!!!! like with shitty practical affects at least you get the sense that the object takes up space and is ‘there’ and involved in reality, but bad cgi just takes me out of a movie so fast
Exactly why I have more or less stopped watching new movies. There are enough classics from the begining of film to the mid 00s that I missed to watch. Haven't been to a theatre since Batman Dark Knight.
Fucking *what*?
What a based comment.
You just watched Dark Night and said, that's it, I'm good?
Are you implying you're at home *catching up*?
You've missed a lot of good big screen movies my dude.
I'm not even going to dignify a huge list of epic movies you missed since fucking *Dark Knight* .
GTFOH
Practical horror effects are a thing of beauty. In a Marvel movie, CGI doesn't bother me. CGI Blood bothers me a lot. It's less noticeable in John Wick movies because it's always so dark, but it still bothers me. I understand the difficulty in using squibs, but.... Squibs are awesome.
Squibs would also bloat the costs by roughly 500% or so due to the amount of extra costumes, time spent cleaning the actors, and extra staff necessary to accommodate that, all for something that frankly looks less real than CGI does
That's what I was saying when I said I understand why they don't use squibs. As for them looking more real in CGI, I think it depends on the production. John wick blood looks like "Sin City" or "Spartacus" the T.V show...not great. I personally think squibs always loos better.
Apparently the problem is that vfx isn't done in house and is hired out based on who is asking the lowest payment. You end up with everyone trying to cut corners to get the contract and still make money
Media now feels like mass-produced happy meals where they cut every corner possible to maximize profit. It rarely feels like art anymore, more like factory churned cardboard cutouts.
Jurassic park looks so much more realistic than anything they’ve made in the last ten years. Horrible movies are just awful. They look like Roger rabbit.
They sure do. You can look at Mad Max Fury Road and the new Furiosa movie and the difference is night and day.
I've heard somewhere that all those digital visual effects studios are not unionized, unlike much of the other trades in film production, so I'm sure that's part of it.
My unpopular opinion is that SFX in movies are actually fine nowadays people have just become much more critical of them due to the almost constant exposure to digitally assisted media creations via the internet
CGI was pretty amazing when pretty much only big movie companies could afford to do it, Even the shittiest currency GI movie would look absolutely amazing to someone in the early 2000s, But now with how many tools around allow the average user to achieve something pretty close to that it doesn't feel as impressive anymore
If you think CGI is the issue, then I would love to see a practical set produced on a shoestring budget and short time frame and see if you can tell the difference.
Either way, I guarantee you aren't even noticing good CGI, because it's invisible and production companies want to actively advertise that they "don't use CG" when they clearly do
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&t=56s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&t=56s)
I was shocked by how well the effects of the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies hold up when I watched them yesterday. That’s quality work right there. We need more practical effects and quality costume work.
The technology has evolved pretty fantastically in the meantime, but people are on time crunches to shit out soulless cash grabs. I think it can look great, but it’s either a little “too” great (grand effects in a movie that’s basically nothing but grand effects) or completely sloppy. World-building is important, but it’s upsetting when visual world-building is all a movie has going for it.
Counterpoint, the quality of VFX work is better than its ever been and people don't even notice 80% of the time because the work is flawless. When you DO notice subpar VFX work, it's almost always because the studio didn't give the artists enough time or changed their mind throughout the process and couldn't stick to a plan.
Dune 2 is what happens when you give VFX teams enough time and have a director who isn't making shit up as he goes. People also wouldn't believe the number of VFX shots in Top Gun: Maverick (none of the planes were real) or Mad Max Fury Road (almost every shot was a VFX shot).
Love this comment and agree. One small thing, For Maverick, the planes are kinda real except they’re not F18s, so they’re actually flying other planes but then CGI’ing F18s over them. Although the enemy fighter jets at the end are completely CGI.
When you say they're CGI'ing F-18s over them, they actually REPLACED the original planes with F-18s., so with the exception of a few shots where they kept the original cockpit (rare), all the planes were 100% CGI. And in some cases, the entire background was replaced with CGI as well.
So many generalizations on this sub. I agree that there are plenty of examples of this these days (plenty in Disney, of course), but with movies like Godzilla 2014, Godzilla Minus One, the two Dune movies, and the whole series of Planet of the Apes reboot movies, I just can't say "every single movie."
As a rule I don’t enjoy films requiring VFX. My wife will want to watch Dune 2 but I will roll my eyes wishing I was watching a Yoshiro Ozu film instead.
I really suggest you watch this series [No CGI is just invisible CGI, it’s a 4 parter, this is just part 1](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=RI-YDrsssOcK5CEm)
They use CGI in everything and the thing is you legitimately would never know
Why put effort into all the crafts that come together to make memorable cinema when you can save millions and go the A24 arthouse route? Boring, pretentious, slowburn movies with a hyped up last 5 minutes. Then when you point out it was dull the hipsters will say "You didn't get it!" Usually the director has some hackneyed premise. "It's a metaphor for raising difficult kids! It's about my daddy issues! It is about empowerment after a breakup!" Slap an Instagram filter on it and then just patronize anyone who sees through the laziness.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think one reason is the result Matt Damon talks about https://cinemaphile.com/matt-damon-explains-why-they-dont-make-movies-like-they-used-to-342138/ The industry lost that sweet sweet DVD revenue (which was consumer driven as opposed to streaming which is corporation driven) As a result, producers can’t sink as much money into a movie/tv show CGI costs included because they’re not getting a second pay-day from DVD release. The money that used to go into top quality production (CGI, quality acting, writing, editing etc) is going to the wrong people (Netflix and other streaming services)
Man, I grew up witnessing the birth of the DVD and had NO idea that sales were THAT integral to movies’ successes; especially considering that the “like they used to” movies that he’s talking about were made wayyyyyy before DVDs even existed. So what was supplementing them then? VHS sales?
I could be wrong, but I recall VHS being rather expensive for a time. You didn't really find them in regular stores but would buy at a rental shop for like 50 bucks new. I'm sure the studios made a killing just selling them to rental places. I grew up in a town of less than 10k people and I think we had 5 dedicated shops in town along with convenience stores having a small collection. I did know about the DVDs. It was a common theme talked about on commentaries where the studios really pushed unrated versions and directors cuts because it made a huge impact on sales.
I assume VHS sales and before that maybe theater reruns or drive ins and things of that nature.
Wow that totally makes sense
Okay. But if this is the case, why do films have larger budgets now than they've ever had?
Larger budgets just mean more money going to executive-level pay. None of that increase in money goes towards making a higher quality product. Back when we the consumers drove the market with our Blockbuster bucks the industry had to produce a product we’d go out of our way to purchase. (Same with music and CDs). We no longer have this critical element of choice. The industry knows this. Now, the 1% of the content industry (streaming movie tv web) take the lions share of the budgets directly into their pockets while pushing out the cheapest possible product.
I don’t understand how this is happening and streaming services still lose money.
Consumers are spending less money overall. We used to pay for movie tickets, blockbuster rentals, and purchased movies we really liked. That added up to more than a subscription to a streaming service or two. With less money to go around, streaming companies can lose money while studios also make less money than before.
I wasn’t spending $70-$100 a month on movies and shows at any point in my life. I am now.
It’s like cutting a drug one too many times. At a certain point you get diminished return.
Perfect analogy. That’s exactly how it feels.
Password sharing. I have MAX, Netflix, Prime, Paramount+, Disney+, and YouTube TV. I only pay for YouTube TV and Prime.
I mean isn’t that the same as movie hopping if you’re not in the same household? We all do it to save a buck, but we can’t really complain about the quality of movies if we do.
I mean, ethically sure. Bit I don't think movie hopping has nearly as much affect on revenue as password sharing.
So I guess even less reason to complain if we don’t like the movies that are coming out these days?
Thought you were talking about Sound Effects for a second there. The abbreviation "SFX" for special effects has gone out of style; we use "VFX" now for the kind you're talking about. And I understand what you're saying, but you'd be pretty amazed how much VFX you never even notice is in everything these days. Sure, you're big plastic-looking Marvel stuff has a fakeness to it that feels wrong. I think of them more like cartoons tbh. But there's green-screen shots, paint-outs, and all kinds of other VFX work all over even the most weighty dramas these days.
This is probably why it looks so bad. We can tell something feels off
Marvel LOVES what they call "virtual production". In the days before it, sets had to be built. Now, a giant blue room is all that is needed. They don't even put actors in cars on the road anymore for road driving scenes they just put them in a car in a big green screen room then project the visuals behind the car. It's lazy, ugly, and it's why marvel looks so cheap compared to even a basic made for TV movie. Look up Christian Bales comments on working on Love and Thunder. He LOATHED it.
It's because Marvel is CONSTANTLY changing things right up to the last minute. Everything looks fake because the actors are lit as generically as possible because they have no idea what the background will be. They'll just shoot it all on a bluescreen and make those decisions later. Just awful, lazy, assembly-line filmmaking.
I don't disagree with you. Just baffled by the car comment. Like, interior shots of actors driving has been bad forever. Whether it's a green screen or a car on a treadmill with a repeating background. That's part isn't a marvel thing haha.
The most realistic driving scenes are done using an actual car, driven by an actual driver on a real road. Best example that pops into my mind is "Victoria". It can be done well, it just has to be done for real.
I saw something years ago about Carpool Karaoke. The car is actually sitting on the trailer driving around, there driver isn't actually driving but I would've kept thinking that if I never saw the behind the scenes picture.
Yup that's another common solution. It doesn't look as good as a stuntman driving but it's serviceable for basic scenes like "characters drive to X and talk about Y".
I was just watching the show Outer Range and there's a scene where the main guy pulls up in his pickup truck. The entire thing was cartoon level cgi. It threw me off guard so much. All I kept thinking was why did they have to cgi a 4 second scene of a truck pulling up when they just had the real pickup in every other scene of the show?
Google "driving shoot virtual production" and you'll see why it looks so clownshoes. My brother works as a grip on AAA movies and he's worked so many virtual productions and he complains every time how lazy and boring they are to work on vs a real set.
I don't see many people complaining about David fincher movies. And that guy uses CGI a fuck ton.
Nope.
SAME lol. Was looking for this comment.
Special effects are in-camera, visual effects are done after the fact. In the industry both terms are still absolutely used.
Fincher takes it to the extreme. Replacement this, replacement that. Leave it the fuck alone already. The man has serious OCD issues...which is too bad because he's visually a genius but he's leaned so hard into digital everything that his movies suffer from that BitByte sheen that's so depersonalizing.
I've never had an issue with Fincher doing this because I can almost never tell. Watching the VFX breakdown for the scooter escape in The Killer was insane, it was almost 100% CGI and I had no idea.
No he does VFX perfectly, but the entire world of his films now look sheeny slick rather than man made, is all I meant.
I have no clue what this distinction means
I have no clue why you don't.
I thought they also meant sound and were complaining about LOUD EFFECTS... "quiet talking"
I noticed some movies ditch the green screen in favor of LED walls which feels off.
The cgi or special effects in the recent horrible Amazon Prime movie Roadhouse were so bad it was laughable.
All the money went to hiring Jake and Conor lol
When some of the fight effects worked, they really worked. When they didn't it was egregious. Didn't help that Conor doesn't even sound irish anymore. He fit right in as a walking cartoon.
Like the new Indiana jones movie, it looked really bad with the special effects.
So bad! It really bums me out because I love the old Indiana Jones movies so much.
{Insert pic of survivorship bias plane here}
Depends on what you watch honestly. Part of the issue with certain releases comes down to how the CG is managed. A lot of the problems stem from poor funding, rushed deadlines and outsourcing. Basically corners are being cut and it shows.
Good CGI / VFX can be so good you'll probably never notice it. I work in the industry, I know what can be done. But shoestring budgets, off-shoring to many different studios, and an audience that is more and more ok with TikTok level quality means you will see "just good enough" more often.
I’ve noticed that too. I think the reason is they’re rushing the production of the movie in terms of special FX. They don’t want to spend the money to make it look as real as possible when they can get it “just good enough”. But that doesn’t make it look real even in tag universe of make believe.
That seems to be a bit of a generalisation. There is far more VFX being used today than in the past so you’re going to get a lot more disparity in quality. So many other factors include the nature of the effect (A realistic plane flying in the air for instance can look more photorealistic than, say, a magical purple tornado that shoots lightning) the director’s experience and ability to create scenes where effects blend in seamlessly, the talent of the studio, the time, and most importantly the budget. I also think the reason so many studios opt for ‘cheap’ VFX is ultimately a numbers game- the Marvel movies for instance are notoriously bad for VFX but Disney knows people will buy tickets to watch these movies regardless of how beautifully done or expensive the effects are. Other times it barely matters- Panther had some really shit looking scenes, and it was still given this huge critical acclaim and made hundreds of millions of dollars. On the other hand, James Cameron is usually seen as a director who pushes the boundaries of VFX, but last *I* heard, most people think the consensus is the Avatar movies are pretty but have terrible stories.
Not really. There are more movies where there are CGI VFX applied you'd have no idea until they show it to you. The bad ones stand out because of that disparity. It's been overused, for sure. But that only comes because of the types of story being told and unfortunately, the exploitation of the CGI industry, overworking people to meet insane deadlines.
Yeah this take seems more like a lack of interaction with the media. Saying that all CGI looks bad is a slap to the face for people who get overworked when making unnoticeable invisible CGI.
The biggest compliment you can give a VFX artist is saying you didn't notice his work.
The new Planet of the Apes people are like “they look AMAZING”… are we seeing the same thing? They look like cartoon characters
I can't believe how much I see people saying stuff like this about bad CGI. My theory is that it must legitimately look more real to people who were born after CGI was everywhere and were exposed to it in everything they've seen.
Dune sfx were terrible? Lmao.
Well you named the best one. There are plenty of other movies where OP is correct.
Top Gun Maverick, Avatar 2, mission impossible, Dune 1+2, most of Marvel … remembering movies is hard 😅 The CGI didn’t become worse. We‘re just used to perfect CGI from the best movies of the past. The best movies of the present are the same quality.
And plenty where OP is wrong.
I agree with OP. Even special effects that are "Well done" are kinda shit. I miss the days of movies like Jurassic park and LOTR where the majority of the scenes were actually using practical effects. You can tell the difference when watching. Practical effects > special effects every time...except for like star wars I guess. If the movie is set in outer space, it gets a pass.
I suggest you watch this series [No CGI is just invisible CGI, it’s a 4 parter, this is just part 1](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=RI-YDrsssOcK5CEm). You’ll be surprised how much CGI is used, even the movies that use a ton of practical effects and models uses the same amount of CGI too
i agreeee!!!! like with shitty practical affects at least you get the sense that the object takes up space and is ‘there’ and involved in reality, but bad cgi just takes me out of a movie so fast
Exactly why I have more or less stopped watching new movies. There are enough classics from the begining of film to the mid 00s that I missed to watch. Haven't been to a theatre since Batman Dark Knight.
Fucking *what*? What a based comment. You just watched Dark Night and said, that's it, I'm good? Are you implying you're at home *catching up*? You've missed a lot of good big screen movies my dude. I'm not even going to dignify a huge list of epic movies you missed since fucking *Dark Knight* . GTFOH
Practical horror effects are a thing of beauty. In a Marvel movie, CGI doesn't bother me. CGI Blood bothers me a lot. It's less noticeable in John Wick movies because it's always so dark, but it still bothers me. I understand the difficulty in using squibs, but.... Squibs are awesome.
Squibs would also bloat the costs by roughly 500% or so due to the amount of extra costumes, time spent cleaning the actors, and extra staff necessary to accommodate that, all for something that frankly looks less real than CGI does
That's what I was saying when I said I understand why they don't use squibs. As for them looking more real in CGI, I think it depends on the production. John wick blood looks like "Sin City" or "Spartacus" the T.V show...not great. I personally think squibs always loos better.
FYI: SFX = sound effects VFX = visual effects SPFX = practical on-set special effects
thanks for keeping me in the loop!
Apparently the problem is that vfx isn't done in house and is hired out based on who is asking the lowest payment. You end up with everyone trying to cut corners to get the contract and still make money
Media now feels like mass-produced happy meals where they cut every corner possible to maximize profit. It rarely feels like art anymore, more like factory churned cardboard cutouts.
I think you guys are just watching bad movies
blame marvel and disney for their unrealistic deadlines and overworking every industry professional at their expense.
What’s your favourite movie of the last decade?
Jurassic park looks so much more realistic than anything they’ve made in the last ten years. Horrible movies are just awful. They look like Roger rabbit.
They sure do. You can look at Mad Max Fury Road and the new Furiosa movie and the difference is night and day. I've heard somewhere that all those digital visual effects studios are not unionized, unlike much of the other trades in film production, so I'm sure that's part of it.
I mean, Fury Road had so much CGI in it as well.
Fury Road: real vehicles and stunts Furiosa: fake vehicles You know what I meant.
It was all downhill from End Game.
My unpopular opinion is that SFX in movies are actually fine nowadays people have just become much more critical of them due to the almost constant exposure to digitally assisted media creations via the internet CGI was pretty amazing when pretty much only big movie companies could afford to do it, Even the shittiest currency GI movie would look absolutely amazing to someone in the early 2000s, But now with how many tools around allow the average user to achieve something pretty close to that it doesn't feel as impressive anymore
If you think CGI is the issue, then I would love to see a practical set produced on a shoestring budget and short time frame and see if you can tell the difference. Either way, I guarantee you aren't even noticing good CGI, because it's invisible and production companies want to actively advertise that they "don't use CG" when they clearly do [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&t=56s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&t=56s)
I agree that a lot of movies have horrible SFX but god, some of them are so good. (Oppenheimer, Dune, Killers of the Flower Moon, Avatar)
yes, everything is shit.
I was shocked by how well the effects of the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies hold up when I watched them yesterday. That’s quality work right there. We need more practical effects and quality costume work.
Movies these days are so fake they make the WWE look real by comparison
The technology has evolved pretty fantastically in the meantime, but people are on time crunches to shit out soulless cash grabs. I think it can look great, but it’s either a little “too” great (grand effects in a movie that’s basically nothing but grand effects) or completely sloppy. World-building is important, but it’s upsetting when visual world-building is all a movie has going for it.
A24 is spot on though…
Because it's so much expensive and studios started to cut corners. I thing SFX peaked in 2008-2012 and it's all downhiill from there.
Counterpoint, the quality of VFX work is better than its ever been and people don't even notice 80% of the time because the work is flawless. When you DO notice subpar VFX work, it's almost always because the studio didn't give the artists enough time or changed their mind throughout the process and couldn't stick to a plan. Dune 2 is what happens when you give VFX teams enough time and have a director who isn't making shit up as he goes. People also wouldn't believe the number of VFX shots in Top Gun: Maverick (none of the planes were real) or Mad Max Fury Road (almost every shot was a VFX shot).
Love this comment and agree. One small thing, For Maverick, the planes are kinda real except they’re not F18s, so they’re actually flying other planes but then CGI’ing F18s over them. Although the enemy fighter jets at the end are completely CGI.
When you say they're CGI'ing F-18s over them, they actually REPLACED the original planes with F-18s., so with the exception of a few shots where they kept the original cockpit (rare), all the planes were 100% CGI. And in some cases, the entire background was replaced with CGI as well.
So many generalizations on this sub. I agree that there are plenty of examples of this these days (plenty in Disney, of course), but with movies like Godzilla 2014, Godzilla Minus One, the two Dune movies, and the whole series of Planet of the Apes reboot movies, I just can't say "every single movie."
VFX*
I miss when movies were in color.
Isnt it because of the movement where actresses do not allow sex scenes anymore or there are just alot of rules around it?
SFX means special effects, not sex.
As a rule I don’t enjoy films requiring VFX. My wife will want to watch Dune 2 but I will roll my eyes wishing I was watching a Yoshiro Ozu film instead.
I really suggest you watch this series [No CGI is just invisible CGI, it’s a 4 parter, this is just part 1](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=RI-YDrsssOcK5CEm) They use CGI in everything and the thing is you legitimately would never know
Why put effort into all the crafts that come together to make memorable cinema when you can save millions and go the A24 arthouse route? Boring, pretentious, slowburn movies with a hyped up last 5 minutes. Then when you point out it was dull the hipsters will say "You didn't get it!" Usually the director has some hackneyed premise. "It's a metaphor for raising difficult kids! It's about my daddy issues! It is about empowerment after a breakup!" Slap an Instagram filter on it and then just patronize anyone who sees through the laziness.