yet now not even people like me, who routinely spotted CGI stuff ten years ago or so, can be totally sure an what is or isn’t CGI and most people are totally fooled.
I know people who didn’t realize Tarkin wasn’t real and that was several years ago.
Seriously, where are the Klingons??
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
I know people who didn’t realize Tarkin wasn’t real and that was several years ago.
yes, the only time I’ve been to this kind of experience, in the 90s, they also had rocking chairs.
I didn’t care for it much either, it was a novelty and a nice tech demo but I wouldn’t particularly like seeing a whole movie like that. But I hate 3D glasses as well, to be honest.
But Disney/Lucasfilm had plenty of time, money, and talent to devote to making it work. That's what I already said -- it can be made realistic, but not easily or routinely. People make the mistake of assuming the technology does all the work, that realistic CGI happens automatically, but that's doing an injustice to the talented artists who have to work very, very hard to make computers do the opposite of the smooth, mathematically perfect shapes, textures, and motions that come naturally to them. And when you don't have the time, money, or talent to make it really convincing, you get something obviously fakey like Arrowverse CGI or the de-mustached Superman of Justice League.
And Leia stood out painfully in the same film. Plus the recent Luke debacle.
Last edited:
Give it time. In the TNG preproduction they considered going for a CGI enterprise and the resulting test shots are incredibly fake, the idea was discarded as too expensive and not up to quality standards, twenty years later Star Trek was 100% using CGI instead of miniatures.
I agree with Leia, but as above, give it time. I also agree that Luke could have been better, but the fact that it was done on a TV budget is already indicative of where the technology is now.
This kind of paradigm shift never happens overtime and is the result of countless man hours, yet in a few decades we move from having a given result achievable only by big studios on huge budgets to being at the reach of a single person using a home computer.
You're not hearing me. The technology is already here, but it's not about technology. A tool, no matter how powerful, is only as good as its wielder. Sufficiently skilled artists with sufficient time to do their work can achieve nearly perfect results, but less talented or more rushed artists, or those stuck with inferior tools due to budget limitations, won't be able to do as well. Michelangelo wouldn't have been able to do nearly as good a job on the Sistine Chapel ceiling if he'd only had one year to do it instead of four.
But whether the result is any good is still about whether that person has to talent to bring out the full potential of the tool. You know the saying "It's a poor artist who blames their tools?" Well, it's just as wrong to give the tools all the credit.
but I am and this is exactly the reason CGI got a bad name in many circles: a lot of studios went for it because it was cheaper than miniatures, invested a fraction of what they would have in a model shot and got mediocre results and many people don’t realize that the issue isn’t CGI but only that things were rushed and underfunded. Still, things get better and better and will continue doing so . A few years ago to have a realistic looking texture you had to paint it yourself, now you can buy pre-made ones for a dime or even employ machine-learning based automatic generators, for example, cutting down the manpower needed to create a good looking CGI model. Same goes for motion, nobody today animate lips manually unless they want to do something very peculiar, they just use one of the countless libraries available.
And you're still talking as if the talent and judgment of the people using the technology is irrelevant. I don't watch movies or TV because I want to see technology. I want to see the creations of artists and performers. I would rather see a skillfully rendered thing that looks unreal, like Ray Harryhausen's animations, than something that looks photorealistic but has no artistry to it.
Actually my position is the exact opposite of the one you say it is.
Similar threads
