[ad_1]
“NO CGI” is really just INVISIBLE CGI (part 2)
[ad_2]
View Reddit by SkinnyObelix – View Source
[ad_1]
“NO CGI” is really just INVISIBLE CGI (part 2)
[ad_2]
View Reddit by SkinnyObelix – View Source
[Part 1](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=WkX_4T7KYqDCWw-q)
I’m glad to see this. “It’s all practical” is one of the biggest and nastiest lies right now in movies. Literally hundreds of VFX people work their asses off and then the key creatives spend months saying there are no VFX. All the while the media eats it up and regurgitates the lie.
People say they prefer no VFX but the big films like Top Gun are FULL of VFX. They’re just good. We need to let this obsession with “VFX bad” go. VFX are everywhere and essential nowadays. They can be good or bad. That’s all. But demonizing them and pretending they don’t exist only contributes to devaluation and exploitation of the VFX artists.
I don’t understand why this matters. Why do people care what is CGI and what is practical? All that should matter is “does it look good”.
I don’t give a shit how you do it, if it looks good.
Edit: It seems people are fucking stupid and don’t understand. All I have to say is this: if you don’t like CGI, you don’t like
Star-Wars, and you can go fuck yourselves
One of my favorites was this anti CGI article about *Barbie* with the headline “Its exactly as they’d have done it in the 1910’s” with the feature image being actors over a blue screen.
This entire topic has become so dishonest, I’m glad people are responding.
[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/27/its-exactly-as-theyd-have-done-it-in-the-1910s-how-barbenheimer-is-leading-the-anti-cgi-backlash](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/27/its-exactly-as-theyd-have-done-it-in-the-1910s-how-barbenheimer-is-leading-the-anti-cgi-backlash)
That video is excellent. Great quality exemples and clear message.
I care about practical because I want to see things done outside of a computer. I want to see more movies done with computers, please.
I’ve seen shots my colleagues worked on for over a year be claimed as “no CGI” by the media when I literally saw my colleagues working on it for over a year with countless revisions from client. Like seriously, it’s so frustrating
I’m glad this address the movie *Napoleon* (2023). The CGI seemed abundantly obvious, but moreover: there was no need to lie about it. Ridley Scott simply chose to run with that narrative, when the people who worked on the film directly contradicted what he said.
I am deeply impressed with movies that manage to pull of scenes like this [without any CGI](https://youtu.be/wpKA1meiJzs?t=2744), but given how ubiquitous and expected CGI is nowadays, it only makes it worse that you’re bothering to lie.
what I don’t understand is why a “practical this” is better than a “cg that”. It’s still fake. A set isn’t real buildings. Stunts aren’t real accidents. People aren’t actually being shot in the head for real in movies…..it’s fake! It’s pretend. It’s make beleive.
It used to be that movies would celebrate their creative inginuity. Movie magic is cool!
CGI is a tool. It can be used for something great and it can be used for something shitty.
​
Boasting about NO CGI in a movie is the same as boasting as building a house without a hammer. Cool, you made it with the other available tools, it could have been easier and faster with the right tool.
I think people have sort of forgotten just how _bad_ special effects were in the 80s and earlier if you didn’t have a hollywood studio AAA budget. Even then…..
I bet half of this movie is a green screen