Started By
Message

re: The 10 finalists for the Visual Effects Oscar nomination

Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:28 am to
Posted by LSU Coyote
Member since Sep 2007
53719 posts
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:28 am to
Dude that was 2003 bro.

We are 2018.

Judge on a scale.

It is relatively the worst job for a big budget production with the tools available.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 11:38 am
Posted by Rep520
Member since Mar 2018
10476 posts
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:58 am to
quote:

Dude that was 2003 bro. 

We are 2018. 

Judge on a scale. 

It is relatively the worst job for a big budget production with the tools available.


Jurassic Park was 1993. Non-cartoony CGI was available by 2003.

You're always working off a sliding scale, but 2003 wasn't the stone age.

I'll just say this too, I don't get all the hate for the CGI in Black Panther. It wasn't incredible, but acting like it was really bad, I never felt like that. People underrate the complete creation of Wakanda from CGI and focus on the action effects too much.

I know that opinion is out of step with this board, though.
Posted by Dr RC
The Money Pit
Member since Aug 2011
58769 posts
Posted on 12/18/18 at 1:12 pm to
No, it isn't. I gave you multiple $100 million+ movies that came out THIS YEAR that have much worse CG. To say it's historically bad is laughable.

In addition to the ones I already listed I'd argue Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom also had worse CG at certain points.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 1:28 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram