Started By
Message

Why is CGI so bad now?

Posted on 2/1/25 at 10:03 pm
Posted by AlaTiger
America
Member since Aug 2006
21609 posts
Posted on 2/1/25 at 10:03 pm
Saw the new Captain America trailer and it looks like a Disney+ show in its presentation. The CGI seems terrible everywhere.

Watched the first Gladiator movie recently and the CGI was really good. And that was over 20 years ago. Why has it gotten worse lately?
Posted by meeple
Carcassonne
Member since May 2011
10853 posts
Posted on 2/1/25 at 10:22 pm to
I’m not sure. I wonder if it’s because it’s used more exclusively than before, where it was instead used more or less to augment reality.
Posted by Lawyered
The Sip
Member since Oct 2016
37498 posts
Posted on 2/1/25 at 10:22 pm to
Watching pirates of the Caribbean and it looks amazing

Dave’s jones octopus face looks almost real

Now it would look like a kindergartener made it out of drain cleaners
Posted by StansberryRules
Member since Aug 2024
4543 posts
Posted on 2/1/25 at 10:24 pm to
When a movie had 2 minutes of CGI they could focus on making it really good.

When a movie has 45 minutes of it, can't really give it that same level of concern.
Posted by 3nOut
I don't really care, Margaret
Member since Jan 2013
31850 posts
Posted on 2/1/25 at 10:28 pm to
quote:

Watching pirates of the Caribbean and it looks amazing Dave’s jones octopus face looks almost real


People usually bring up Davey Jones playing the organ as pinnacle of CGI. I think at that time they put it dark and in the shadows for the purpose of still filming great scenes in daylight. It was a compliment to what modern moviemaking hadn’t achieved.

When the CGI became every scene it went to crap.

quote:

When a movie had 2 minutes of CGI they could focus on making it really good. When a movie has 45 minutes of it, can't really give it that same level of concern



Beat me to it by a post.
This post was edited on 2/1/25 at 10:29 pm
Posted by tWildcat
Verona, KY
Member since Oct 2014
20139 posts
Posted on 2/1/25 at 10:33 pm to


I always think of Jurassic Park, Rexy looked way more realistic 30 years ago.
Posted by This GUN for HIRE
Member since May 2022
5645 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 12:31 am to
quote:

Jurassic Park


Mostly animatronics & stuntmen in suits for the smaller dinosaurs.
Posted by SouthEasternKaiju
SouthEast... you figure it out
Member since Aug 2021
43129 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 8:06 am to
quote:

Mostly animatronics & stuntmen in suits for the smaller dinosaurs.


I don't know the screen time break down, but I'd guess it was 70-30 CG to practical effect.

*I asked Grok, and here's the response.

In the 1993 movie Jurassic Park, what % of screen time for the dinosaurs is done by CG effects vs practical effects?

In the 1993 movie Jurassic Park, approximately 60% of the dinosaur screen time was achieved through computer-generated imagery (CGI), while 40% was done using practical effects. These figures are often cited by various analyses and interviews with the film's creators, including the visual effects team. However, exact percentages might slightly vary based on different sources or interpretations of what constitutes each type of effect.
Posted by 1999
Where I be
Member since Oct 2009
33175 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 8:41 am to
Practical effects with cgi here and there when needed is always the best imo. Which is why JP’s still fantastic.
This post was edited on 2/2/25 at 8:42 am
Posted by rebelrouser
Columbia, SC
Member since Feb 2013
12848 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 9:44 am to
Good question. It has clearly gotten worse as time goes on and that is not how technology is supposed to work. They tend to use a lot more and it just really takes me out of movies. The cost of creating the CGI has probably gone way up too.
Posted by OysterPoBoy
City of St. George
Member since Jul 2013
43219 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 9:59 am to
quote:

When a movie has 45 minutes of it, can't really give it that same level of concern.


Let AI do it.
Posted by This GUN for HIRE
Member since May 2022
5645 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 1:58 pm to
Grok got it backwards. Stan Winston’s animatronics is what you mostly saw on screen over ILM (CGI) effects. But they worked together beautifully to make one of the best.

As 1999 stated
quote:

Practical effects with cgi here and there when needed is always the best
Posted by IggyReilly
New Orleans, LA
Member since Dec 2015
174 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 3:46 pm to
My guess is it's an issue of time. When you look at the films that are great achievements in effects it's evident that there's legitimate elbow grease that goes into them. But elbow grease takes time and the studios now have so many films in the works and a strict production schedule to stick too so they'd rather just throw a bunch of money and crappy CGI at project rather than take the time to actually craft something.

A perfect example of this the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies. Peter Jackson was allowed to really take his time with LOTRs and the results are wonderful. Even 25 years on it's still a marvel of modern film making and the effects totally hold up.

Comparatively, The Hobbit looks like a thrown together mess. Jackson was given a bunch of money and a deadline to make them and you can see it in the results. The LOTRs are the types of film that will live on for decades. The Hobbit was meidocre slop that was tossed together, made a lot of money and will rarely be thought about again. But that's what Hollywood wants these days.
Posted by lostinbr
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2017
12691 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 4:36 pm to
quote:

When a movie had 2 minutes of CGI they could focus on making it really good.

When a movie has 45 minutes of it, can't really give it that same level of concern.

I think this is probably the biggest thing.

It’s also a matter of how the CGI is used. OP used Gladiator as a measuring stick and they certainly used a fair amount of CGI, but as I understand most of it was to extend the sets/backgrounds rather than being a focal point. They used actual live tigers on the set because they didn’t think the CGI would have been good enough. I believe the actual fighting shots were done by comping the live tigers together with bluescreen shots of Crowe (or vice versa). They somewhat famously used “CGI” to replace Proximo’s face because Oliver Reed died during filming, but they did that by comping actual footage of Reed onto a double’s body.

I think generating detailed foreground elements from scratch is a lot harder to do.

I also kind of wonder how the resolution affects perceived quality of CGI. I would think it makes a difference that everything is released in 4K today, as that’s going to require a lot more work (artistically and computationally) to hide warts from the viewer.
Posted by meeple
Carcassonne
Member since May 2011
10853 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 4:48 pm to
quote:

Comparatively, The Hobbit looks like a thrown together mess. Jackson was given a bunch of money and a deadline to make them and you can see it in the results. The LOTRs are the types of film that will live on for decades. The Hobbit was meidocre slop that was tossed together, made a lot of money and will rarely be thought about again.

Even more to this point is that he got right what he felt he needed to given his time constraints. Bilbo and dwarves at Bag End, Riddles in the Dark, Mirkwood, Smaug…. Comparing these scenes to the rest of the trilogy you can tell the difference.
This post was edited on 2/2/25 at 4:49 pm
Posted by SouthEasternKaiju
SouthEast... you figure it out
Member since Aug 2021
43129 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 5:20 pm to
Most of the iconic scenes, from the brachiosaurus, the wide shot of “they really do move in herds”, from T-Rex, breaking through the electric fence, and the Gallimimus stampede… All CGI.

Yes, the Raptors in the kitchen and T. Rex, pushing the flipped over jeep around and chomping on it. Practical effects. And let’s not forget the ending “When dinosaurs ruled the Earth .”

Pretty silly to quibble over minutes on the screen, but either way it was a masterful blend of the two.
This post was edited on 2/2/25 at 5:23 pm
Posted by mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Member since Nov 2015
39065 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 5:26 pm to
quote:

Watched the first Gladiator movie recently and the CGI was really good


It took about 5 minutes for me to be shocked how pedestrian and TV-like the CGI was in Gladiator 2....the CGI Boogaloo.....and about 30 minutes to turn it off.
Posted by FLTech
Member since Sep 2017
25312 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 9:27 pm to
DEI - They are not qualified to work on things like this
Posted by BuckeyeWarrior
Naples, FL
Member since Jan 2025
622 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 11:33 pm to
Because it’s cheaper for production companies to use CGI to create the entire environment in a film instead of combining it with practical sets. Having to be creative and make your own movie sets is expensive and actually requires work. Movie companies today don’t give two shits about putting effort and creativity into films, they only want profit. That’s the result of big tech companies buying out all of the old school production companies.

20 years ago, CGI was only rarely used in instances where it was needed. Directors and movie producers wanted to keep films as realistic as possible, so they would build soundstages and combine that with CGI effects to create a world that served as a backdrop for storytelling.
Posted by olemc999
At a blackjack table
Member since Oct 2010
15098 posts
Posted on 2/2/25 at 11:37 pm to
quote:

Practical effects with cgi here and there when needed is always the best imo. Which is why JP’s still fantastic.


Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 perfected this.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

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

FacebookXInstagram