Is CGI In Films Getting Worse?

#1

Found this on Youtube:

I also don’t find the latest CGI too convincing.

#2

“There is more of it” has a lot to do with it.
Film Studios have dug themselves into a cycle where they need more and more impossible action
and less story enhanced by a few choice and ultimate CGI shots.

The old quantity goes against quality issue.

#3

I share the resentment of the narrator completely. I love computer graphics, but sometimes I wish CG was never invented, because it killed the genre of decent fantasy and sci fi movies. Not only are the effects quite often very obvious due to the sheer quantity needed, but it seems to me that the availability of the effects and the belief of the producers, that effects are the most important thing also killed any interest in telling good stories (yes, this can also be done in genres that need effects). And this not just the case in movies, but to some extend also in tv shows (take Star Trek Discovery for example). I guess the prices for effects shots are just to low…

#4

There’s another video “Has Our Culture Hit a Dead End?” which covers similar issues–comparing the CGI in Jurassic Park to a more recent one.
I don’t think CGI is to blame for movies getting so bad. Digital allows the studio owners to micromanage and control content in ways they could never before, and that can be bad since they know nothing about art-but the other factor is various media mergers which have effectively destroyed any kind of competition and that means there’s no need for merit in production. The big companies celebrate mediocrity. They cannot really lose money, and there is no way for competition to come along because even if someone did finance a movie, it would be denied access to distribution and advertising if it didn’t fit their acceptable theme parameters, thus making it very difficult to get a ROI. When there were dozens of film companies, big, medium, and small, there was more content diversity and quality control. A movie nowadays is often the equivalent of a hedge fund manager attempting to sing a Beach Boys song to an audience in Korea. It’s insincere, chaotic, and weird. If art was more localized like it used to be, quality would certainly improve.

#5

Clearly the CGI has not become “worse” from a technical perspective.
Have a look at an old DVD of “Wrath of Khan” if you need a reminder of how much the tech
has improved.

As Kelgy has pointed out
We are drowning in a deluge of procedural,formulaic mediocrity
in both film and television.
But this is not news to anyone paying attention.

It is up to the individual to sift through the rubbish and find something
that they consider worth watching.

#7

yes the CGI for Jurassic Park did look real back then, mainly because it wasn’t CGI

#8

You over simplify a bit.
Yes a lot of hero action was done with animatronics but as soon as you see the rex running or walking (aka the body entire) it was CGI.

They ‘wanted’ to use animatronics but they were too unrealistic and puppet like for the walks and runs.

This is the guy that proved CGI was needed for those jobs. And he basically figured it out as he went along.

Irony the rain making life hard for the animatronics actually helped sell the CGI. Dark and rain is a lot easier than bright sun shine to hide faults in CGI!

#9

They were going to use stop motion enhanced with CGI motion blur for the long shots. It was smart of Muren to insist that Phil Tippett’s people be kept on it since they knew animal motion better than the 2d squash and stretch-trained cgi animators.
I think it was the use of those animators with the Dino Input Device that made such a difference with the CGI in Jurassic Park and Starship Troopers. They stopped using it after the latter and that is when unrealistic weighting became the norm.