I'm watching Dante's Peak (1997), a volcano flick starring Pierce Brosnan.
The colours are just so wonderful -- it's like being outside in real nature.
Whereas with modern movies things seem really washed out. The filming is crisp, and the composition is usually good, but it feels like you're living in a claustrophobic world. Modern movies feel a lot like living in 1984.
Is this the difference between film/digital? Or are people choosing different colour palates?
another problem is good cgi looks like good practical effects but it's cheaper(ish), whereas shitty practical effects have a charm that shitty cgi will never have.
...Also, a lot of the films people look at and go "why does the cgi from the nineties look so much better than modern CGI!?!" actually don't look better, you're just confusing a practical effect for cgi, or they actually played to the strengths of cgi when choosing when and where to use it.
The actual cgi effects in, say, jurassic park look pretty awful if you look at them carefully (the stampeding dinosaurs scene, the brontosaurs in the background in the establishing shot for the park, etc.), but you don't really notice it unless you're looking, because they were extremely careful when and where to use CGI instead of, say, animatronics, or guys in rubber suits. You'll also notice they don't linger too long on a digital effects shot for very long, so your eyes never get a chance to notice that the lighting doesn't quite match up properly, or a dino's skin is a little too shiny.
Was watching some stuff about this the other night. And I think I agree. Modern CG got a lot better at things like lighting and texture mapping. But it losing the novelty and becoming overused meant that it wasn't getting the same love and autistic attention to detail in each shot.
If you gave the teams from some of those 90s the tools from today, they'd blow modern stuff out of the water. The limitations made them master the tools and innovate. Now it's just hammer and all of filmmaking looks a nail.
well, a big part of the problem is CGI works better in certain circumstances than it does in others. It's a specialized tool, but filmmakers often treat it like a swiss army knife.
Put it this way; if you wanted to dig a hole in your backyard to plant something, could you use an ax? Absolutely. Would it be easier than doing so by hand? Probably. Would I ever advise you to do so? Hell no, get a shovel and save your back. save the ax for chopping wood.
It's the same with CGI. It's absolutely fantastic under certain circumstances when it's used properly, but there are other circumstances where another tool would work much better. We call most of these other tools practical effects. Make up, prosthetics, animatronics, sugar glass, physical props, lighting, all work better under the right circumstances and are often cheaper than depending on CGI.
That's not to say CGI can't be front-row center under the right conditions, look at avatar, fantastically beautiful movie in no small part due to the CGI, and (even if you hate the story) the Green Lantern movie, where the CGI actually worked for the costumes and effects, but often times, CG just looks out of place, because it's the wrong tool for the job.
also, thank you for attending my Ted Talk, lmao.