Overton window of quality shifting - 2000s movies being praised
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
CGI is a tool. If it is used sparingly and deliberately and is done well and you won't notice it. And I guarantee you that there a lot of movies where you haven't noticed CGI effects.
King Kong 2005 is the perfect example for one of the first movies which used CGI as its foundation. The Star Wars prequels too. And in those movies its simply impossible to hide the CGI. Especially if the CGI is bad.
LotR used a lot of CGI but practical effects were its foundation. As did Pirates of the Caribbean. And those effects still hold up today. Because they were done well and were merely a tool to enhance the scenes.
Since then CGI has regressed in quality and become the foundation for the majority of movies. Compare Davy Jones with modern day CGI. The difference in quality is obvious.
That's why people praise 00s movies. Because on average they are objectively better than all of the slop we've been served for the last 10-15 years.
To counter that, I'd say for the good examples you give, like Pirates and LotR, they still look horrible compared to the T-Rex CGI in Jurassic Park.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc_i5TKdmhs
2:13 in the video.
That's the best blatant CGI blending into the scene ever got and it was the early 90s.
In Lord of the Rings, the Mines of Morla where they're fighting that giant troll thing, it looks like a video game. Likewise for the Balrog.
Same with Pirates of the Carribean and the skeleton CGI scenes, not one movie has come close to blending CGI well with the overall look of the scene as Jurassic Park.
Which means that in order to use CGI effectively you need to be Steven Spielberg, put an inordinate amount of effort, time, money, artistry in it and apparently it's not worth it to do that as even a perfectionist like Peter Jackson who made background orcs have realistic chain-mail couldn't make the fight against that giant troll in the mines of morla look like it's not a video game.
To be fair, the context for the trex’s shot make it the perfect candidate for CGI. Dark scene, minimal lighting, and there is rain. That can hide a lot of imperfections in the effect. Add to the fact that it was probably one of a small handful of shots they needed to animate something of that and the quality makes sense.
Technically... it was a bit more involved than that: it was a 3D model based on photoscans of a full-size real life animatornic T-Rex:
https://youtu.be/B4J9TBlFxAg
You could technically say it was one of the earliest proto-concepts of photogrammetry.
The CGI was also animated based on the kinematics of the animatronic (similar to rotoscoping), which is why it moved so well and looked so good.
CGI based on practical effect puppets/animatronics are always far superior to just CGI rendered objects (since they have real-to-life reference modeling to draw from).
It's why even when some films opt for night time shots with minimal lighting or rain it still looks very uncanny (i.e., the recent Planet of the Apes movies).
Dang. I didn’t know that. Thank you for sharing!