#4 - Is CGI Ruining Movies? Why Hollywood loves and hates CGI

[@tiorimas]

CGI isn't ruining anything. The lack of creativity when applying CGI is what ruins movies along with formulaic plots and a "fix it in post" attitude.

[@sheldondrake8935]

beancounters that think price = value, them + filmmaking is such an ugly mix

[@salahad-dinyusufibnayyub7754]

Agree, and more important the direction, acting and scenario, CGI is only a way to express them, if they are already bad no CGI can help. There are alot of good movie with low budget CGI outthere

[@RyoMassaki]

ESG scores, DEI and diversity hires are ruining movies much more than any form of badly done CGI or formulaic plots. Also the general writing, the characters and all that are so badly done BECAUSE the people hired have no clue what they are doing and they are obsessed with social engineering (which is completely rejected by the majority of the audience).

[@GA-br8wj]

Filmmakers are ruining movies themselves, CGI is just a sauce improperly used

[@JaredTheStrange]

I think there was/is a stigma that CGI was a cheat or a crutch that 'real directors' didn't use, especially in the earlier days of CG. It's similar to people who say "I can always tell when something's CGI" when in fact, they can't at all. I attended a conference years (decades... eek) ago where a session was called 'the VFX of Grey's Anatomy' and they had done hundreds of sky replacements, set extensions, object removal/replacements etc and people were shocked that there was so much VFX work in trivial TV moments like doctors walking through a parking lot etc. And it was in pursuit of the story/believability and not like dramatic blood spurting etc.

[@AB-wf8ek]

It's ironic in this age when CG artists and Photoshop users complain about AI 😂

[@yesyes-om1po]

@@AB-wf8ek its because AI produces cheap mass produced content that pollutes digital art galleries, and no amount of AI prompting can fix the majority of people's tacky tastes either.

[@AB-wf8ek]

@@yesyes-om1po Believe it or not, people used to have the same opinion of photography. There are countless photos uploaded to the internet everyday, and yet we still recognize the difference between a photographer with skill and cheap stock photos. It has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with how people are using it. AI tools don't make cheap art, people do.

[@yesyes-om1po]

@@AB-wf8ek It isn't really comparable though, you can only do so much with prompting until you are limited completely by the AI's ability to produce something that doesn't look extremely generic, It doesn't help that photography is incredibly subjective, whereas something like artistry and 3d art is very skill-based, you can't make something great if your a shit artist no matter what, you can get lucky with a photo or prompt because so many of the variables and factors are not in your hands, its the same as using a program like scratch to code, you are extremely limited by scratch's node-based programming, it may be easier, but there is a lot that is done for you, so you cannot do things any better than what the program does for you. Everyone who submits their AI generated works thinks their AI art is the shit, but it really isn't, and its so damn annoying to see them pump out hundreds of them, polluting galleries with hot garbage, I'd rather see some 8 year old's drawings than that shit.

[@AB-wf8ek]

@@yesyes-om1po I personally use a process that allows me to control the animation and style with my own images, but it's also heavily based on prompting. It's very technical and includes 3D animation. I don't try and make work that looks like traditional mediums, I make work that can only be made with AI tools. What a lot of people are not recognizing is that the English language encompasses every subject that has ever been described with it, so if people are making the same thing, it's only because of a lack of vocabulary. A really good comment I read on another video stated that, AI tools lower the bar for entry, but the ceiling is just as high. What you're complaining about are non-artists with limited visual vocabulary using these tools to make clickbait thumbnails and waifu fan art, and I totally agree. But it's not the tools that are the problem, it's how people are using them.

[@traditur_]

5:58 Small correction from a fighter jet nerd here. The Enemy 5th generation fighters featured in top gun maverick are CG recreations of the Russian Sukhoi-57.

[@FlippedNormals]

Thanks for clarifying!

[@traditur_]

@@FlippedNormals No problem.

[@keithkirby7376]

the cgi hate is rooted in ignorance of the technology in my opinion. they think artists and filmmakers have sacrificed their creativity and resourcefulness to depend on a computer. its a very dogmatic viewpoint. becuase they have not a single inkling of how difficult it is and how much skill and experience it requires.

[@Wyntrfang]

So my take on it is that it's two things: -Bad CGI: You see memes of it all over Twitter if there's something off, and there are people literally dedicated to pointing out any flaw even if it's not anything erroneous or bad. That's more accessible, and it blankets most CG that specifically sticks out, or even just heavily-CG-reliant movies -Bad direction: When the CG is great, but the director didn't properly plan for it, or the show is legitimately rough in general, it will trickle down to components associated with the general movie/show archetype and blame will be spread over everything. Like the Marvel shows, can have solid CG but rough or mediocre writing, and the CG gets scrutinized because Marvel is heavily related to CG. But Loki had some rough shots, but Loki was good so note that nobody really stresses over any wonky shots It's not fair, but it's just how it goes, and the key is to make Entertainment generally (subjectively) entertain-ing. People won't complain if the show's good, it's even normal for anybody ragging on the effects on a good show to be ridiculed. It doesn't mean that legit bad CG goes unscathed when the luster wears off especially, but it's usually shrugged at at most, from what I see

[@Frigus3D-Art]

Love your podcasts. Perfect to run in the background while working and is super informative!

[@rano12321]

The explosion in Oppenheimer was really underwhelming considering how good the movie was.

[@RyoMassaki]

The Arc de triomphe scene in John Wick 4 was shoot on an unused old Airfield in Berlin (Tempelhof I guess?) They where already shooting in Berlin because of the club scene so they filmed that scene a couple miles away (probably for no additional cost).

[@StevenBussey]

I think it is a good point that it is not bad CGI that makes a bad movie but direction, script and story. But CGI has become a scape goat. Say if a movie get's badly reviewed it is easier for a production house (maybe even the director?) to pass the buck? 'It was not me it is them!!!' and point fingers? There is that and then the whole backside where media likes to provoke and create clickbate articles without substantial evidence or knowledge on a topic. i.e the infamous guardian article.

[@jasonalen7459]

Yeah. You never hear people say "The movie was good but the story was bad". Because the story _is_ the movie. Thus, you only get "The movie was good but the CGI/sound design/music/cinematography/etc. was bad".

[@thiogarces]

Totally agree, bad decisions and bad directing are the core of the problems, because CG Artists are a way to solve problems, but if production obligates you to do things in a bad way by force that's a hook to the libers or jaw, and is very easy to point fingers on the Artist when the decision has been taken by the stubbornness of a bad decision of a person who is thinking with the toes. There is a phrase I heard long time ago. "Hire a professional and let them Do, Make, and Work in what they know, don't use them as a slaves?

[@maysonbray3357]

These have been great for my commute to work! Thanks for putting these on ❤

[@Demigodish4o3]

Hey guys, that was awesome to listen to while I work. Would love it if you eventually had podcast guests from the VFX/Games/Animation industries, who can talk about their experiences too.

[@Cafnir]

I definitely think there's a huge misconception on what CG actually is, even the name belittles the craft 'computer generated' and when I explain what I do to people majority of the time, they have never even heard of the term CGI unless they're millennials or younger. Majority of people who have had big issues with CG believe it is like AI. However, I do think it is worth discussing the over use of CG when it should be used in harmony with practical effects because I for sure see it be misused in film as a way to go the cheaper and quickest alternative because there aren't as many protections for CG artists based on how much they get payed and the hours they have to work compared to other art forms that have long since established legal standards for their work that CG desperately needs as an industry.

[@stephenkellam8584]

I think it's proven very difficult to employe wisely. It's all about how the filmmakers use it. Take for example Spielberg's War of the Worlds. The Newark scene, imho, incorporates CGI and practical shoots in a very successful way. Spielberg honored a "human-centric" approach. In other words, how have we as humans evolved to interact with scale? Do we have any evolutionary experience flying around enormous objects in the blink of an eye, like in, for instance, the LOTR Minas Tirith battle? It may be a cool experience, but it will not register as real subconsciously.

[@hectorescobar9450]

Its also about the quality or the way some CG has been incorporated in some films, where Uncanny Valley hits hard or feels a little plastic/generic. But of course is more about the execution rather than the fact it has CG in it.

[@maxleveladventures]

I wonder if it's a mistake to think/care about random people/viewers who think they hate VFX. People that are pissed about VFX "ruining" anything are clearly misinformed and just repeating garbage they've heard elsewhere without stopping to check if it's true. The bigger problems are directors, producers, and studios that perpetuate this narrative while denying the hard, important, (often literally) thankless work of VFX in entertainment - which is also reflected in the pay. To some degree, it has to be a bit cyclic because audiences are fed lies by marketing that make them think VFX = bad film, then the marketers feel the need to downplay VFX because they think audiences dislike VFX. If I were to put on my tinfoil hat, I'd say that studios have a significant financial interest in pushing the narrative that VFX = bad. Like many tech industries, the VFX industry is notorious for crunch culture and a shift to unreliable gig work. It is also particularly shafted when it comes to fair compensation for the share of revenue their work directly creates. If audiences are primed to lack respect for VFX artists, they aren't going to support and show solidarity with the industry, despite how essential it is to basically everything we watch. Historically, it's not a great return on investment to rely on changing the minds of the masses, unless you have a lot of time and billions of dollars. The most effective methods of longer lasting, positive change have always been direct action, which we're starting to see more of with the recent resurgence of strikes and unionizing. Anyway, I'm really enjoying these episodes so far!

[@pamparam4637]

IMO, all that "CGI - bad" fuzz is mostly (bad) nostalgia driven. We all know those "back in my days music/movies/video-games/fashion/whatever used to be much better" guys, they could brag about advantages of practical fx over CGI for hours, while the truth is, that in most cases, as you've mentioned, they don't even know, that they are watching CGI in their favorite movies. Anyone, that did live in VHS era knows, that bad/good movies and bad/good fx ratio was similar to what we can see today. As kids we were having absolutely crazy times, laughing our a$$es off to some of the worst rubber monsters in a history of cinematography. Also I remember what a remarkable breakthroughs were movies like "Terminator 2" or "Jurassic Park", mostly because of cgi of quality never seen before. What about modern films? I guess some of them are $hitty because directors still can't handle how to use cgi in a proper and limited way, some of directors still think that they can cover holes in a story with another series of explosions and lasers. And about credits: it is a lottery in other departments too :) Cheers from props-set-design dept!

[@JustJunuh]

Really great episode! I've loved every episode you've made so far.

[@rtdlaboratories]

100% Agree on the Oppenheimer part

[@AB-wf8ek]

As a 3D artist, I've been using AI tools as soon I could get ahold of them. I found it deeply ironic when digital artists started getting upset. It made me think, are you even old enough to remember how much people used to shit on Photoshop? I've actually been noticing it more. The artists that are doing really interesting work with AI video are generally older. They recognize it as a tool and integrate it with a creative practice.

[@MR3DDev]

There is one thing that makes a movie great and that is the marriage between CGI and practical, having one or the other separate can look mediocre, have both together and people will not notice. Unfortunately movies lately tend to have a LOT of reshoots which ends up getting bad CG

[@marsmotion]

Hahaha at 22:39 endless feedback rounds. That's so true. It really should be figured out in script or storyboard or animatic then passed for finalization. The endless human tendency to fiddle with things is truly amazing. Sometimes it's needed but most of the time it's just too much overthinking. As a professional you just implement and shake your head. The people who are pretending vfx aren't in the movie are probably very bad movie makers. Its such a tertiary thought process. If your worried about that you probably have way bigger issues your overlooking I bet. I think promoters directors love practical is because they understand it. Simple as that. Cgi is a scary black magic box to everyone but vfx artists. So it's an easy target or wacky excuse to use. They know no one else will challenge them on it because to the audience it's also a black box.

[@rano12321]

The biggest reason why this hate for CG comes from what I've seen that people still belive CGI is all made by computers and not artsits, so they think doing things in CGI is just a cheap cost saving method and practical effects are better artistic because it's all real ffs.

[@JeffreyThrash]

Imagine how people would react if/when we reach a future where movies ARE made by computers instead of humans (i.e. AI). That’s perhaps the most baffling thing about this current mad dash to shove AI into creative industries-if the average consumer already feels working on computer effects (as opposed to practical FX) is somehow “lazy,” what makes studios think audiences would connect any better if they manage to eliminate the “human” element entirely, and simply generate “content” from a server room?

[@bhoototiger3366]

It's sad that people are just going against their moral principals and trying to steal someone else's credit. Absolutely maidenless behavior

[@Antares-vj7su]

totally. The Marvels without CGI would have been a masterpiece representing the cultural pinnacle of humanity.

[@gitbuh12345qwerty]

10 minutes in, you speak about CGI blending well into a film, how it enhances the story when you don't notice it. I remember when Terminator Salvation came out, and naked CGI Arnold suddenly appears, somebody exclaimed "What the f?" and the entire theater burst out into laughter. You literally would have thought you were in a comedy film at that point. It's completely true.

[@fotistsantilas39]

Nice podcast!

[@gogidolim]

It's this vaudeville sideshow mindset, I guess. It's all about hype and hustle, which I utterly hate. I mean, we all know how fake Hollywood itself is, but it's just far worse than people think. I am just a SAG human prop, but I've witnessed stuff that made me think "wtf seriously?" I can go on forever but I should stop

[@dantatg]

Its the Emperor's New Clothes. If they admit how much CG is in the films then they have to admit to the value of it. They are gaslighting the public which puts them behind the eight ball in terms of public opinion and when it comes time to negotiate salaries

[@HerraHazar]

I feel that it is, something about not investing in a scene when you know its a cartoon.

[@Gary_Hun]

When they say "With CG, everything is possible!" should mean everything that makes sense. That's about all that really is everybody's problem, the computer tech is no longer being used to apply fine tuning and sparse tricks like in the 90s, nowadays they feel like it must drive the goddamn movies. And now, because they are utter 1bit entities apparently in the movie biz, come the "no CGI" fad scam thing.

[@Pixelhorizon]

I think that movies nowadays shoot for a reality that doesn´t exist (duh) but they do it in a way that it´s so incredible that the public becomes numb. It´s too much, all the time and that kills the realism. In the first Topgun, there are amazing scenes that aren´t done with models. I´d rather have fewer hyper realistic scenes and more real scenes, even if they are done with CG. Even though there is CG in the last Madmax movie I think it was done in a way where it feels that is real, instead of having camera moves and effects that are plain fantasy. Anyways...

[@Diegorskysp17]

I think you nailed it. It's just like that in the new Planet of the Apes movies. Matt Reeves in particular shoots the film in such a way that, even when you know the apes are CG, you don't care because everything around them feels real (even when it's not lol), especially the camera.

[@hadeseye2297]

"Why Hollywood loves and hates CGI" It shouldn't be about Hollywood but viewers. Hollywood has nothing to say here. If you won't go to cinema, if you won't stream, buy blueray, or watch in any other way a movie that sucks in gfx field then it is all up to you. But people don't protest - as they should - so many new movies are full of artificial stuff than practical effects. And we all know what's the difference between real explosion and 3d one. Just look at Blade Runner, Predator, Alien, Conan the Barbarian (1982 version). Those movies are classics and can't be beaten by best 3d artists, best budgets, best graphics cards. Good movie will always defend itself. VIDEODROME anyone? The Thing?

[@SneakersDK]

I will argue that CGI are running movies. I think most movie tickets are sold because of the CGI. If the movie has a lot of CGI, they show fireworks of CGI as a selling point. When you watch the trailer you literally don't know anything about it the plot. VS. If you see a trailer of a movie with no CGI you get much more info about what the movie is about.

[@GaryParris]

A movie is team work but is the vision of the director & not the vfx teams, the actors & the director always get the credit for the movie, too much visually recognisable CGI means too much over reliance on it than the script etc, no need to over hype the CGI, that's what credits are for! CG can be bad despite a good movie! you're getting paid for what your doing! it's not true a fully CG film cannot draw people to watch, so that is a bogus statement, all pixar movies, avatar, and many others. what the problem is is CG heavy movies like transformers etc rely so much on the CGI that they integrate it into the script for sake of CGI magic, and people are tired of selling movies including marvel etc based on CGI.

[@DigitalConfusion]

CGI is not be ruining film if the movie concept is good. Problem is that today it is one shit after another covered in CGI to try and hide that the core is... SHIT!

[@handlehaggler]

yes i used to hate cg in moviees. i thought it was faking reality and being cheap

[@handlehaggler]

wolf of wall street had heaps of cg

[@rano12321]

CGI is not ruining movies, it's bad writing. CGI serves the purpose of storytelling, if it happens the other way around then it pulls back people.

[@MalkathiusRecord]

Indian Elephant in the room..

[@Zachary3D]

CGI isn't ruining film. Writers are.

[@ДаниилБараш-я1э]

people watch you because they want to learn something from you can u make more educational podcast please

[@FernandoLopez-tx6lr]

If "suspension of dibelief" is critical for audiences to buy into the movie, then cgi is THE WORST choice a filmmaker can make. People look at cgi and immediately say "That's fake". Even maquettes from the 80s are more believable 🎉

[@schiltz371]

Is CGI Ruining Movies? bad writing, directing, and steaming piles of forced political agenda are destroying movies worse than any bad CGI could ever dream of. CGI can only contribute to a movies rise or fall, not be the sole reason for failure.