To some degree that’s a real thing. We do live in a more disposable society today. It seems worse than it actually is though. You don’t see all the cheap crap from the 70s, because most of it is long gone, and there will still be stuff from today around in 50 years.
Same thing I say when people say “CG is terrible I want practicals.” Folks there are a lot of forgettable - and some memorable for their sheer shittyness - practical effects in Hollywood’s history lol
People complain because it doesn’t make sense to use CG for everything. I’m still mad that The Thing 2 still hasn’t offered its original practical cut.
Ok but that’s what bad movies do and good CG you don’t notice! I always use Sicario as an example. It’s a masterclass in knowing what CG can and can’t do, because it’s everywhere in that movie and most people have no clue. Hell the border fence as they drive to the border is all CG.
I’m not saying that CG should be avoided but that it doesn’t make sense to use it all the time. And it’s funny, the CG in Sicario was actually what got me interested in landscape alteration in movies. Artists have been able to perfectly craft and rearrange landscapes in CG for a long while. I have no issue with it. Now when you uncannily CG a baby or Robert deniro for 2 hours, my eye twitches.
Yeah, I also think part of the issue is that people don’t want to spend a ton of money on something. If you spend more money on things today, you will (generally) get higher quality items. Of course if you spend less, the company will cheap out in places.
This isn’t always true, but a good general rule.
Of course when a company turns a $200 item into a $20 they cut corners, but you need to ask yourself if those concessions actually matter for your use case.
To some degree that’s a real thing. We do live in a more disposable society today. It seems worse than it actually is though. You don’t see all the cheap crap from the 70s, because most of it is long gone, and there will still be stuff from today around in 50 years.
Same thing I say when people say “CG is terrible I want practicals.” Folks there are a lot of forgettable - and some memorable for their sheer shittyness - practical effects in Hollywood’s history lol
People complain because it doesn’t make sense to use CG for everything. I’m still mad that The Thing 2 still hasn’t offered its original practical cut.
Ok but that’s what bad movies do and good CG you don’t notice! I always use Sicario as an example. It’s a masterclass in knowing what CG can and can’t do, because it’s everywhere in that movie and most people have no clue. Hell the border fence as they drive to the border is all CG.
I’m not saying that CG should be avoided but that it doesn’t make sense to use it all the time. And it’s funny, the CG in Sicario was actually what got me interested in landscape alteration in movies. Artists have been able to perfectly craft and rearrange landscapes in CG for a long while. I have no issue with it. Now when you uncannily CG a baby or Robert deniro for 2 hours, my eye twitches.
I understand what you’re saying, but nobody is saying it should be used all the time, least of all me. I don’t really know what you’re responding to.
Like any tool it can be used lazily and excessively. I don’t think you’re gonna find a lot of people that disagree with that statement lol
Yeah, I also think part of the issue is that people don’t want to spend a ton of money on something. If you spend more money on things today, you will (generally) get higher quality items. Of course if you spend less, the company will cheap out in places.
This isn’t always true, but a good general rule.
Of course when a company turns a $200 item into a $20 they cut corners, but you need to ask yourself if those concessions actually matter for your use case.