alt Hacker NewsThe vast majority of CG is replicating stuff like set design or replacing a location shoot.
Says who?
We don’t usually call that an “effect”
Who is "we" ?
This is basically going from "CG is bad" to "not all CG" to "that's not an 'effect'". These arguments never hold up because any explanation ends up full of holes and inconsistencies.
Usually it just ends up being a variation of "I liked the movies I saw when I was a kid". Most of what you're saying here is just that you liked an old movie.
People have been making the argument of 'models look more real' since the 90s, but when it comes down to it, they don't know what is CG and what isn't and can't tell the difference. It's a combination of nostalgia and thinking they know better when they aren't actually being tested.
Then there is the fact that shots in modern movies can't be made without CG. You can't do the same things with models and have the camera freedom, long shots, wide shots etc, and that's just hard surfaces.
Saying "I love this black and white movie, therefore CG is over used" is an opinion that most people would never hold and a connection that doesn't make a lot of sense, but the a cold hard fact is that the same movies can't be made. Eventually seeing a half second jump scare of an alien is going to get old even if the man in the suit looks good.
> > The vast majority of CG is replicating stuff like set design or replacing a location shoot.
> Says who?
The people who are like "actually there's a ton of CG you don't notice!". They mean simple compositing, CG backdrops, painting in props, and stuff like that. (as if I'm not already aware of that stuff, LOL) That's where most of the CG is in movies for the last decade or so—they're right about that. It's replacing prop construction, set design & construction, and location shooting.
> This is basically going from "CG is bad" to "not all CG" to "that's not an 'effect'". These arguments never hold up because any explanation ends up full of holes and inconsistencies.
No, I'm just not impressed when CG successfully (I disagree it's successful as often as proponents say, and to them I say "give it ten years and a lot of this 'good' stuff will look awful to you", as it's the same ride we've been on with CG the entire time so far, the "look, CG's finally entirely convincing!" movie seems about as convincing as Jason and the Argonauts' stop motion a few years later) does something mundane that wouldn't even have been an effect before.
I mean, if we're counting that, and trying to compare the two, then just about every single time a location shoot was used where CG might have been today, classic "effects" win. That part's silly to compare.
> People have been making the argument of 'models look more real' since the 90s, but when it comes down to it, they don't know what is CG and what isn't and can't tell the difference. It's a combination of nostalgia and thinking they know better when they aren't actually being tested.
The best of the best just really do hold up better. It's a shame we didn't get more time with that style before CG took over, it was a pretty brief window between "you can always tell the model is a model" and "now it's all computers".
(This should irk you too: CG blood spatter harms every single action movie where it replaces squibs, the movie may survive the harm but that part is terrible every time)