The more advanced CGI becomes, the faker it looks.

I agree in general that CGI gets like two shred guitarists trying to impress each other, and my wife hates it and refuses to watch if there's much of that in a movie.

But in movies we have to suspend disbelief at least enough to not be bothered by the two dimensional characters on a flat screen.
Everybody has a degree to which they can suspend disbelief though, and I've got two Marshall full stacks worth of it, where you maybe only have a PRRI worth?
Maybe try squinting? Or drinking tequila?

Life is full of stuff where we have to overlook some "issues" and make the best of what we've got.
Employment, romance, trusted friends, nights out for dinner; all fall short here and there, then we either keep going back or move on to the next one.

We here pretty much stopped seeing movies in theaters some years ago, I think Machete was the last new release we were excited to see.
And it delivered.

Now it feels like movies may be moving toward such a mix of animation, video game fantasy, and only sprinkles of realism; that I do sometimes feel cheated out of my two hours.
My wife just walks away after a few minutes.
Like I said though, my tolerance is epic!

 

I don't know, the CGI in the most recent Star Wars trilogy (episodes 7 to 9) looks pretty darn realistic to me (particularly episode 7) and WAY better than the effects in the second trilogy (episodes 1 to 3) which look like a cartoon. I don't watch a lot of new movies really but for me, episode 7 was a breakthrough in terms of CGI realism. Like everything else, it probably depends on the skill and resources applied, but it seems to me the technology capable.

 

I agree 100% with @3-Chord-Genius . The Star Wars movie evolution is a great example. The Mad Max movies too. I was appalled by their last one. What finally did me in with CGI is "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". I just cannot stomach these and I know a kid (well 15 years ago when he started his career) that has made a very lucrative career building backgrounds for movies exclusively using CGI.

 

They couldn't afford real horses with their meager production budget, so they pretended to be riding them. It was a better film because of it.

 

Like so many things, it depends how it's used. I try not to make sweeping generalizations anymore, however inconsequential they might be. To keep with the Star Wars theme in this thread, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

The Lord of the Rings movies that Peter Jackson made 20 years ago still hold up incredibly well if you ask me. Golumn doesn't look out of place one bit, there are very few scenes in the entire trilogy that irk me.

Films made with state-of-the-art CGI can often look out of place, but when different technologies become more well-developed I think they can be used really well. Michael Bay stuff like the multiple Transformers movies, all the Marvel movies of the past decade, they are intentionally using absurdly over-the-top CGI. They want their money now and don't care how the movies might look in ten years, which is just one more reason to dislike them.

 

100% agree with this. I just watched the Lord of the Rings new 4K release and it’s amazing how well they’ve aged. Compared to now, CGI was extremely limited in 2000 when LOTR was made, but because of their extensive use of practical effects (makeup, miniatures, etc) the movie looks exceptional.

I also think CGI encourages excess. Could they put 20 people in the frame? Yes. But too often they go for 200 even if it looks preposterous. They’ve gotta flex the muscles after all.

 

I’m just glad that they didn’t use any CGI when they made, “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”.

I think hiring real faeries was the best thing they could have done, and the movie is better for it.

 

I couldn't agree with the OP more, but I thought it was just me who felt that way.

As an an example I recently saw the newer Midway movie. Way fake looking action.
I much prefer the original movie where all the action was actually WWII gun camera footage.

 

Any of the first 3 Mad Max movie vs Fury Road.

 

Yeah I agree with that. Although I think the most recent trilogy steered clear of the most tasteless Yoda-flipping. And I also think that the Darth Vader/Obi Wan light saber dual in the original Star Wars (now known as episode 4), while definitely realistic, didn't really depict what was supposed to be the power of the Force. It took CGI decades later to present that. My interpretation is that Obi Wan was old and tired and his lightsaber skills were rusty, and on top of that he wasn't really trying very hard. Likewise, Vader didn't really have to try very hard to beat him. There are other examples of this. The original Star Wars conveniently fit into a "lull" in the storyline where the Empire was comfortably in control, the Jedis were gone, and resulting story could be told effectively with the relatively primitive (but genius) special effects technology of the 1970s.

 

You're using a term I have questioned for years, and honestly don't know a definitive answer to.
When faced with an unbelievable situation, (usually in a film) do we "suspend disbelief" (as you said) or are we "suspending BELIEF"? It seems that "disbelief" is needed in the circumstance, and to "suspend" that would upset that need.
Can you.....or anyone else.....clarify this for me? Until then, I'll just try to "ignore" my scepticism and try to enjoy the show.

 

That’s why I burned my own DVD of the original New Hope VHS years ago. They take away our dignity, our privacy, our childhood, teach us a lesson for all those bench presses, but they are not taking away the squares around the TIE fighter wings!

 

<<<<had to look up "CGI"...still draws with pencils ...or charcoal, I use charcoal, too.

 

I think of disbelief as in “I can’t believe that, it is not believable”. That’s the complaint 3 chord genius is logging, he can’t believe Yoda flying through the air and thus cannot enjoy the entertainment. So if he can suspend his disbelief and for the purpose of entertainment, believe the sci fi fantasy, that would be suspending disbelief.

suspending belief would be believing Yoda exists and can fly, but choosing to stop believing and refusing to watch.

same ends but different beginnings.
Do you believe yoda can fly?

believe or do not believe, there is no try

 

Yoda does not fly, ergo Yoda is a stone.