|
I just might not be familiar enough with Gincarlo Esposito, but Odenkirk turning into a Dramatic actor relatively late in his career, and doing it well is pretty sick. If you went back and showed me some Mr.Show and told me that guy was gonna be in the running for Emmys I woulda never believed it.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Model work is far superior to CGI. Dunno if that's an unpopular opinion or not, but if you look at the models for something like Star Trek II, made almost 40 years ago, it holds up far better than CGI made even four years ago. This is one of the most popular opinions to have ever been posted online, especially among olds
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I also like Better Call Saul, sad that this might be unpopular because it rules Yes, love both the actress and the character. The show in general too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Model work is far superior to CGI. Dunno if that's an unpopular opinion or not, but if you look at the models for something like Star Trek II, made almost 40 years ago, it holds up far better than CGI made even four years ago. People complain about ST:TMP’s pacing, but every beauty shot of that ship was earned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
The thing about model work is you have significantly greater limitations than you do in CGI work and a lot of creativity comes from working around those limits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:The thing about model work is you have significantly greater limitations than you do in CGI work and a lot of creativity comes from working around those limits. All digital art looks like poo poo so either all digital artists are poo poo or somehow 0s and 1s look bad. My bet is on the former. e: actually I'll have to re-think that, because I know some artists who can produce beautiful pieces when working with traditional tools but their digital work looks like poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
Blue Moonlight posted:People complain about ST:TMP’s pacing, but every beauty shot of that ship was earned. 100%, not only for the beauty shots but the soundtrack. TMP has one of the best soundtracks of any Star Trek movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
PHUO: The average CGI work looks better than the average model work ever did, and the best CGI surpasses the best models. CGI frees artists from physical limitations like the square–cube law and the behavior of small-scale liquids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
That's a bad thing though. It means it lacks a sense of verisimilitude. It separates the scene from reality in the minds of the audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:That's a bad thing though. It means it lacks a sense of verisimilitude. It separates the scene from reality in the minds of the audience. You should look into the behavior of small-scale liquids and why getting away from the limitations of the square-cube law are good. edit: hint: It actually makes it harder to achieve verisimilitude due the scale changing things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
I think it's too easy for movies to be "good" now and it's killing the business of charmingly bad movies. Now a large portion of bad movies are people actively trying to make them bad, which rarely works well (exception: velocipastor). But for the most part, it needs to happen organically, I don't approve of these cGiMO bad movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
The best CGI can be is looking like how it's supposed to. The best miniatures can not only look how it's supposed to look but also be an artistic marvel in it's own right.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:PHUO: The average CGI work looks better than the average model work ever did, and the best CGI surpasses the best models. CGI frees artists from physical limitations like the square–cube law and the behavior of small-scale liquids. My counter-PHUO is that CGI looks nice but it’s a dime a dozen these days. I miss hand-drawn animation and I’m getting tired of the CGI kids’ movies they crank out these days. I don’t have a problem with CGI. I just think it makes movies too “clean”.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:That's a bad thing though. It means it lacks a sense of verisimilitude. It separates the scene from reality in the minds of the audience. I mean that that there’s no way that a little boat in a pool can be made to look like a great ship at sea. The water doesn’t flow right. The hull doesn’t bend right. The sails don’t flap right. A lot of the skill of using models was recognizing their limitations and working around them. CGI lets filmmakers completely ignore physics at will, which creates its own problems, but it can also be used to subject a digital model to full-scale physics with effects more real than any miniature could match. Platystemon has a new favorite as of 02:56 on Jun 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:The best CGI can be is looking like how it's supposed to. The best miniatures can not only look how it's supposed to look but also be an artistic marvel in it's own right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
"It takes the audience's mind out of the scene" lmao I'm sorry for invoking CineD star wars discourse but it's the obvious go-to. poo poo tons of models were used in the star wars prequels, to the point where actual actors and models are regularly complained about as crappy CGI "where is my immersion Lucas give me an x-wing on a string with a clearly visible black box  "Those movies look like poo poo but it's not because of Yoda being made by a computer. This is universally true, bad effects look bad and good effects you don't think about if it's cgi or not. Practical effects are cool as hell and I admire people that do them, but the idea that one or the other is just inherently better (and especially that one or the other is easier) just dumpsters talented artists working with what they've got.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 03:04
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Pixar What about it?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:You should look into the behavior of small-scale liquids and why getting away from the limitations of the square-cube law are good. Platystemon posted:I mean that that there’s no way that a little boat in a pool can be made to look like a great ship at sea. The water doesn’t flow right. The hull doesn’t bend right. The sails don’t flap right. I have thousands of dollars worth of models, I'm aware of the limitations. The solution however isn't to destroy the soul of your art by resorting to CGI, but rather to work within the limitations or scale up so you can get the shot you need for your film. Edgar Allen Ho posted:Practical effects are cool as hell and I admire people that do them, but the idea that one or the other is just inherently better (and especially that one or the other is easier) just dumpsters talented artists working with what they've got. mind the walrus posted:Pixar Even the best Pixar movie pales in comparison to a good Traditionally animated film
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
Ill watch every pixar movie 5 times in a row before i watch star trek 2 lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 03:39
|
|
|
JollyBoyJohn posted:Ill watch every pixar movie 5 times in a row before i watch star trek 2 lol The coincidence being Pixar's first gig was in Star Trek II lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
Art has meaning to the viewer and to the creator, but that meaning can be very different. The idea that art possesses a "soul" in and of itself is something that I am unsure about. Alongside that I don't think using one set of artistic techniques renders something "soulless" , even if we dislike them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Art has meaning to the viewer and to the creator, but that meaning can be very different. The idea that art possesses a "soul" in and of itself is something that I am unsure about. Alongside that I don't think using one set of artistic techniques renders something "soulless" , even if we dislike them. I think art only exists in the interchange between the work and the viewer. The work is not a piece of art by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:The coincidence being Pixar's first gig was in Star Trek II lmao No pixar started with toy story
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
JollyBoyJohn posted:No pixar started with toy story
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:I have thousands of dollars worth of models, I'm aware of the limitations. The solution however isn't to destroy the soul of your art by resorting to CGI, but rather to work within the limitations or scale up so you can get the shot you need for your film. The second paragraph is made wrong by the first. Your models do not act like full sized things just at a smaller scale. That’s what people are trying to tell you. Also, there is no ‘more soul’ in painting a piece of wood than there is creating the same image in a computer. You’re just doing a weird conservative appeal to tradition junk think while also making it clear that you don’t understand anything about the art/science of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 05:47
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:The second paragraph is made wrong by the first. Your models do not act like full sized things just at a smaller scale. That’s what people are trying to tell you. You missed this quote:Scale Up Captain Monkey posted:Also, there is no ‘more soul’ in painting a piece of wood than there is creating the same image in a computer. You’re just doing a weird conservative appeal to tradition junk think while also making it clear that you don’t understand anything about the art/science of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:If a model doesn't work at 1/100 you try 1/50 if that doesn't work 1/1.  The full-scale 2100-foot-long model of the Enterprise-D proved difficult to use for effects shots, so they made a more manageable 1400-foot model which was easier to work with but had a few subtle differences from the original, if you know what to look for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:You missed this Ok so you just don’t really know what you’re talking about. Got it. You win, art is soulless if the creator used a computer at any point in the process. The old ways are the best ways, and we are a fallen degenerate form of man for our wicked sinful laziness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 06:59
|
|
|
people generally don't notice good CGI, or often mix up CGI and practical effects, which leads to the misconception that practical effects are always good. plus, there's the time filter effect, in that bad old films with bad practical effects get forgotten, and only the great ones are remembered and then get compared to all new films and their widely-ranging CGI VFX quality. plus a lot of "bad" practical VFX get reinterpreted into "timeless a e s t h e t i c s" with time (that applies to all art really) also afaik the vast majority of modern movies uses a combination of CGI and practical effects, so it's really hard to separate them also speaking of effects, my greatest petty pet peeve when it comes to modern action films is bad CGI muzzle flashes. idk if it's a budget thing or they don't want to waste time on something they assume nobody notices, but even stuff like John Wick has bad muzzle flashes and it honestly takes me out of it  yeah i know it's hard to them safely with practical effects (lol), but at least they could try and make them beefy (or at least not painted-on)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 07:14
|
|
|
nurmie posted:people generally don't notice good CGI, or often mix up CGI and practical effects, which leads to the misconception that practical effects are always good. Modern "Film Making" is the equivalent of jangling keys in front of a child. Captain Monkey posted:You win, art is soulless if the creator used a computer at any point in the process. The old ways are the best ways, and we are a fallen degenerate form of man for our wicked sinful laziness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 07:43
|
|
|
nurmie posted:people generally don't notice good CGI, or often mix up CGI and practical effects, which leads to the misconception that practical effects are always good. Digital blood instead of squibs, too. That never looks good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 07:54
|
|
|
Gravity is my favorite movie that I'll never watch again, cause I got to see it in 3D IMAX and by the end I was sore from having been tensed up the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 07:59
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wrong. There's Intentionality behind a physical medium that is impossible to reproduce digitally. If you don't believe me visit the Louvre or another museum. The physical object is impossible to reproduce at the same level, A scale model is a reproduction of a physical object shown on film clearly not ideal but only a step removed. CGI is infinitely removed from what it represents because it only represents a concept. It is thus hollow and unfulfilling. Do you believe that anything written on the internet isn't the same as if it was written down on paper? Also, having been to the Louvre, a lot of the stuff they have is the same stuff they have in other European museums, a lot of dull pictures from the 19th century and a lot of spectacular works from a lot of other time periods. There is no more "intentionallity" in something done using mammoth tusk ivory than something done using digital tools. Gaius Marius posted:I don't have this problem as I don't watch any movie made after 2000, they're all trash anyways so why bother when there's so many good films I've yet to see. And yet people take time and money to watch the latest Garbage Marvel movie with the same loving plot, same CGI and same bullshit dialogue in every movie. There is also a lot of good stuff that you are missing out on because you want to pretend that an arbitrary point marks "the death of good movies". It's the equivilent of reading nothing written after the 12th century because it's not written on vellum and the peasantry may also have read it. Josef bugman has a new favorite as of 08:08 on Jun 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 08:05
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:I wouldn't go that far, anyone using CGI should be able to accept that what they are making is inherently disposable trash, fed to an uneducated populace for no other reason than profit. Wow betide our vexed and vexatious fallen civilization. They create naught but empty platitudes, feeding upon the breast of hollow consumerism. They will never be able to match the glory of the golden age of film. These degenerate films do naught but spread their corruption across the land, sapping all creativity from the bovine herds that placidly watch their mind rotting tripe!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 08:19
|
|
|
Look, if nobody blew up a 1/256th scale model of the White House for Independence Day, then it would’ve been mere consumerist trash!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 08:21
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you believe that anything written on the internet isn't the same as if it was written down on paper? Do you not feel better if someone send you a letter than if you receive an IM? Josef bugman posted:There is also a lot of good stuff that you are missing out on because you want to pretend that an arbitrary point marks "the death of good movies". It's the equivilent of reading nothing written after the 12th century because it's not written on vellum and the peasantry may also have read it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 08:28
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Look, if nobody blew up a 1/256th scale model of the White House for Independence Day, then it would’ve been mere consumerist trash! Are you telling me that wouldn't be dope?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 08:28
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Is there though? How many good movies can you name from after 2000? I have no problems with something being popular, I dislike when something is made to be popular. For example, Taylor Swift is popular because she's a talented artist who creates good works, Billie Eilish on the other hand is a talentless hack and an industry plant created to appeal to depressed Zoomers. I have not received a letter from someone when it isn't my birthday or a bank statement in about 5 years, so most of the time (and if it's the right person) an IM. Mad Max Fury Road. All of the Lord of the Rings films. You can like what you like, but if you believe that Taylor Swift is popular despite her never making a conscious effort to be so then that seems a touch credulous. Gaius Marius posted:Are you telling me that wouldn't be dope? They did. It's a practical effect, it is also in one of the dumbest movies ever made. Josef bugman has a new favorite as of 09:17 on Jun 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 08:41
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:I have thousands of dollars worth of models I am more interested in what cool models you have than in whatever else is going on on this page.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 08:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
I think it helps that practical models actually physically occupy a space. You’re not acting against a green screen or someone in a goofy mocap suit trying to imagine what the thing is actually going to look like, and you don’t have to worry about a missing shadow or another tiny detail that makes it obvious to your brain that the thing isn’t actually there and throwing it in the uncanny valley, etc. Not to say that CGI can’t look good but I think there are some things that become harder
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2021 10:44
|
|