MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > It’s not just CGI that looks fake...

It’s not just CGI that looks fake...


...whole films these days look synthetic. I recently saw Doctor Sleep and the IT films, and they almost felt like cartoons, or perhaps Pixar creations - the images are controlled and the colours graded to digital perfection, but leave them feeling lifeless.

I’ve seen great stuff on digital, like Twin Peaks Season 3, so it seems it’s possible to make great content on the format (even though it loses the photochemical aliveness of film) but the endless glossy, teal and orange CGI-fests feel like cyborg versions of films. I don’t feel *there* like I do with, say, 70’s films, which felt so vivid and gritty you could almost smell Popeye Doyle’s boozy bedsheets. Anyone have this experience?

reply

Some actors' faces also look synthetic, because they are. Plastic surgery will have that effect.

reply

CGI = cartoons

reply

I think CGI came from a wet market.

reply

No, CGI came from labs.

reply

😅

reply

I miss the aliveness of earth pigment cave paintings. Spray painted cave paintings lack the gritty smell of charcoal and ochre.

reply

And dung ! Who makes things out of dung these days ?

reply

Guano.

reply

Shikaka!

reply

Alrighty then!

reply

Dung beetles, that's who! Why isn't Hollywood making dung beetles into production designers - just think of the gritty authenticity they could bring to the screen!

reply

I'm currently watching a 72 Corman production about a mad killer called Sweet Kill (alternative title is The Arousers)

In short the guy goes on a murder spree because he can't properly 'satisfy' ladies so he just kills a bunch of them...

The actors are all unaltered in terms of surgery, the practical effects are very believable and the soundtrack is properly modulated so as to not blow out your eardrums

I dig the modern blockbuster CGI action and superhero films but they made movies just as good 50 years ago

And yes, 'lens flares,' teal and orange tint are pretty tired

reply

not that you asked for my thoughts, but i watched sweet kill a little over two years ago, & remember finding it pretty dull.

however, it's notable for:

- starring tab hunter, post stardom, pre-john waters, &
- being directed by curtis hanson, who would go on to be a pretty big deal.

a bit more interesting for who's involved than what you see on the screen, maybe.

reply

Agreed 100%
I did enjoy the corniness very much and the backstory is mildly interesting

Apparently Corman hated the first cut and forced Hanson to insert a bunch of nudity to spice up the movie...
Gotta love Corman lol, the man sold lots of tickets

reply

While there are advantages and drawbacks to both film and digital photography, we're at a point of parity thanks to post production tools. With the sufficient effort and attention to detail, digital footage can be made indistinguishable from film. A professional DP recently made this demonstration:

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/

reply

I'm also having issues with the bad acting, the predictable storylines, the flat characters that don't change or develop at all, and script writing that's so bad, a child could write something better. Not to mention the pathetic attempts at comedy they try these days.

reply

The infantilisation of entertainment is certainly an issue - when was the last time a Hollywood movie actually assumed that the audience was a free thinking adult? - but in this thread I wanted to focus on the synthetic aesthetics that spoil big budget movies.

Thinking about it, it’s the colour grading that really strips movies like Doctor Sleep of their realism. I saw a side-by-side comparison of the Overlook in The Shining and Dr Sleep, and the latter resembled teal and orange CGI, it lacked any sense of reality or real space, you just didn’t feel enveloped by the Colorado Lounge as you did in the original. Why meticulously reconstruct the entire set if you’re just going to make it look like a computer simulation in post..?

The original was obviously a far more sophisticated film - a horror set in a brightly lit hotel, most of which played out in daylight, which made it more uncanny and unnerving. Dr Sleep goes for typical shadow, darkness, loud boo-scares, and as result you pretty much know what lies behind every corner.

reply

I think I'm starting to get what you're talking about with the CGI. Movie-Makers used to put effort in helping it to blend with actual special-effects on set, and now they have gotten lazy. And yes, I have noticed that trend of the blue skies with orange objects/people in the foreground. What's up with that?

reply


It's because CGI is shit!

😎

reply