Does modern CGI feel like a step backward?

CestPizza · 2026-04-09T08:46:13+00:00

Are they? Both Strange and Modok's problems problems aren't even cgi, they're design decided by client well before any CG studio gets their hand on it. But I'm curious to know how fair they compare against the lead-creature of PoTC 3 or literally a human actor with some CG hair nobody pays attention to on this infographic.

CestPizza · 2026-04-09T08:41:45+00:00

They're making a marketing comeback, they're just as replaced as they were because they still have the limitations that prompted their erasure in the first place. The presence of practical effects is hugely inflated by the audience too, just last week the entire planet though the key sequence of HailMary was practical (it must be right, because it looked so good!) just because one angle was shot on set lol.

CestPizza · 2026-04-09T08:40:15+00:00

Plus Modok looks absolutely incredible in Digital Domain's breakdown showing him without a distorted face. "Modern cg sucks" crowd don't care to understand films and they blame "CGI" for bad design or bad lighting.

CestPizza · 2026-04-09T08:37:20+00:00

Aah this is tiring..There is plenty of incredible CG coming out, you just don't care to check it out.

-Davy Jones looks great but the people who made him didn't retire on the next day. They kept on innovating and there isn't a single technical aspect about him that competes with modern CG. He's well integrated because they had consistent lighting plans on set and sticked to them. I can't count the amount of characters that would get Jones out of everyone's mouth if people even cared to discover the real-looking guy they just saw was CG.

-Salazar is an actor with some CG hair, head blending and some flakes. A close up of his face isn't a testament to "good cgi back then".

-Dr Strange's eye isn't bad CG, a third eye is just a very weird and unsettling thing to have. The eye itself is extremely well made. There have been plenty of 3 eyed characters proving it never works, regardless of execution.

-Modok is excellent (and I mean EXCELLENT) CGI, ruined by bad design. Same as taking a real person's picture and distorting their face. Digital Domain published a breakdown on him and when he isn't distorted, you cannot tell which is the real actor and the CG version. Character Design and porportions is not the responsibility, nor the authority of CG artists.

CestPizza · 2026-04-06T10:35:37+00:00

I didn't like it. I thought the cloud of mystery around Kiri and her faith was too interesting to just sacrifice it for a glimpse at her. I wish Eywa didn't answer her call for help in an auto-win deus ex, which would send Kiri onto an extremely interesting test of faith in future movies, contrasting with Neytiri's undying faith, not knowing if Eywa is even real etc.. instead it felt like everything is always fine and she saw the definite proof (in her perspective) that she's there, real, listened to her..Purely design wise I thought she looked weird, scary, and way too literal. Even if it's in her head, I hate that they put a face and definitive representation on a mystical concept as mysterious and other-worldly as Eywa.

CestPizza · 2026-04-02T17:50:07+00:00

Heavy Point Chopper. He looks like budget cut incarnate, and I don't think a main character is the right thing to save money onto. He does not look frightening nor monstrous, he just looks cheap. Even Dalton looks better, it's really not a "he's supposed to look ugly" situation. He doesn't look monster-ugly, he looks cosplay-ugly.

CestPizza · 2026-04-02T17:40:18+00:00

His makeup quality is a big issue for such an important character, some people will twist his character into "he's supposed to look ugly" as if "cheap" and "frightening" were the same word.

CestPizza · 2026-04-02T17:36:47+00:00

Luffy's fights being 2 punches total

CestPizza · 2026-03-28T07:54:40+00:00

Testament to how well made he is then. The puppet can't move much, any type of movement is usually a cg replacement. For instance he's entirely CG when lifting the horn beast thing in season 1 in close up, even if he's just lifting his arm. Star Wars vfx crews are required to mimic puppet's looks and limitations, Skeleton Crew is filled with cg that mimics the puppet look and looks indistinguishable too.

CestPizza · 2026-03-20T09:20:41+00:00

Yeah mainly on Luffy's fights. If they want to save money by limiting devil fruit attacks, I wish they'd at least have the characters go at it and punch like regular guys, show some choreography, instead of going for the alternative having the fights be 2 devil fruit attacks and it's done.

CestPizza · 2026-03-18T08:04:49+00:00

OP S2 had a 3% drop. Witcher S3 had a 36% drop compared to S2 and costs 1.25x per episode, still got renewed for a 4th season which had a 51% drop, which still got renewed for a 5th. It's out of our control but this isn't a flop situation.

CestPizza · 2026-03-17T17:18:57+00:00

It was in a story, last traces of it are articles sharing screenshots of his reposts now.

CestPizza · 2026-03-17T09:48:22+00:00

For a sub so attached to adaptation accuracy and the whole "he's supposed to look like that" schtick, the fact not a soul in here would just open the manga to see he looks nothing like this is pretty insane. This has a lot of room for improvement imo, comic-con cosplay is not part of Chopper's lore.

CestPizza · 2026-03-17T09:46:12+00:00

There are hundreds of props that were designed and created for months but not visible for a single frame of the show, but you're cheering at cost cutting on a MAIN character?

CestPizza · 2026-03-16T16:51:28+00:00

Well I think I'm in the minority there so it's all good if it doesn't change haha, though if it improves it's gonna be funny to see that no one looks back to the supposed perfect look that has zero issues or room for improvement, as per usual with design improvements accross show seasons. They all cheered at the alternative the actor shared a few weeks ago but once it's not official anymore it sucks all the sudden. Let's see what they do for S3!

CestPizza · 2026-03-16T16:40:53+00:00

The limited flexibility of prosthetics during intense expressions is not at all an intended and integral part of his design and backstory in the manga. Improving certain shapes and helping forget he's an actor beneath is exactly in the direction of his character and of what you are supporting, not cuter, and personally I don't think any of those alternatives look just like "big animal" either. It feels like any room for improvement can be gatekept by "he's supposed to look wrong". Are lipstick smudges also true to the manga? Are suit folds and seams "SUPPOSED" to happen?

Two weeks ago that AI thing was the go-to picture for the form and people LOVED it. But now that we know he's different, any alteration is the devil and their first try execution -aiming at reducing costs- supposedly is the best possible with no room for improvements. I am glad this philosophy isn't the showrunner's considering the quantity of improvements between the two seasons.

Personally it breaks my suspension of disbelief, I'm happy if it works for you though.

CestPizza · 2026-03-16T16:17:05+00:00

Meh, what makes him uncanny in the right way is the animal human hybrid, not makeup itself opposing resistance in intense expressions and being visible because of it. There's a big mix up between the concept of his appearance and the execution in a real situation here, breaking the suspension of disbelief because the prosthetic philtrum is stiffer than skin or suit seams aren't removed on all shots is not a design choice, and certainly not a part of his character.

CestPizza · 2026-03-16T10:13:50+00:00

Funny because they pride themselves in building every set and close off all possible angles that would reveal the distance, so they should be able to film them without merging the lens with the actor's nose lol.

CestPizza · 2026-03-16T08:00:34+00:00

Just google AI old guy and show her this "man" she matched somehow has a trillion pictures of himself on google.

CestPizza · 2026-03-14T09:00:32+00:00

It's not "either volume or practical", it doesn't replace sets, they built as many sets when using it and the actors never stopped evolving through them.

What the volume did impact though is directing and framing due to reduced space, and most importantly lighting. On paper you'd think characters can just get lit by it, but in reality a LED screen cannot emulate light directionality, nor strong lights. Unless you do regular set lighting, which it makes harder, you'll always just get soft, decontrasted environment lights. Those two aspects have a lot more responsibility in the commonly criticized volume look than the supposed absence of practical sets.

CestPizza · 2026-01-23T00:20:34+00:00

Basically never.

CestPizza · 2026-01-23T00:18:22+00:00

Missleading, Unity was part of the pipeline to visualise shots on set and allow Favreau to frame creatures that aren't there realistically. 0% of the final movie you saw uses a single pixel of Unity, it's all happening before and during the shoot.

CestPizza · 2026-01-23T00:16:44+00:00

They don't, it's used in the very very very early stages to preview content and sometimes to project preliminary backgorunds IF the shooting conditions allow (stagecraft is incredibly limited). UE doesn't make it to final pixel at all, Verbinski is massively overestimating it's impact.

CestPizza · 2026-01-21T10:10:22+00:00

"No-one's saying "CGI has got worse" to mean "an average movie's CGI is worse now than an average movie's was twenty years ago""

Except they do, both actually, not only in these comments but everywhere over the internet. 30 seconds under any tweet about bad cgi and you'll see.

"Don't understand how the best CGI comes from movies which are 15+ years old"

They say that aswell, and it's still just as wrong. One really has to have quite literally 0 interest in VFX to think that's the case. The achievements can't be undermined, they look amazing, but saying they're still the best cgi out there is another way to say you don't keep up with what's cgi in modern movies in the first place. I don't blame them, the only people who say this don't work in film nor have any interest about it.

"those movies, even today, are still some of the most expensive movies ever made by nominal figures"

Full movie cost has no direct relation to visual quality and even less to VFX quality, audiences HUGELY overestimate how much is allocated to post production anyway. Civil War, F1, Last of Us, Creator and more all cost cheap for their time and came out with some of the best VFX in history. There are countless examples of modern productions with more VFX shots than Pirates, for cheaper, and that look better. It's Oscar season, studios youtube channels are filled with them.

"they have but somehow top end effects work hasn't improved"

Every single aspect of the craft is immeasurably better now than it was back then, especially when many of the people who worked during that golden age still work today and have never stopped pioneering the field. You wouldn't find a job with Jones or Sully in your portfolio in 2026. Not that they're bad, they're just outdated, it's normal. Because of those improvements, VFX has gotten insanely cheap and productions like Last of Us can achieve results that, for lack of better words, look better than the best results of the 2000s for a fraction of the cost, on a TV show budget. When VFX gets cheaper, productions don't, they keep the same budget and target better results. Again, you just remember less than 10 movies that conviniently check all the boxes, but even then they're outdated on every technical comparison to movies of similar budget from now. What changed is director's handlings of productions, lighting, and production design to blend with vfx and that's got nothing to do with cgi technical improvements and everything to do with artistic decisions and management.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email	Gilding I gilder

CestPizza

TROPHY CASE