Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The author, is at best misguided, or worse lying.

yes, "CGI" movies are dire. Not because of the CGI, but because they lack story and vision.

Let us look at the main thrust of the argument: CGI movies feel fake.

This is patently false. Did you know that the Great Gatsby(2013) has a fucktonne of CGI in it? https://www.redsharknews.com/post-vfx/item/859-the-great-gat...

same with wolf of all street: https://youtu.be/2D7MqlNWUEs?t=137

more modern version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HzQKsgNt70

CGI is there for set extensions, and is really common. Its often cheaper to do a virtual set extension, than it is to build it for real.

In short, the author is pining for the "good old days" which were never there. Yes, there are some standout films that look great from the last 60 years. But we are forgetting the sheer amount of dross.

Of _course_ lawrence of arabia is gorgeous, its shot in technicolor with a fucking massive budget. Its an adventure movie, like jumanji its going to have bright colours.

Dune is dystopian rebel movies, about complex and grubby power struggles. Just as it always rains when the main character is sad, or there is a storm when things go wrong, colour is a tool to signpost emotion.

The author is a typical film theory fan, all talk and no experience.

TLDR: the author is comparing the cream of 50 years of film to generic movies of today. Asserting things that are demonstrably untrue, as 95% of all big budget films have digital set extensions and other CGI elements.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: