Hacker News Reader

No need to go back in time. People say that about CGI in movies today. Studios lie about CGI, and even alter BTS footage. Directors are under NDA. Actors are clueless. Everyone says everything is real to appeal to the CGI bad crowd. Media outlets hype the new practically shot movie. After a few weeks or months after the release, the VFX studios behind the movie show off their work. Turns out it was CGI all along, but nobody cares at that point.

View on HN

To be fair, a lot of folks who dislike modern CGI dislike it because it's often used poorly and hamhandedly. Would it maybe look better if they did it practically? Possibly, but a lot of the revulsion to it is based on seeing real movies that looked really bad because they did CGI as a shortcut around shooting a movie in the city they say it's set in, or clearly working around having an actor just shoot in an empty room and add other characters in later with no real interaction between them.

If you do something poorly, it reflects poorly on the results. If it becomes endemic to do something cheaply and poorly, people will think that method is indicative of cheapness and laziness. It doesn't negate that it may be possible to do it well, but you can't just chide everyone for seeing the trend and reacting to it.

It seems we're approaching this from different angles. My concern is that the general public often doesn't realize how impressive CGI can be when done well. This lack of awareness fuels a negative attitude, allowing studios to underpay VFX artists and enabling the Oscars to consistently disrespect the entire VFX industry. A prime example of this disrespect was when they interrupted VFX artists' acceptance speeches with a cocaine joke, instead of letting them thank their families.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com