Twitter strag is defending the state of CGI these days 
No, CGI was always like this, you only remember the good movies 
Everyone talks about how CGI was "so much better back then" while mainly using only one example.
— Matthew Donald (@MatthewDonald64) October 30, 2024
No, CGI wasn't better back then. Davy Jones was just exceptionally good. You just don't remember all the crap that got released back then too. https://t.co/ZWXoQJRUGz
MODOK is actually very technically impressive, like the skin textures and metal arms and everything. It's the design itself people found iffy. Watch Corrider Crew's video on it.
— Matthew Donald (@MatthewDonald64) October 31, 2024
Actually, Marvel movies are peak CGI you pleb 
And of course he starts grifting as soon as he gets a shred of attention 
Wow, this blew up. Uhhhh, check out my books and podcasts? They have dinosaurs and lasers and steampunk alt histories and such. You'll probably like them a bit. https://t.co/6sywKpgt7q
— Matthew Donald (@MatthewDonald64) October 31, 2024
Wowzers! 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Marvel has had bad CGI for ever and is no indication of the general state of it. They peaked with Iron Man 1, their literal first film.
I think the general level of CGI was fairly poor since the popularization of the technology and that has not changed much. There is a seeming lack of progression since the 2000s though. I do agree that most big films today are nowhere as good with it as big films in the past, like the aforementioned Pirates of Caribbean or the first Transformers film were.
I think the problem is that CGI is neglected and treated as a cheap replacement for practical effects, when good CGI is not really that cheap, and not that fast.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The lack of progression is the problem
Sure, shitty CGI existed in the past too, but if Davy Jones was possible then, even as the peak, it should be possible and common now after the technology evolved. And yet CGI is just as shitty. There's no excuse for that 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yeah beyond the obvious budget/time constraints, and lack of at the very least practical reference, the biggest issue is the nature of today's movies, their lack of clear direction and film making by committee.
When you're filming 2 actors on a greenscreen with nondescript lighting, where eventually everything apart from actors faces has to be reconstructed from scratch, and probably reworked once or twice, getting good results is hard.
If you are actually decided what the scene should look like, do some or a lot of things practically, both to reduce work and add reference, are decided on lighting - position, intensity, color temp etc., and work with VFX director before any filming starts to make the CG process easier (low light scene, lack of motion, quicker cuts, different framing etc. can hide imperfections), you might get better looking results than a theoretically better CG from more skilled team.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context