The latest remake of The Jungle Book consists almost entirely of CGI (computer generated imagery). Do you view the trend to use photorealistic CGI to create films rather...
it just looks so cheesy to me, with the talking animals and all. if you're gonna have animals talk, keep them cartoons.
That movie was cool looking.
When done right like the latest plant of the apes, definitely positive
Eliminate idiot actors, like that moron Clooney
Lol who do you think I'd voicing those roles. Who do you think is wearing the motion capture suits. Actors aren't going anywhere bud
I can hope.
I want to see them create more movies like the old hand-drawn Disney films. The original Jungle Book blows this one out of the water imo.
True, that 1967 cartoon was absolutely charming and also had those memorable songs like "bear necessities". It's too perfect to be trumped by a remake.
I really don't understand the hate.
There are some horrible CGI films out there.
And there are horrible animated and live action films out there as well.
True, but CGI is newer and therefore an easier target.
I love good CGI.
Inception was a brilliant example of seamless CGI and live-action.
Inception was brilliant
Usually no good (see avatar and Star Wars ep 2), but Jungle Book was awesome and you barely notice
Negative, mostly because actors, as good as they may be, directors, as effective as they may be, and tech, as advanced as it might be, doesn't substitute for the real thing, in terms of giving context to actors, with which to
Base their acting and environmental awareness. You could certainly argue that it cheapens the process, makes it more quick and mechanical, rather than organic and fluid. That can greatly take away from the films feeling of authenticity
It's great to have the technology and it's great that it's always improving. I obviously think practical effects should be used when they would look better, but having multiple tools available to best tell any story is always good.
When it's done well, it's amazing. Life of Pi was fucking incredible.
CGI has become THE substitute for actual plot.
It really depends. I think this film in particular will age particularly badly as time goes on.
But it looks amazing.
It's always getting better. But, things like gesture, walking, etc, still aren't quite right.
It's not yet perfect but hard to describe what is still off. One thing is, when an animal runs and leaps, it sometimes seems to lack "inertia", it's too swift.
Is just another form of animation. If it's done well, it can be great.
I saw Jungle Book last weekend and the effects were nearly seamless.
I like the real prop aesthetic better but CGI is inevitably going to win out since it's cheaper.
Negative, just look at Jurassic World...
It's simply another step to create a realistic scenery and creatures that started with stop trick effects. Humans are still difficult, but this will one not too far off day also be possible. However, I doubt actors will ever be completely obsolete.
I'm tired of cgi effects. I think filmmakers rely too heavily on cgi to tell their stories.
That's a mistake also made with 3d films. They show off effects instead of driving the plot, but it's still in its infancy. I remember the same thing when stereo music became popular.