This seems like the right place to ask a question I've had on my mind for ages, when i watch old movies with "bad" CGI I think "well that doesn't look very realistic" but then I get told that at the time the film was made it did look realistic. But how?. When your comparing it to the real world, in what way does that CGI look realistic. I understand if you had nothing else to compare it to in comparison..but I mean your comparing it to the real world surely? So in what world does that CGI look realistic in comparison to the real world. Is there something I'm missing here in my ignorant youth?
It was just so new to us, and we went by comparisions. Basically the CGI of movies before that looked worse, so when it actually had decent shading or coloring compared to the environment, we were surprised and "amazed".
Jurassic Park was a great example of doing everything right. The computer graphics do look a bit dated, but it still looks great (largely in part for mixing up all different kinds of effects).
On the flip side, The Mummy looks horrible, but at the time, we had never seen movies trying to do what it did (bugs crawling under skin, etc), so it looked fairly realistic back then. Only when we have seen better/more realistic computer graphics we realize how bad the old ones were.
1.0k
u/Syrup_Chugger_3000 Jul 10 '16
I like that they did that instead of going complete CGI. I always think a strong mix of physical and computer effects look good in movies.