it sure does.... :/ The latest CGI is a joke

I would agree. Some of the non-CGI objects themselves didn't look all that realistic - but even the best actor can't run away from a CGI boulder nearly as convincingly as he can an actual boulder. Even if it's made out of plaster - at least it has something to actually run away from.

Sfx artists were called upon to use more creativity without the use of computers.

Only when watching this video did I realise that I never thought about the plane crash in a tunnel in The Last Crusade as a special effects shot. It looks incredibly convincing to this day.

yes and no. Practical effects are great for some things, but not in all situations.

LOL "old" 🤣 But i get ur point ;)

@Mats Nilson - You can't blame them, though. As the CGI technology advances, so does the cost to have it done. Movies don't have as long of a theatrical run as they used to, and the days of yesteryear DVD/DVR Tape sales has dramatically changed to the point it's too much of a financial risk to do laborious practical effects with no idea it's return. Even Top Gun: Maverick's financial department choose to do without specially written soundtrack songs in order to save money for other areas of production, even though the model worked for the original movie.

WAAAAY overused in most movies.

They even used CGI in "Creed III" to show the background of Dodger Stadium, (in a studio in Atlanta)! And it LOOKED it, too! They could've shot it in the REAL stadium for just a FRACTION of the cost.

I agree. I always said that Lou Ferrigno painted green in the old Incredible Hulk show was way scarier than the crappy CGI Hulk in the movies!

The geniuses at ILM of course who have also embraced the "dark side" - CGI! and still churn out oscar winning films.

Watch Temple of doom on bluray on a 4K tv and the mine car sequence will look so awful that you will never watch that movie ever again.In fact every other special effect in that movie looks just as terrible. Including the scene where the man has his heart removed from his chest and then being burned alive. A scene that offended some annoying parents so much at the time the movie came out that Speielberg invented the awful PG13 rating, that has ruined so many movies. And later made the awful fourth movie that was so kiddie friendly that it could be watched by 5 year old kids.

Its all shot in a water tank dude. Or with fans and the film rolled backwards. When they didn't have CGI they had to think creatively. CGI has stopped innovation. It is for dumb people who don't want to think. All the CGI artists today are standing on the shoulders of the people who actually did stuff for real.

People shouldn't watch a lot of these movies on either 4K or Blu-Ray as you will see more flaws.

@@V3ntilator Not necessarily. Depends on how the transfer was done.

Hence the name "Industrial Light & Magic".

Agreed.

There was no CGI at that time.

​@@JediKnight207CGI has been around since the 50s, became more common in the 70s

@@juicedgoose Atari style graphics.

The submarine mockup was damaged in Spielberg´s hands. He returned it that way and didn´t pay a penny for it.

Tbh the alien theme is probably the most realistic out of all of them

That's crazy, can you describe the scene? How did she get her heart back?

@@digitalblunt Like the acolyte who was burned alive before her, it did not show. Your question may also be why it was cut; her living didn't make sense. It really made that segment of the film - and the whole film - dark. The cut was not rated, of course. We expected an R, and it would have been as is.

I am reminded that a similar thing happened with Gremlins. No credits, no ending, no music (well, it had some of a temp track) and more violence. Phoebe's speech about her dad didn't stand out as much because the whole film was dark. Editing and a goofy score by Goldsmith REALLY transformed it.

And Jurassic Park was made by the same director as the Indy movies. He used lots of practical effects like miniatures and robotic puppets mixed with the cgi, even within the same scenes, and it all blended together so seamlessly its still hard to pick out which shots are cg. Even the best cg falls short when it's oversaturated because it begins to look like a video game.

Jurassic Park was a perfect mix of practical en CGI effects. These days it seems like they come up with it like they're throwing everything at a wall and see what sticks. It's too busy, too much and overcrowded. I hate modern CGI

They still did miniatures in LOTR

Its a shame too, because 3d printing the way it is, you could make miniatures easier than ever. And if they were a bit more inventive they could flawlessly mix cgi and practical, after all they have the 3d cgi model of the plane, why not print it out, and use it in shots where they can, then use the cgi where needed. If they were clever enough you really would totally struggle to know what was real and wasnt.

@@samuelsuggs9751 The pod race scene in "The Phantom Menace" comes to mind, with entire scenes looking like a video game.

Yes and no!! The degree of control over the image they had back in Temple of Doom era was one element over the other. With CGI they have control down to the smallest pixel of the image. But there was an instant abandonment of techniques that still worked and a belief that CGI could solve every problem. Just go and look at Air Force One. The CGI dept convinced the producers that they could do a 747 plane crash better than a practical model. The result was atrociously awful. The CGI dept had no idea what they were doing. And the result looked like a joke.

@@roquefortfiles we need a bigger computer! ( we need a bigger boat ) give us more money

It just means you understand practical effects more now and still don’t understand the level of work or the amount of effort it really takes to make cgi effects.

@@keaneye09 Really? I used to work in computer graphics.

" and dare I say cheap". Nothing daring about that - the reason we use cgi is because its cheap - compared to earlier ways of doing the same things. Otherwise we'd still be using those techniques. CGI didn't takeover because it was better (as most early cgi effects films (and many more recent ones) make abundantly clear - it took over because movie accountants found it far more palatable; it both cost less and still looked like it cost the same - so better for the bottom line and better for tax-dodging (pretend it cost more than it did and claim it). Win-win.

I know what you mean. I'd seen the original, 1980 theatrical version of "The Empire Strikes Back" dozens of times, but it was only several months ago that I learned just how many of the shots were matte paintings. It's genuinely amazing! Of course, the quality of matte paintings varied; some movies used better art effects than others.

The first one is the BEST!

@@rainydaze9318 the first three are all gems

@@samburch All 4 are great

_Raiders of the Lost Ark_ [1981] is arguably the greatest Action film of all-time, while the following two sequels are plenty worthy sequels not to be missed. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/pqSJfoCufKFir3U.html

They are a must see for all!! Greater adventure films are hard to find and for me, the 3rd film is the best one. The 1st and 2nd are great, but the 3rd has something special that really fascinated me as a young boy, and still does. And of course, Sean Connery is in that movie! I really liked the 4th movie also, it is not as great as the first 3, but absolutely viewable.

Last crusade

It came out in 1961 before JFK kiilleed

@@trhansen3244 What? It didn’t? 💀

yes, they felt like much old all old film techniques, our at the what looked they where doing, modern tech of the time?

It's a good thing Indi didn't move his head at all or it would have been given away.

Raiders came out in '81 and Temple of Doom in '84, so there was really no CGI in the 80's, too.

^^this CGI has been a long-built craft, trailblazing and doing a lot to make photorealistic items that blend in seamlessly with the live action sets, props and actors. An early use of it mixing with live action and practical effects was in "Death Becomes Her", but the use of masking and greenscreen (or blue or yellow) was the earliest and most important aspects regardless of effects type. CGI is very respectable but prior to it, there was a lot more that had to be done. And it's all amazing.

@@ShamrockParticle - I'm not even saying that cgi isn't very good these days, I'm simply saying this pre-cg vfx was pure genius. See with CG it's a lot of math, once you've figured out the math, it's less about trying to come up with ingenious solutions to tough problems about how to put stuff up on screen. For instance there's a difference between an audio producer at the mixing board trying to come up with an appropriate mix for a band that works on the majority of audio systems and someone at home adjusting their equalizer for their best hearing experience. I can probably get an album to sound a bit better based on my own hearing and equipment by messing with the equalizer. But an audio mixer, has to be a lot more inventive to get it to a point, where you don't really have to use an equalizer to get a decent sound, or in cases where you don't have that kind of control. There's a kind of knowledge/experience/intelligence required for the audio mixer to do his craft, where as me, it's just pulling levers. I'm not even saying the computer scientists couldn't have come up with ingenious math solutions in order for a particular effect to work, but then once it's done, once you get to a point, then the "artist" down the line just has to pick the correct levers to pull. Now you do have certain skill you need to do something good in a reasonable amount of time in Blender, but in general to get to the level of real the computer scientists have to create all the math that goes into the modelling, or animation (interpolation?), or even the add ons that make it easier for us non-techs to "pull the levers" so-to-speak. We also have a bit of a problem with "cg look" which seems to cover a lot of the effects, they all tend to start looking the same, and don't exactly look quite real, but that's more along the lines of everyone using the same techniques, and what not (using the same software etc). When it comes to color grading, everybody that does a vfx shot, tends to make everything dark or somewhat tinted a certain way. Originally it was called "color timing" or even just straight up "color correction" back in actual film days, because they would do a chemical color-grading, that would essentially take many different pieces of film and chemically treat the film copies such so that they would look consistent. Because each time a scene was filmed there would be a myriad of reasons why they would all look different. I believe the word 'timing' has to do with timing how long the film is in a certain chemical to get a certain look, higher/lower contrast, saturation, etc... But now with the digital handling everything, you're back to pulling levers. When the software can do all the visual changes to the video, then now you're not coming up with inventive ways to make it look consistent, you're just trying to achieve a look. In most cases is just making everything dark and possibly desaturated. Does that make sense?

On A.I. were those aliens? I had always thought they were extremley advanced sentient robots decended from mans robotics and they were trying to figure out their creators soul for a better word as humans were long gone by then.

@@joshfacio9379 Could be. I haven't seen that movie since it originally came out.

Haha, thanks! We don't modify the the narrator's voice, he just smokes a lot of balloons! 😂

@@FameFocus Oh I apologize, don't mind me. Looking forward to what''s next on this channel. Take it easy

Due to the extremely thick British accent, I had a big problem understanding some of the narrator's comments.

How old are you now?