Can confirm. I’m 38 and I cringe every time I see a remake of some 20 or 30 year old movie or show. Come up with something original instead of going for the low hanging fruit. Also, use less CGI and more practical effects.
I watched Argylle and everything looks so fake. Most of it was shot on a green screen. Half the charm of an extravagant spy movie is taking us to exotic locales.
The planes look good, but they are almost entirely CGI. The difference is that they used realistic flight maneuvers and reference lighting to make it look really good. Practical effects means little to no CGI and that definitely does not apply here.
This is incorrect; take it directly from the movie’s editor, Eddie Hamilton ACE, on how the VFX CGIs were done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE1pOMpQvbw You can see at the 4 minutes mark where the actual jets in the movie were just stand ins, and VFX artists are told to use CGI to reskin them with the jets in the final movie.
Sure the physics of the flight were real as they were flying real aircraft.
However, it is against the air forces rules to fly so closely in formation. CGI was used to bring the jets closer together to look better on camera. The majority of the environments were CGI as they were not permitted to fly so close to the ground or obstacles. The entire opening sequence with the advanced fighter jet was entirely CGI as that plan does not exist. That’s what CGI looks like when you have the means, time, and budget. Plus combining that with practical effects, leads to the best results.
When cgi is done right, it enhances the movie. It’s nearly seamless. Too gun 2 combined great cgi with great practical effects. They didn’t just slap shit cgi over everything and expect people to love it.
In thirty years top gun 2 will still look amazing.
I’ve watched it at home and in the theaters. It still looks good at home. Obviously it looks better in the theaters.
I’m not a fan of cruise but damn his vision was solid.
The flying was legit when looking at cockpits, but the planes were all fake. They actually created plane models that don’t exist in real life. You can bet that unless it was a scene with several humans on screen talking face to face, about 90% of what you were seeing was made by a computer animator.
A good story is a good story. Lots of CGI or no CGI doesn’t change that fact. There are lots of movies with no CGI that are just garbage.
The issue is studios trying to avoid having to write a good story trying to mask a mediocre story with lots and lots of mediocre CGI. Why? Because it’s faster to create lots of computer effects than to come up with a great story. It’s also a lot easier to create an assembly line for CGI than it is to create one for great stories
I thought I was going to hate it. It seemed like a cash grab. I’m not a huge fan on Tom cruise.
It was just a damn good movie. Movies have forgot they’re supposed to be entertaining. It was entertaining.
As a counterpoint to this I think the “why” of the remake is really important. Id actually like to see them do more movies that could benefit from an “update” moreso than a remake… like Major League, I loved those movies as a kid. Show me some of my favorite contemporary actors having fun with a modern script on something that I enjoyed back in the day and yeah Ill watch that.
The white men cant jump remake wasnt a GREAT movie, but its not like they were remaking an absolute classic that was perfect in every way and wanted to cash in with merch, tie-ins and video games so it didnt feel like a shameless cash grab. I had fond memories of the original and I like Jack Harlow so yeah I liked it, wouldnt rave about it but its fun.
This is my stance. I love the new Dune. It’s less of a remake instead of a different adaptation of the book(s), but regardless it isn’t original. I generally hate the reusing of IPs just for the sake of it, but it feels right for Dune right now. For the other 90% of trailers before it that were remakes, I couldn’t be bothered to care about them.
I feel like most remakes are pretty bad, if I watched the original and loved it, why would I want to watch a newer, slightly different version?
I’m a dude and I love the original Charmed and Mean Girls but didn’t even bother to watch the remakes because I knew they weren’t going to be as good as the originals.
I like watching remakes because I’ts not about if it meets up on quality or enjoyment, its the comparison between the two. Yeah usually they fall short.
Take White men cant jump for example, Ioved the original but only liked the remake took a couple of viewings to figure it out. They glossed over the basketball too much, which blurred out the movies grounding theme which I think is “We can come together over common passions” and they didnt set up a big enough conflict between Walls and Harlow. They also missed out on a chance to have some great conversations about modern racial attitudes, which was one of the things that made the first one that bit better. “You cant hear Jimmy” and the discussion about “A black man would rather look good first and win second” people in that movie had some racial opinions and they talked about them, yet nobody screamed racism.
But it was well shot, funny, entertaining, good performances, good callbacks, likeable characters. If it was a standalone it wouldnt be a better movie, but it wouldnt be worse either.
Can confirm. I’m 38 and I cringe every time I see a remake of some 20 or 30 year old movie or show. Come up with something original instead of going for the low hanging fruit. Also, use less CGI and more practical effects.
Too much bad cgi now days.
Look at top gun 2. I wasn’t excited at all to see it. I left the theater pumped and saw it four more times.
Top Gun 2 was full of CGI…
True, what people want is seamless VFX.
I watched Argylle and everything looks so fake. Most of it was shot on a green screen. Half the charm of an extravagant spy movie is taking us to exotic locales.
Yes, but Argylle doesn’t take itself seriously at all. Which for me was a good thing
Yeah, I didn’t mind the light tone but still felt like a fake movie. Like something you would see a fake trailer for in another comedy.
Super-fake looking locations and stunts.
When I first saw the trailer on TV, I assumed it was a cat food ad spoofing movie trailers.
But also a ton of practical effects. The CGI was mostly there to help the practical effects, the movie wasn’t full on CGI like Avatar.
None of the planes shown in the film ever left the ground.
So there were planes?
And not just a chair and a green screen? (Chair optional, box or stool may be used)
That sounds suspiciously like practical effects.
The planes look good, but they are almost entirely CGI. The difference is that they used realistic flight maneuvers and reference lighting to make it look really good. Practical effects means little to no CGI and that definitely does not apply here.
https://www.ign.com/articles/how-top-gun-maverick-astonishing-practical-effects-were-achieved
That is false.
This is incorrect; take it directly from the movie’s editor, Eddie Hamilton ACE, on how the VFX CGIs were done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE1pOMpQvbw You can see at the 4 minutes mark where the actual jets in the movie were just stand ins, and VFX artists are told to use CGI to reskin them with the jets in the final movie.
https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo
No it isn’t.
That is false. Most of the flying is legit.
https://www.ign.com/articles/how-top-gun-maverick-astonishing-practical-effects-were-achieved
It was full of good CGI
The cgi was used to remove the pilot of the f18. It wasn’t all cartoon look physics bending bs.
Sure the physics of the flight were real as they were flying real aircraft.
However, it is against the air forces rules to fly so closely in formation. CGI was used to bring the jets closer together to look better on camera. The majority of the environments were CGI as they were not permitted to fly so close to the ground or obstacles. The entire opening sequence with the advanced fighter jet was entirely CGI as that plan does not exist. That’s what CGI looks like when you have the means, time, and budget. Plus combining that with practical effects, leads to the best results.
And that’s my point. It wasn’t cartoonish special effects with bizarre physics.
It was well down.
Alright. Well I agree
Perhaps you did not get your point across in your downvoted comment
When cgi is done right, it enhances the movie. It’s nearly seamless. Too gun 2 combined great cgi with great practical effects. They didn’t just slap shit cgi over everything and expect people to love it. In thirty years top gun 2 will still look amazing.
I’ve watched it at home and in the theaters. It still looks good at home. Obviously it looks better in the theaters.
I’m not a fan of cruise but damn his vision was solid.
Lots of practical effects as well. The flying was mostly practical. The used cgi to make the f18 look like a one seater but the flying was legit
The flying was legit when looking at cockpits, but the planes were all fake. They actually created plane models that don’t exist in real life. You can bet that unless it was a scene with several humans on screen talking face to face, about 90% of what you were seeing was made by a computer animator.
A good story is a good story. Lots of CGI or no CGI doesn’t change that fact. There are lots of movies with no CGI that are just garbage.
The issue is studios trying to avoid having to write a good story trying to mask a mediocre story with lots and lots of mediocre CGI. Why? Because it’s faster to create lots of computer effects than to come up with a great story. It’s also a lot easier to create an assembly line for CGI than it is to create one for great stories
It was a damn good movie.
I thought I was going to hate it. It seemed like a cash grab. I’m not a huge fan on Tom cruise. It was just a damn good movie. Movies have forgot they’re supposed to be entertaining. It was entertaining.
Fairly long set of 4 videos, but this is an interesting flip side of “less CGI” discussion: https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo
As a counterpoint to this I think the “why” of the remake is really important. Id actually like to see them do more movies that could benefit from an “update” moreso than a remake… like Major League, I loved those movies as a kid. Show me some of my favorite contemporary actors having fun with a modern script on something that I enjoyed back in the day and yeah Ill watch that.
The white men cant jump remake wasnt a GREAT movie, but its not like they were remaking an absolute classic that was perfect in every way and wanted to cash in with merch, tie-ins and video games so it didnt feel like a shameless cash grab. I had fond memories of the original and I like Jack Harlow so yeah I liked it, wouldnt rave about it but its fun.
This is my stance. I love the new Dune. It’s less of a remake instead of a different adaptation of the book(s), but regardless it isn’t original. I generally hate the reusing of IPs just for the sake of it, but it feels right for Dune right now. For the other 90% of trailers before it that were remakes, I couldn’t be bothered to care about them.
I feel like most remakes are pretty bad, if I watched the original and loved it, why would I want to watch a newer, slightly different version?
I’m a dude and I love the original Charmed and Mean Girls but didn’t even bother to watch the remakes because I knew they weren’t going to be as good as the originals.
I like watching remakes because I’ts not about if it meets up on quality or enjoyment, its the comparison between the two. Yeah usually they fall short.
Take White men cant jump for example, Ioved the original but only liked the remake took a couple of viewings to figure it out. They glossed over the basketball too much, which blurred out the movies grounding theme which I think is “We can come together over common passions” and they didnt set up a big enough conflict between Walls and Harlow. They also missed out on a chance to have some great conversations about modern racial attitudes, which was one of the things that made the first one that bit better. “You cant hear Jimmy” and the discussion about “A black man would rather look good first and win second” people in that movie had some racial opinions and they talked about them, yet nobody screamed racism.
But it was well shot, funny, entertaining, good performances, good callbacks, likeable characters. If it was a standalone it wouldnt be a better movie, but it wouldnt be worse either.