Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
8 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MissingFloh
4 months ago

CGI is cheaper than to build and present the complete scenery, makeup, figures and other things by hand. It doesn’t look so great, but people still look.

In the end, as entertaining the film is, there are also much more factors than the Viduelle. There are a lot of films from the ’60s, ’50s, ’40s or even older’, which always appear very far on top lists, because they are just much better than today’s films.

Marsreisender
4 months ago

Go with you. CGI doesn’t always make a movie better. You can see in such films which director understands his craft. You can do everything with 200 million budgets. Whether the spectator scolds joy, tears, heartaches and day-long swarm depends on quite different factors. Lord of the Rings would not have been possible 20 years before. CGI and director were lucky. Without CGI, one could never have imagined the dimension of medium earth. And you have to say that with CGI some scenes are simply cheaper. Nevertheless, many CGI are lasting films of pure scrap, as well as many films in the 80s.

RechtsSozial
4 months ago

But they are. Gore can be represented much better.

paulklaus
4 months ago

Thank you for the legitimate question I always ask myself.

Answer: money rules the world.

Here’s a bit, there’s a little supposed to invent revolutionaries. If the advertisement is reasonably okay, it’ll swallow millions of customers.

paulklaus
4 months ago
Reply to  TropicalNights

What’s terrible?

verreisterNutzer
4 months ago

Because they are more visually and auditively appealing by modern technology, i.e., said CGI etc., so that the senses stimulate significantly more. What makes them more entertaining.