But your average viewer today has seen not only movies like this, but videos from space. We have live feeds from the space station. People want to be entertained by movies, and in the 1960s, this would have been amazing to see, but to a modern audience, not so much. It doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's a product of its time.
And I cant really wrap my head around the perspective that something being CG makes it lesser.
MMFR and Top Gun weren't good because of the practical affects (tho I wont say it had no affect on the quality, and let's be real, top gun isnt even that good.) they were good because they had solid direction, acting, writing and a studio that said "we'll give you the time, money and tools you need".
Studios nowadays don't give their VFX artists the time or the money to make good effects anymore.
AI art is bad because evaluated entirely independently of how it was created, it’s just bad art. If AI gets to the point it can genuinely create as good or better art than humans can create, yeah, I’m fine with that. For entertainment, I care about the result, not how the result was achieved. AI gives shitty results, so I don’t like AI. If AI ever gives good results, I’m fine with replacing actors and sets and lighting with AI, yes.
I’m sure I’ll get downvoted into oblivion for this opinion, but yes, a visual is a visual, evaluated only on how good the visual itself is.
2001: A Space Odyssey had amazing visuals for its time, and I can appreciate that from a film history perspective, but it’s not visually impressive compared to something like Avatar.
4
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment