“I believe CGI is getting worse even as the tech advances.”

Disagree. CGI is getting "easier" in the sense that even low budget films can do things that used to only be reserved for large budgets. And there's so much CGI in use that you don't notice these days because it's so seamless / not the center of attention (e.g. check out this before/after about Wolf of Wall Street: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g).

But at the end of the day, you still need good direction and editing that involves understanding the limitations of doing things on the computer vs. in camera. I think this video about Dune provides great examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIKupTibxKQ. One example provided is that using green screen can sometimes result in "flat" unrealistic lighting because the camera doesn't expose the image the same if representative lighting isn't used to actually capture the shot.

One of the major contributors to this is the increasing number of VFX studios and artists that have never done physical effects or camera work on set. Early CGI was made, or at least supervised by crews with extensive experience on real props and costumes. Theres a lot more than detailed textures and "physically based rendering" that go into making an effect look real, such as framing the effects shot with recongnizable features for scale and "presence". A poor quality 3d model with bad textures can feel convincing if the director and VFX artists coordinate to fully integrate the effects. Likewise a super detailed and well animated CG character can be ruined by poor shot placement and floaty camera movement. Honestly, so many otherwise fantastically rendered CGI scenes have been destroyed by virtual cameras that accelerate and fly with zero regard for physics. Cutting edge hair physics and multimillion polygon models still need the cinema basics of good camerawork, blocking, and editing.

I think CGI is getting worse for the same reason video games are getting worse - reaching 70% of a result can be done with 10% of the effort it took decades ago, but reaching 100% is not getting easier - you need tons of incredibly talented and dedicated engineers who have a very deep understanding of CG and come up with a bespoke solution.

An example in movies would be the video the Corridor guys did on the Terminator 2 shot where the T-1000 phases through the prison bars - the VFX team on the movie essentially built a fluid simulation engine to get it right. The fact that they were able to recreate the effect on a shoestring budget speaks volumes of their talent and the evolution of tooling, but it doesn't look nearly as good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXehBx0Yc_w

Another example from the field of video games would be Back 4 Blood vs Left 4 dead - the insane amount of care and effort Valve put into minute details cannot be replicated by faster tools and more computing power:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdRLNUGmFC8

All the examples look to me like they might have been made to intentionally look like theatrical back drops.

When characters really stand out from the background, isn’t that more an issue of the lighting in the scene than the CGI?

I mean this isn’t really “CGI“, is it? I guess maybe the backgrounds are computer generated. But it just seems like unsuccessful compositing.

An example of the real scale of the pyramids. https://twitter.com/digbylidstone/status/1511165586344194055...

The good CGI, you don't notice. David Fincher is famous for using A LOT of CGI in his movies, and I'd bet good money that you don't notice the vast majority of said CGI in his movies.

Example video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChWIFi8fOY

But there are lots of vids that show the use of CGI in his movies.

The advances they've made in virtual production studio backdrops are amazing. Camera-linked floor-to-ceiling 180° LED screens and synced lighting is just amazing. The stuff they're able to do in The Mandalorian is incredible. Though once you know what to look for (the camo hiding the floor/wall seam) you can tell they're using it a bit too much. But still it's incredible.

https://youtu.be/gUnxzVOs3rk

Maybe it is exactly this:

"Begin by learning to draw and paint like the old masters. After that, you can do as you like; everyone will respect you." - Salvador Dali

What Dali was likely referring to was the difficult photo-realistic techniques of the great masters, combining perspective, detail and understanding of shadow, light, color, texture, refraction, and everything else.

The computer-graphics-in-movies industry proved itself by mastering photo-realism, and so now nobody questions whatever it does.

The example does NOT point out objectively how the CGI is worse even as the tech advances. The artistic aspect could be fine i.e. this is what the vision of the movie entailed.

To be fair, who’s watching Death on the Nile for the special effects? The only thing the film wants you to remember about the pyramid shot is that the kite guy’s coat is red. It was fine.

Disagree. As resolution increases the time to render increases by something like a power of 3. That takes time to catch up to. And it means shortcuts that used to work can't be cut short anymore.

Also, no amount of render muscle will ever compensate for the idiot writer or director who wants superman to yank a helicopter out of the sky without holding on to the ground. That shot will look fake no matter how photoreal you make it.

There is a saying in film production: "We'll fix it in post!"

The high number of compositors in the credits of a film shows you how many people were needed to fix 'fake' looking scenes such as this. Compositors easily smooth this out, and add fake environment, hair, clothing, or even limbs to hide the excess green-screen cropping. Also, a well-placed cut to a close-up shot can hide awkward actor movements on poor sets.

The same thing is happening in video games and even software. Technology is advancing but quality and talent are vanishing.

Just lack of skill or talent.

Nowadays technology is available almost for everyone. But that doesn't mean that quality increases. To be really good in some craft you need to invest a lot of time. Be specialized in any art department means that you have to work for company. But I can say from my experience, that really talented people don't want to work for companies that create commercial products like entertainment films. But if you want to be independent (freelancer), you need more skills to know and therefore be less specialized. It is a vicious circle.

I don't really see these as examples of bad CGI. But I noticed that I rarely notice "bad CGI". Maybe it's because I play a lot of videogames so I am more used to computer generated graphics? I keep reading online and my friends tell me how "the surf wave in Die Another Day looked horrible and I can't watch this movie because of it", "how fake Smiths look when Neo is fighting them in Matrix Reloaded" and I never really notice those things.

If the barrier to entry to CGI use lowers, for a given new production lack of artistic skill and experience (not necessarily incompetence, failing to predict challenges and not having the budget to do a good job is enough) can vastly offset superior technology.

Software development advances have enabled worse and smaller teams of artists to produce sorta publisher-wise good-enough CGI, in greater volumes than ever before.

It's essentially the same thing we're seeing in e.g. web/service/app development: An explosion in the number of people working in the field along with an explosion in the tool space "advancements".

I find it all kind of depressing.

The Marvel / Disney effect, CGI is so commoditized that you have far less truly passionate, highly skilled individuals working on CGI as an 'art', rather than to knock another scene out the door.

CGI is like Squarespace: beautiful, powerful technology commoditized into the hands of fools.

It looks fine, what am I supposed to notice?

It’s not the technology. It’s lack of vision, talent and passion combined with executive meddling.

Most directors hired consistently these days are low talent “yes people” who won’t rattle cages and will do what the execs want, produce milquetoast inoffensive movies that can be successfully marketed to China.

Not gonna watch a movie with a star with such a pro-genocide background.