There wasn't a single frame of good CGI on the bear the entire film. - Cocaine Bear (2023) Discussion

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78438) 2 years ago

For the budget I thought the bear looked like pretty decent CGI. It was a fun movie.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58446) 2 years ago

I think it's worse than you're remembering. There's no way you can look at this and think this is passable.
https://media.kijiji.ca/api/v1/ca-prod-fsbo-ads/images/1a/1a7f9a94-dbfb-4b28-9ee9-62bb72754c9f?rule=kijijica-200-jpg

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78438) 2 years ago

Ha😄
I stand corrected!

reply

[–] Satan2016 (26138) 2 years ago

That's a Teddy Bear!

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58446) 2 years ago

Does that make it any less violent when given cocaine?

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

That's terrifying!

reply

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 2 years ago

i agree that cgi looked fuckin awful. the very first shot of the bear made me think "oh no, please don't tell me it looks like this the whole movie" i wouldve given the movie a full two stars more out of ten if they used a practical bear.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58446) 2 years ago

It ruined the idea of a threat for me. I didn't feel like they were running away from anything.

reply

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 2 years ago

this was a fine flick, but it would've/could've been so much more fun had they gotten someone like amalgamated effects to do an animatronic bear. especially since the movie was supposed to be set in the 80's and referential to 80's movies, that cgi bear looks very out of place. a practical bear would've been so much fun.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) 2 years ago

There used to be animal trainers and handlers and they made their magic with real animals and it looked real. Now its all CGI with complex shots that can be realized only through CGI and it looks fake as fuck.

reply

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

The movie The Edge 1997 comes to mind.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78438) 2 years ago

That was a very scary real bear😳

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58446) 2 years ago

The only way CGI should have been used in this is if the bear had to make unrealistic jumps or the moment it mauls someone.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3288) 2 years ago

Who the eff watches a movie frame by frame? I am not a pedantic idiot and so I had the chance to enjoy the movie a lot.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58446) 2 years ago

You make it sound like I watched this in slow motion.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3288) 2 years ago

To find out that

There wasn't a single frame

you have to... 😏

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58446) 2 years ago

No. At no point did I feel any of it looked like the bear was there. The film did a terrible job of convincing me of that.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3288) 2 years ago

Can't we use our imagination anymore? In days of old it might have been really a guy in a costume. And you'd be sitting on the edge of your seat.

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2452) 2 years ago

Why are you taking the comment so literally shit for brains. It's obvious what the OP actually means. Autism much?

reply

[–] Pete314 (3288) 2 years ago

Yeah, sorry that I felt well entertained and don't want to ruin that feeling by some creepy nitpickers.

reply

[–] olioz (3844) 2 years ago

When I first saw the bear I thought that the cgi was pretty bad, but I got used to it and I thought it worked well enough for a movie like this.

reply

[–] johnmiller (4008) 2 years ago

Yes, the CGI wasn't realistic. But, that is too often true of $300 million productions.

I think that the imperfect CGI was kind of funny and entertaining in its oddball way. The same goes to the also-imperfect make-up effects work that also had a kind of cartoony sensibility.

reply

[–] liscarkat (19383) a year ago

I don't like CGI, and some of this was pretty cartoonish looking. But sometimes it looked pretty realistic.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58446) a year ago

The movement is what really did it. It didn't look like there was enough weight with the bear.

reply

[–] Ken12602 (503) a year ago

And it still gave a better performance than anyone else in the movie.

reply