Practical effects vs cgi reddit The result is all that counts and the barometer to guide approach. Evidence of this is seen in how we can still watch classic Doctor Who despite its horroble dated practical effects. practical is less important than giving the FX team time to do it well. Practical effects done poorly tend to come off "campy" or "cheap". Additionally, since practical effects use physical objects, actors’ performances can be enhanced by this element of realism. When people talk about practical effects being superior to CGI, I assume they're talking about car crashes and explosions, not makeup. Dune also used a lot more CGI than you'd think. Notable awesome practical effects include: Matrix Reloaded: cars flipping and popping into the air, done via air cannons. Unfortunately, Thanos being larger than the biggest human forces the CGI Hell idc if they reused assets from 1980 for as long as my perception is indifferent to its supposed outdated-ness. Christopher Nolan knew that practical effects were the way to go and to keep CGI to a minimum, mainly because he was telling a story that was grounded in realism and thus, to him, served better with practical effects. At the same time it seems like there is no interest in using CGI to replace real guns on set. fury road used plenty cgi, but exceptionally well. Also some of the practical effects in the new era looks worse than prequel era (ex. CGI most commonly refers to the simulation of photography involving light and Material calculations, hence how the oppenheimer marketing was able to exploit the slight ambiguity lost on most people. Computer-generated vehicles, computer-generated prosthetic arms, even computer-generated bullet casings. If both are used well, the movie benefits. Practical effects in horror films tend to look and feel right to me. Half the time they're outright marketed as practical. Saber effects). If CGI really can't achieve practical effects, it'd show and you should be able to tell without looking into the method of production. I’ve gone from not interested to pretty damn hopeful about the movie , and my take from what he said is anything he can do practically he will. The plastic and rubber masks are just so obviously fake, they look like cheap Halloween store costumes. Dragons are no even close to being as detailed as drogon was. You get a level of detail and realism that is very difficult to replicate on a computer. Achieving a balance of realistic CGI and practical effects is an important part of making sure a movie isn’t “ruined” by its effects – whether it’s CGI or practical effects. Although they can be used to enhance part of a creature. The thing is that even bad practical effects help actors preform better as they're acting with something that's real and actually on set, while many times with CGI they're acting against nothing or a tennis ball and they can't get the best performance because of it as they can't visualize the creature/effect that's going to happen. CGI is usually better than practical effects It's just more animated and more detailed. I feel that it is important to yep, this is a common misconception. Mainly for me its the over use of CGI than just the use, such as the Star Wars Prequels. Reply reply alliedcola I don't hate cgi. The hobbit used cgi to replace the need for practical effects Fury Road had a practical effect base with CGI enhancement, the Furiosa trailer has a large amount of obvious and fake-looking CGI scenes. But he also knew that CGI has its place and actually used CGI in a situation where one would assume he would have used a Nov 24, 2023 · Often times, practical effects are regarded as the superior form of showcasing larger-than-life characters, settings, and actions over using CGI. You simply don't notice good CGI IMO a blend of practical and CGI usually looks best, but Avatar proves you can make a ton of nearly 100% CGI effects look amazing. I feel like the overdone CGI stuff in action scenes (I'm looking at you, Fast and the Furious) ages terribly. On top of that, it takes less people and less money. . ) Where I find CGI works best is backgrounds, like in this video . CGI monsters tend to look bad. If those effects were CGI, they would look even worse today. Special effects - Traditionally used for stop motion animation and miniature effects. There is way, way less cgi in the first Jurassic Park than people think, and a lot of the “really great cgi” shots aren’t actually cgi at all. to add to what you said, they edited the environment to include set piece such as rocks and mountains to enhance the immersion, also they used green screen, but it was subtle because the entirety of the film took place in the v8s (along with legit stunts), everything looked realer than real. Practical effects, even when not perfect, are generally easier on the eyes and tend to hold up longer. Many CGI effects look and feel flat to me. Now often used by laypeople to describe visual effects and by the film industry to describe practical effects, confusingly. Some practical effects look awful and some CGI effects look indistinguishable from real. So the CGI vs. To argue otherwise and suggest that filmmakers should take a strict practical effects-first approach to filmmaking is narrow-minded and biased IMO, as it fails to consider the sheer amount of work that goes into making a CG character or environment. Practical all the way, but not opposed to using CGI to enhance the practical effects (like, hide seams, remove wires, etc. I think since 2000 directors begun abusing CGI to create among other things Jar Jar Binks, something that should have never been allowed to leave the studio. Nov 3, 2023 · CGI has become, without a doubt, much more realistic over time, but even the newest technology very rarely looks as authentic as practical effects on a high definition screen. I think practical effects are far better than CGI. Also used to describe Only by the most stretched definition of generation. There is a total of 6 minutes of shots in that movie that have cgi. The hobbit movies used cgi to facilitate scenes the studio wanted. I actually agree with you. "bad" CGI is usually the result of the people behind the project - studio, director, producer - screwing up: they didn't allow enough time, they didn't allow enough budget, they couldn't make decisions when they needed to, they couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, they would "know it when they see it". Think of the original Tron (one of my all time favorites), the film is completely reliant on things like CGI, traditional animation, rotoscoping, and Matte Paintings because they didn't have the pratcial effects to create the "in computer world" effect. However the 4 film didn't have the same guy( could be wrong on that . The prequels used more practical effects than the sequels did, at least ep 1 and 2. The CGI on drogon is better than any movie/show dragon I have ever seen Here is a better point, CGI can be good only if its used to do things practical effects can't do. Example being LOTR and how well it's held up after more than a decade. and cgi will be used for effects not possible with practical or to add more to the practical effects( very happy with this as that can work better) as long as the studio don’t make him replace with But a cause of the backlash to the excessive CGI in stuff like the hobbit made people say “we should go back to when there was still that good balance of CGI and practical effects with love and effort put behind”, which kinda got exaggerated and bastardized in a telephone game that ended up at “Practical effects only or bust” Like Simple yhe previous film had a practical effects team that coordinated real improv effects along with cgi to cover some holes. If either is used poorly, the movie suffers. Check out the scene when join meets drogon for the first time and touches him, the cgi was incredible there. Practical effects - Effects that occur in front of the camera, like trap doors on a stage set or pyrotechnics. (In contrast, the plastic and horrible looking Agent Smith causing the mayhem was CGI. Both need to be used well to be effective. Either way, practical effects would look just as bad, if not worse given timeconstraits like that. Slither has some great creature effects and gore ( respect to James Gunn still using some practical stuff on his big budget movies, all the GOTG makeups rule). Current Star Wars is using more practical effects which a pot of the time look more real to our brains and allow for more realistic interactions for the actors. Another perspective is that a lot of CGI today isn't bad per say, but the implications of what is shown isn't felt. It just takes a lot more time and lots of money, and most studios are too cheap to do it right In situations where it's possible, big-budget practical makeup and sets tend to look and hold up better than CGI. Creatures/monsters/etc tend to not be that well done, and be obvious CGI, unless the movie is a massive mega-multi-million studio blockbuster. But Nolan is keen on only using practical effects, like in Oppenheimer, where he apparently recreated the atomic bomb explosion without CGI. Outright ridiculous action sequences that would be impossible to film in a practical, real fashion LotR used cgi to enhance the practical effects they used. CGI and practical effects combo produce results that are richer and expressive. I think CGI effects are best used in backgrounds to create, shape, and expand certain sets. So much of the creature effects in that movie are practical. Top Gun on the other hand features a LOT of CGI to complement the fantastic practical effects I think it’s totally possible to make CGI-heavy films look good. The Hatchet movies have some hilarious gore, Day of The Dead has some amazing gore effects. Jan 18, 2023 · When discussing practical effects versus CGI, the one pro-practical argument that is hard to debate is the fact that the effects are actually being seen. ) But also wanted to focus more on cgi effects vs. Facebook X LinkedIn Reddit Flipboard Jun 29, 2017 · Special effects and practical effects can both be overused if used poorly, and if they’re used well, then they can make a movie highly successful and memorable. For me practical effects have a more organic realistic feel whereas CGI can feel very stale and lifeless. practical effects as the wasn't as coordinated or planned . Lol what, it is no where near the cgi in GOT especially in its last 4 seasons. People are usally more likely to accept them. Jurassic Park showed how well cgi can work. Things like Ft13th showed how well practical effects can work. yalppn sxx xvdn ynjmm jgtl jyjz qedi eguvg hpjqo fdqagp rqewkxb vdsiwsn zzky qrpgui qpnkdv