CGI vs. Practical effects (1 Viewer)

[Stan]

Maybe an old topic, sorry.

Just finished watching "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". A bit dated, but really a great film.

But I was shocked at how good it looked. The photography was so clear, so well lit and so believable. The biggest shock was most of the special effects were real, not CGI and they were fantastic.

We've become so used to CGI to the point where you think you can't tell the difference, yet when you see the real thing, it's a huge difference. I've noticed it with other older movies, but this one was so well done it really stood out.

Now it seems like the studios just "fix" things later, where this was so obviously "real", didn't need loads of post-production manipulation. I'm sure there were a lot of things that were done, but it was so nice to see a film where we're not "dumbed" down by CGI effects.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I think there's a place for both. When CGI is done right, it looks great. I think the CGI dinos of the first Jurassic Park movie still look great. Of course that movie also had practical effects.

I've been watching the making of doc for Prometheus and they tried to do practical wherever they could. I was surprised at some of the things that were practical and not CGI.

You have a good movie when they make a good movie, and it could be done either way and I'll like it.

 

[gadgtfreek]

I think it depends on the flick. But CGI done well has its place, but there are plenty of poor examples too. Live action Jungle Book was GREAT in 3D blu-ray!

But then stuff like Bourne, I like the real feel.

And Prometheus was an excellent example (another awesome 3D flick too).

 

[KPmusmag]

One of the things I like about the movie Zathura is that Favreau insisted on using practical effects as much as possible.While I appreciate the miracle of CGI I do miss the days of practical effects.

 

[gadgtfreek]

One of the things I like about the movie Zathura is that Favreau insisted on using practical effects as much as possible.While I appreciate the miracle of CGI I do miss the days of practical effects.

The armored car chase in Dark Knight is totally amazing.

 

[Carabimero]

What works for me is a mixture of practical effects with limited CGI. My biggest problem with CGI is the tendency for filmmakers to believe that just because they can dramatize anything they can imagine, that they should.

Nothing dazzles me anymore because it's just people sitting at a computer creating it. It's rarely jaw dropping. I remember seeing THE FUGITIVE opening day at Mann's Chinese and after the train crash, the audience went ape shit out of respect for what it took to put that on the screen.

I fear I will be long dead before the cinema gets back to its roots and realizes the best movies let the effects come out of stories, and not the stories come out of effects.

 

[Stan]

I think there's a place for both. When CGI is done right, it looks great. I think the CGI dinos of the first Jurassic Park movie still look great. Of course that movie also had practical effects.

I've been watching the making of doc for Prometheus and they tried to do practical wherever they could. I was surprised at some of the things that were practical and not CGI.

You have a good movie when they make a good movie, and it could be done either way and I'll like it.

Have never seen Prometheus, but it's now on the list. The CGI in Jurassic Park was good, but also very obvious.

I think what sticks out for me are things like "Game of Thrones", although very high budget, will have 500 extras in a scene, then CGI in another 5,000. And of course the obvious "Let's destroy New York skyscrapers" again. That's really getting old.

I'm not anti-CGI, it obviously has it's place and is often really well done, blending seamlessly with everything else. An odd example is once again, "Game of Thrones". The scenes with the dragons are wonderful.

It just seems like sometimes they push it to far and it's not believable any longer.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Have never seen Prometheus, but it's now on the list. The CGI in Jurassic Park was good, but also very obvious.

I think what sticks out for me are things like "Game of Thrones", although very high budget, will have 500 extras in a scene, then CGI in another 5,000. And of course the obvious "Let's destroy New York skyscrapers" again. That's really getting old.

I'm not anti-CGI, it obviously has it's place and is often really well done, blending seamlessly with everything else. An odd example is once again, "Game of Thrones". The scenes with the dragons are wonderful.

It just seems like sometimes they push it to far and it's not believable any longer.

BTW, the 3D in Prometheus is outstanding. Not much in-your-face but the depth is fabulous. Eye candy with gore.

 

[Stan]

One more comment...

For some amazing yet very subtle special effects, watch "Contact". Some of what was done seems impossible, like the young Ellie running towards the mirror. Great movie and obvious CGI stuff, but other things you don't even notice. The DVD commentary explains a lot of how so many incredible things were done that you would never have known were there.

 

[TravisR]

Generally speaking, CG can still look fake when it's creating something that is organic (a person, a monster, fire). If a movie has a decent budget, CG has evolved to a point where if an object is composed of straight lines, it's usually going to be a convincing illusion.

CG is an absolutely necessary tool when it's used to alter or add backgrounds, sets, etc. There's tons of movies and TV shows today that have subtle and seamless CG manipulation of the backgrounds of shots that make the movie's world more believable and enhance the viewing experience.

What works for me is a mixture of practical effects with limited CGI.

I like what they've done with some of the aliens in the new Star Wars movies where they have a guy in a mask on set but then use CG to animate the mask. It gives life to a rubber mask but the character still looks like it's believably occupying the same space as the other actors.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

One more comment...

For some amazing yet very subtle special effects, watch "Contact". Some of what was done seems impossible, like the young Ellie running towards the mirror. Great movie and obvious CGI stuff, but other things you don't even notice. The DVD commentary explains a lot of how so many incredible things were done that you would never have known were there.

Yeah, Contact, the mirror shot is fabulous, as are many other shots in this great movie. Zemeckis sure knows his effects, CGI or practical, just look at Forrest Gump or What Lies Beneath.
For the question of CGI or practical, is like asking if a hammer or a saw is the best tool, it depends on what you want to do.
The more tools you have, the more you can do, right ?

 

[Stan]

Yeah, Contact, the mirror shot is fabulous, as are many other shots in this great movie. Zemeckis sure knows his effects, CGI or practical, just look at Forrest Gump or What Lies Beneath.
For the question of CGI or practical, is like asking if a hammer or a saw is the best tool, it depends on what you want to do.
The more tools you have, the more you can do, right ?

One of my top ten films. Some of the affects are just amazing, because you don't even know they're effects. Zemeckis is incredible.

I look back at Cast Away, things like the shot of Tom Hanks on the top of the island looking down, completely fake, filmed in a parking lot. Changing the way the wind was blowing and others.

And again with Contact, just changing eye color and the work that went into the ocean going ship. Layers and layers of special effects to get the look he wanted. The mirror shot I've never figured out, probably watched it 25 times. Even more basic things like Ellie entering the SETI offices, she goes through doors into what then is a totally different studio set, yet completely seamless.

 

[Bryan^H]

As good as CGI has become, no matter how well done, it still takes me out of a movie. I'm a practical effects person till I die. To make my case, When I watch Jaws I see a physical model that is scary, and real looking. When I see a CG shark in any movie, it takes me out of the film immediately, as my fear just isn't there. CGI isn't scary. Practical effects can be.

How an practical effect from 40 years ago is much more effective in my opinion than any shark done with CG today is my indicator of why I still feel the need for practical effects.

 

[Edwin-S]

Have to admit I don't care one way or another for the most part. Practical effects do make more sense in some conditions. For example: car chases. However, I don't have a love affair with practical effects. Most of these tent pole and/or blockbuster movies cannot be made without CGI effects. They are pulling things off in these films that could not be done with practical effects in any way shape or form. Practical effects can look just as fake as CGI effects. The shark in JAWS always looked fake and it was practical effects. In fact, I think they can make a more realistic looking shark using CGI.

 

[TravisR]

Practical effects can look just as fake as CGI effects. The shark in JAWS always looked fake and it was practical effects. In fact, I think they can make a more realistic looking shark using CGI.

They had a CG shark in The Shallows which looked great when it was just swimming around but it looked fake when it started having more animated movements.

 

[Bryan^H]

In fact, I think they can make a more realistic looking shark using CGI.

Sure, 20 years from now.

 

[John Sparks]

To some of the posters here, I'm sure some of you never saw any of the movies when they originally came out. Jaws did look real, Jurassic Park dinos did look real, Chris Reeves did fly. Seeing those films for the first time was an experience and others my age will probably say the same thing.

Today, they do look dated because of what CGI can accomplish today.

 

[Johnny Angell]

As good as CGI has become, no matter how well done, it still takes me out of a movie. I'm a practical effects person till I die. To make my case, When I watch Jaws I see a physical model that is scary, and real looking. When I see a CG shark in any movie, it takes me out of the film immediately, as my fear just isn't there. CGI isn't scary. Practical effects can be.

How an practical effect from 40 years ago is much more effective in my opinion than any shark done with CG today is my indicator of why I still feel the need for practical effects.

I don't thing good CGI should be blamed for taking you out of the movie, you should be. I'm sorry, but you have a strong bias against CGI, even when it's good.

Yes, there's bad CGI and there's also bad practical. I don't get taken out of the movie by an obviously fake shark, but I attribute that to the fact it's a great movie inside of the mechanical shark. I still love Harryhausen animation even though it's obviously not real but the Jurassic Park Dinos from the first movie are also great.

There's criticizing an effect for valid reasons and then there's just closing yourself off from enjoying something. Sorry.

 

[TravisR]

Jaws did look real...

I agree with that. When sharks get as big as the one in Jaws, they get weird and bulbous looking like the one in the movie.

 

[Bryan^H]

There's criticizing an effect for valid reasons and then there's just closing yourself off from enjoying something. Sorry.

Ok, not all CG effects takes me out of a film. Some are great.
I'd say 90% of the movies I see have CGI in them. I certainly don't think it is all bad, I just wish there was more of a mix between Practical, and CG FX.