CGI special effects or practical special effect.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Your opinion is 3000% subjective. You don't even attempt to be objective about it.
All techniques can yield good results. It all depends on how you use them.
Nuff said.

well, yeah, of course all opinions are subjective but I just mentioned movies that have cgi overkill used in negative way (Star Wars prequel video games, The Mummy) and ones that don't (Iron Man, Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings). Listing examples of both the bad and good sides of CGI sounds pretty objective to me. In your eyes, all that Star Wars prequel stuff looks good in your eyes. But to me, it looks like muck that doesn't merge well together - two mediums that don't merge nicely together. If the Star Wars prequels were totally CGI then I would have appreciated them more, but the real actors do not merge well into those cartoons. I'm totally open to CGI as long as it blends together nicely with the real elements. Right now, I'm watching Wrath of the Titans on cable and I can't believe how disconnected the CGI characters are with the real characters and surroundings.

[srinivas1015]

CGI looks good only when used as icing on a cake. Prometheus used real locations, practical effects, puppets and sets topped off with CG which is why it looks photorealistic. The only time 100% CGI(Backgrounds, sets, people, objects, terrain, etc) looks good is when it's stylized like 300.
I love the Star Wars prequels but the CG looks bad now, especially in AOTC (Geonosis, clone troopers, Jedi Temple interior, etc). Lucas didn't even use a set extension like on The Avengers! Couldn't they get people to be in Clone Trooper outfits? I know they have to be identical, but they could've altered the height and dimensions using CG. That would've looked more real than 100% CG troopers.
Basically, you need a perfect unison of both. If it can be done practically, then it should be. If you're talking about puppets/masks having lip sync issues, then CG the facial expressions.
There are characters like Gollum who cannot be done without CG. The way I see it, it should be - 70% practical, 30%CGI . That will preserve the current look/style of films while maintaining the old school photorealism.

And yes, the effects in ANH, ESB and ROTJ look better than those of the prequels. Even Yoda.

[Ben_UK]

Films should always try and get things done practically, only when its impossible to do in that way should they look to CGI. What I find sad is when traditional film series like Bond and Indiana Jones shove in CGI instead of real stunts as like an "easy option".

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Minyainya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqcR9...outu.be&t=1m5s

As for CGI vs. Practical Effects...



It works for movies like Prometheus, unless you have a movie that is so epic in scope that it needs CGI like Avatar.

[srinivas1015]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Films should always try and get things done practically, only when its impossible to do in that way should they look to CGI. What I find sad is when traditional film series like Bond and Indiana Jones shove in CGI instead of real stunts as like an "easy option".

Don't forget Die Hard . Man, the backgrounds looked really fake in A Good Day To Die Hard, especially when they jump out of the hotel.

[Foggy]

CGI is genuinely only used when they need something cheaper and quicker than practical, I can guarantee that will always be the case 90+% of the time.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

well, yeah, of course all opinions are subjective but I just mentioned movies that have cgi overkill used in negative way (Star Wars prequel video games, The Mummy) and ones that don't (Iron Man, Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings). Listing examples of both the bad and good sides of CGI sounds pretty objective to me. In your eyes, all that Star Wars prequel stuff looks good in your eyes. But to me, it looks like muck that doesn't merge well together - two mediums that don't merge nicely together. If the Star Wars prequels were totally CGI then I would have appreciated them more, but the real actors do not merge well into those cartoons. I'm totally open to CGI as long as it blends together nicely with the real elements. Right now, I'm watching Wrath of the Titans on cable and I can't believe how disconnected the CGI characters are with the real characters and surroundings.

Yeah, but some opinions are more based on facts than others, and not just ignorant generalizations.

[Poya]

The Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception used a lot of CGI and they're dated already.

[JavaJulien]

I prefer a mixture of the two.

[stvn1974]

The god awful song and dance number in Jabba's Palace in the desecrated version of Return Of the Jedi just shows how much better practical effects are over bad CGI.

[YoreLore]

Practical every time. I know it's a strange comparison but try to compare the creature in The Thing to the creatures in I Am Legend.

[MrBlonde]

Depends on the movie, I really hate CGI in horror most of the time. Two examples from this year are Mama which I thought the CGI ruined a pretty damn good moive, but the practical effects in Evil Dead are why I loved it so much.

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by Poya

The Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception used a lot of CGI and they're dated already.

Care to elaborate?

[jamesdevil]

Originally Posted by Poya

The Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception used a lot of CGI and they're dated already.

No they didn't.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by jamesdevil

No they didn't.

Two Face? That was CGI. The blades under The Bat? CGI. The helicopter in TDK? CGI. Some shots of Batman gliding? CGI. The implosion at the stadium? CGI. The windows at the hospital explosion? CGI. The Paris-Grilled Cheese Sandwich scene? CGI. The building crumbling in the 4th level? CGI. The composition of Gotham? CGI. In fact, the trilogy and Inception make use of heavy green screen.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Poya

Two Face? That was CGI. The blades under The Bat? CGI. The helicopter in TDK? CGI. Some shots of Batman gliding? CGI. The implosion at the stadium? CGI. The windows at the hospital explosion? CGI. The Paris-Grilled Cheese Sandwich scene? CGI. The building crumbling in the 4th level? CGI. The composition of Gotham? CGI. In fact, the trilogy and Inception make use of heavy green screen.

Compared to the amount of practical effects though it's fairly minuscule.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

I really hate CGI in horror most of the time. Two examples from this year are Mama which I thought the CGI ruined a pretty damn good moive...

YES. That would have been a good movie, but I could not get over how fake and silly the ghost looked and how they kept showing it so much. It was still okay, but it should have been so much better...

As to the main debate... well, there's really good CGI and there's really crap CGI. Same with practical effects. CGI definitely makes it easier to do a lot of things. Whether or not it's as good as or better than it would look created practically depends on the budget, time, and skill.

That said, I've yet to see convincing CGI blood and gore in horror or action flicks.

[LordCrumb]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Films should always try and get things done practically, only when its impossible to do in that way should they look to CGI. What I find sad is when traditional film series like Bond and Indiana Jones shove in CGI instead of real stunts as like an "easy option".

+1. While the script didn't help either, the CGI was the worst that I have ever seen in that.. you'd think Spielberg would have seen how awful it looked and gone back to real locations, but I guess he was just lazy during production.

Indiana Jones didn't need CGI.. he didn't need it in the other three films, so why use it now.

I like the examples as said before, Jurassic Park was a fantastic mix of both CGI and Practical effects.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

YES. That would have been a good movie, but I could not get over how fake and silly the ghost looked and how they kept showing it so much. It was still okay, but it should have been so much better...

As to the main debate... well, there's really good CGI and there's really crap CGI. Same with practical effects. CGI definitely makes it easier to do a lot of things. Whether or not it's as good as or better than it would look created practically depends on the budget, time, and skill.

That said, I've yet to see convincing CGI blood and gore in horror or action flicks.

Dawn of the Dead and The Hills Have Eyes (Both Remakes) had practical effects but also used CGI to enhance them.. check those out, they looked good.

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by Poya

Two Face? That was CGI. The blades under The Bat? CGI. The helicopter in TDK? CGI. Some shots of Batman gliding? CGI. The implosion at the stadium? CGI. The windows at the hospital explosion? CGI. The Paris-Grilled Cheese Sandwich scene? CGI. The building crumbling in the 4th level? CGI. The composition of Gotham? CGI. In fact, the trilogy and Inception make use of heavy green screen.

The Dark Knight Trilogy used as little CGI as possible. Nobody with brains would eliminate CGI just because it's CGI. Also, if you had watched the documentaries about the making of The Dark Knight/Rises, you'd know that the crew went with SFX over VFX most of the time.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Funniest post ever!

I've noticed for a long time that practical special effect usually look better for a longer time than CGI special effects.

Case in point Star Wars A New Hope (Original) still looks better than the Phantom Menace when it comes to special effects.

Although things like Sin City and Avatar that are done almost entirely with CGI still look amazing.

What was so funny about the post, you think I am here to amuse you. What the hell is so funny about me, tell me. LOL