Posts : 1047 Join date : 2011-02-25 Age : 40 Location : New Jersey
Subject: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:00 am
As I was growing up, everything in television & movies were all done with state-of-the-art practical effects. Nowadays, everything is has been replaced with computer generated imagry (CGI). Which do you perfer?
Practical
CGI
JetJunkie
Posts : 15 Join date : 2012-06-12 Age : 38 Location : Texas
Subject: re Practical or CGI (which is better)? Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:02 pm
practical definitely. cgi works sometimes but most of the time it looks cartoonish and fake
Frank Rizzo
Posts : 1456 Join date : 2011-02-02 Age : 39
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:42 pm
JetJunkie took the words right out of my mouth.
Mondo a Go-Go
Posts : 304 Join date : 2011-01-22
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:38 am
CG can work for big things, like backgrounds, but always looks tacky for foreground objects. I still would rather practical effect, though. There's just a magic to knowing everything is real and people actually made that (whatever that may be).
Otaku4Life
Posts : 1047 Join date : 2011-02-25 Age : 40 Location : New Jersey
Subject: Pratical IS Better. Why? Just Watch. Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:17 am
Last edited by Otaku4Life on Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:29 am
To me CG is another tool in the special effects toolkit, not a replacement for the entire kit. It DOES do some things better than in-camera effects can, but when you try to use it for everything, that's when the quality starts to slip.
When it comes to creature effects, for example: I think practical animatronic or puppet effects are best for close up shots is ideal. However, in long shots where you see the entire creature moving, doing that in practical effects is very difficult to get right (don't get me wrong, I love older movies that used stop motion, but the movements still look jerky and unnatural at times). In those specific shots, CG works better.
CG also allows for added backdrops to look more alive than traditional matte paintings could. There's also a lot of room for CG to enhance practical effects, such as removing wires or adding motion blur, etc. But again, it's too easy for directors to get carried away with this.
Something else to keep in mind: You only ever notice CG when it's done badly. A lot of TV shows and movies have been using CG backdrops for a while now, and it probably never even registers with you.
I do think that if something is front and center in the frame, it probably should be there physically in front of the camera, though.
Kayna
Posts : 19 Join date : 2012-06-22
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:49 am
I think they're best when used to enhance each other and the story and characters. I love practical creature and makeup effects because they give the actors something real to react to and play with and they're so obviously in the scene together that it makes it feel more real even when it is a little cheesy. Even for the performers in the makeup, it can help them get more into the feel and mood of the moment/character to have physical makeup and costuming on them. CG, however, can be used to make worlds seem bigger and richer and allows you to do things that would otherwise be physically impossible to accomplish. The biggest problem with (good) CG is that many filmmakers seem to get caught up in the visuals that CG affords them and they focus on their effects to the detriment of the film. Sure it's pretty but the characters/acting/script/dialogue/story suck. And that's a problem. Effects, of whatever type, are supposed to enhance the story, not distract from it.
AVPGuyver21
Posts : 53 Join date : 2011-12-09 Age : 33 Location : Maryland
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:40 am
Practical effects to me look more realistic and have a more of a charm to them. CG can look great but it feels like they are not there. I fee like the Queen in Aliens was there going on in the movie compare to the robots in the Transformers films. Not to mention green screen effects can make my eyes hurt if they look way too eye candy looking. That's why I like the factory in the original Willy Wonka better compare to the recent Tim Burton version from 2005.
The Original Greaser Bob
Posts : 1298 Join date : 2011-01-19 Location : Tampa
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:08 pm
Practical. All day. Every day.
wildhoney66
Posts : 1253 Join date : 2011-05-19 Age : 45
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:16 pm
i prefer practical as well. but on some things i don't mind CGI. when it comes to say "The Lord of the rings' when it's done well like that i say hell yeah CGI. since they have characters that were completly CGI. like "Gollum" for example.
but than if you look up the making of "Scream 4' on the blu-ray that i have. the only reason i bought that film cause it's a decent film. not great by any means. so i can own all 4 of them. anyways, if you look on the making of it you can see "Anthony Anderson" i believe his name is where he gets killed well his death scene where blood squirts out
is CGI! it really didn't look like that to me to be fair when i watched it. but i never really gave it any thought either. but in that case why waste money & just do that death scene a practical way? i mean "Kevin Bacon's death scene in the original "Friday" film is classic. yes in both cuts the rated & unrated versions you can easily tell how fake it is. & if you pause it in the uncut version & the camera pans before the spehere goes in how that is fake. & it looks faker in the uncut version as well. but i don't really care honestly. that was done practical & it's one of those things that in either version you can tell that's fake. & that's the charm in that death scene.
that used to give me nightmares as a kid growing up. i still watched it though. still do watch it. i mention that one cause i just watched that one in the past few days. anyways in some horror films it doesn't bother me when they use CGI to be honest. but in others when they add it in cause they are just to damn lazy to create the FX themselves that's just lazy.
one example of a great FX is the orignal "Nightmare" film when "Tina" & even "Johnny Depp' get killed just to use those 2 for examples. you wonder how that's done. even if you watch them do it.
when "Tina" gets killed you if you look at the making of it. know how that's done & see how that's done. yet when you watch the scene you still wonder how that's done cause the FX is done so damn well.
that's how i am on some of these films. some of them you can tell is CGI true. as in the case of say "Drag me to hell' there's a death scene in it that was clearly CGI but even though i wish they would have used the pratical FX.
it didn't look like shit either. in short when it comes to BAD CGI if it's say a film like "Pirachonda" or however the fuck that film is spelled the CGI is terrible in that. but some of it looks ok.
that's a B film. people can watch a film & bitch about how bad the CGI is & get pissy about how bad it is. but as Brad puts it about say "Asyulum's film they know it's bad but they don't care. i think that's pretty much "Roger Corman's
way of thinking as well. & i'm fine with that. some of his films that use CGI look fine. even the bad CGI can look fine. but he i think still uses practical FX at least. but when you do a monster movie that's got a killer Snake like that one did. it's pretty much a given that it's going to be CGI cause let's face it
actually making a snake that moves like that would be well impossible. so CGI weather it's good or bad is needed. so i think that film had a little bit of both practical fx. & CGI. & i'm fine with that. it's a terrible movie but i didn't expect no oscar winning FX either. i had fun watching it to quote Brad & at the end of the day that's all
you can ask for. i don't hate it as much as Brad does though. but i do agree with him & a LOT of people i'm sure that if it's an FX that if you can get the right FX man or woman it can look good no matter what budget you have.
just as long as if you have a good one. and even a bad one can do a decent job sometimes. some B films are getting carried away with CGI though.
one example of a practical FX that looks pretty sweet is "Wrong Turn" 2 i think? where at the start of the film they have someone with an axe chop someone cleanly in half. that's done practical & looks damn good & a bit real.
NICE eh? oh sorry about my ramblings & length he he
perkele
Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-04-13 Age : 31 Location : Finland
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:47 pm
CGI effects are like silicone breast. Both have their use, both can look cool, but neither one of them feels real.
Last edited by perkele on Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total
AstaKask
Posts : 323 Join date : 2013-07-26 Age : 50 Location : Gothenburg
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:51 pm
perkele wrote:
CGI effects are like silicone breasts. Both have their use, both can look cool, but neither one of them feels real.
Both breasts?
perkele
Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-04-13 Age : 31 Location : Finland
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:03 am
AstaKask wrote:
perkele wrote:
CGI effects are like silicone breasts. Both have their use, both can look cool, but neither one of them feels real.
Both breasts?
My english isn't perfect you know.
AstaKask
Posts : 323 Join date : 2013-07-26 Age : 50 Location : Gothenburg
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:24 am
perkele wrote:
AstaKask wrote:
perkele wrote:
CGI effects are like silicone breasts. Both have their use, both can look cool, but neither one of them feels real.
Both breasts?
My english isn't perfect you know.
Neither is mine and I didn't mean to embarass you. I think it's genuinely ambiguous.
If you're from where I think you are (going by your username), I would predict a) that I'm from a neighboring country, and b) that you learned my native language but don't really like to use it.
perkele
Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-04-13 Age : 31 Location : Finland
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:30 am
AstaKask wrote:
perkele wrote:
AstaKask wrote:
perkele wrote:
CGI effects are like silicone breasts. Both have their use, both can look cool, but neither one of them feels real.
Both breasts?
My english isn't perfect you know.
Neither is mine and I didn't mean to embarass you. I think it's genuinely ambiguous.
If you're from where I think you are (going by your username), I would predict a) that I'm from a neighboring country, and b) that you learned my native language but don't really like to use it.
It's not that I don't like to use it but I just suck at it.
AstaKask
Posts : 323 Join date : 2013-07-26 Age : 50 Location : Gothenburg
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:44 am
perkele wrote:
AstaKask wrote:
perkele wrote:
AstaKask wrote:
perkele wrote:
CGI effects are like silicone breasts. Both have their use, both can look cool, but neither one of them feels real.
Both breasts?
My english isn't perfect you know.
Neither is mine and I didn't mean to embarass you. I think it's genuinely ambiguous.
If you're from where I think you are (going by your username), I would predict a) that I'm from a neighboring country, and b) that you learned my native language but don't really like to use it.
It's not that I don't like to use it but I just suck at it.
It's silly that you have to learn it anyway...
Aaaaanyhow, I'm with polygonalchemist - learn when to use what.
EccentricSnob
Posts : 92 Join date : 2013-02-09
Subject: Re: Practical or CGI (which is better)? Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:08 am
As for Practical vs. CGI, I think Practical's been perfected and CGI hasn't yet. CGI's kinda close with Avatar and Jurassic Park, but there's issues needing to be worked out with:
1. Accessibility, as in only big studio films can have good/decent CGI, if your independent, then no good CGI for you 2. May look cartoonish if not done right 3. Actors/Actresses are not interacting with anything so they are bound to not give as good of performances. 4. CGI takes more production time.
Plus Practical can look cool, like I said on another forum, Bad Taste and The Re-Animator come to mind (and this is coming from someone who did not grow up in the 90s/00s).