if you put the same time and budget constraints that movies usually put on cgi you’ll see how fucking horrible practical effects can be.
imagine a practical monster puppet that normally takes 3 months to make but the movie requires them to do it in 5 weeks on half the budget and then sends it back to make changes in 2 weeks and asking for it to move in ways that weren’t discussed before.
Hey, digital artists are unsung heroes. You’re mad at the production timeline, not at the effects. Unless you actually just hate all cg which. Ok sure
yeah, look at mad max fury road
*looks at mad max fury road*
wait no
I’ve never seen it’s a particularly bad example I assume?
Fury Road was a Mad Max film that came out a few years ago. It was a great movie, not only for the story, but also for the effects. Its scale was massive.
In the months and years immediately following Fury Road, it was heralded as a turning point in cinema that rejected CGI in favor of practical effects. It was cast as a rejection of CGI and a return to classic practical effects. In recent years, however, we’ve started to reject that narrative. If you watch the movie closely, you realize it is chock-full of CGI. We just never noticed because it was done so well, and the way it was effortlessly folded into practical elements made the CGI extremely immersive. I think the lesson we all learned was that CGI, when complemented with seamless practical effects, makes for a killer visual experience.
a few years ago
ten 🙃
Take that back
happy 25th anniversary to the playstation 2
Sending this to my practical effects loving friends immediately
Correct, practical effects are just superior and look better for longer
This is total BS! Every modern movie with good practical effects uses CGI. Even movies like Top Gun Maverick, which get marketed on their impressive practical stunts, replace almost everything in the shot with CGI. Even if everything is covered up with CGI, the practical footage helps VFX artists make the CGI look real.
There’s also how things are designed to mesh with audience expectations of how reality looks. Sometimes what looks realistic, isn’t actually realistic. This happens with CGI, it happens with practical effects, and it happens with writing. I’ve heard critiques made for decisions that track better than what people expect. It’s all an illusion, at every step of the process. Violence cannot be used non-lethally; modern VFX always incorporates computer generated effects.
It’s not only cheaper to do things this way, it’s more ethical/safe, AND it looks better. People don’t have to get injured or die, animals don’t need to be harmed, and you get to see shit that couldn’t be done before computers. Saying “instead of CGI” disregards the labor of artists, when 9/10 times, time constraints and poor upper management are to blame.
This 100%. The issue is not CGI in general, it’s cost cutting and extremely time-constrained CGI. Most people would be surprised what is replaced or reprocessed with CGI in everything they watch. To do things right, takes time. And in many cases it takes the on site production team doing some things as well to assist. If the VFX team has references for things like lighting angles and on-scene pyrotechnics, then they can make things blend a lot better than if they’re spending time trying to match after the fact.
Movie magic is called that for a reason
cough the wizard of oz cough
