What are the best practical effects out there ? I love it, there's something really appealing about it
They do have a certain charm to them but I never understood idealising them and sometimes using practical effects just for the sake of it. If you can make something CGI and have it look convincing then go ahead and do it
>>64596063
Problem is that there is literally no CGI that looks convincing though. At least with practical effects you can tell that the creatures/monsters/whatevcer actually is in the same room as the actors. It exists, you cna touch it.
>>64597927
space cgi (planets, stars and suns) are good looking though. There isnt really an uncanny valley since space is so alien to most people in the first place
>>64598134
>>64597927
>>64596063
CGI should be used only for inorganic stuff.
>>64596001
Fun Fact: There was a Mugwump at the wedding in Rick and Morty.
>>64596063
Most CGI doesn't look convincing though. I'd rather have something cheesy that people can actually react to than people screaming at ping pong balls on sticks that get edited into cartoons. Obviously there's a lot of things you can't make practically, but it's better to have people interact with something real when you can. Part of the reason Jurrassic Park holds up so well, using CGI to touch up animatronics.
The Things has GOAT practical effect by the way OP.
>>64597927
>>64598314
>>64598208
i can guarantee you all have seen hundreds if not thousands of shots that you didn't even know were CGI
>>64596063
I think the problem is that CGI is designed to mimick reality and so your mind has to work to identify what is the illusion in the scene, with practical effects you subconsciously accept them within your suspension of disbelief easier
>>64596063
The rule of thumb should be that CGI is only for the extreme cases like perhaps for some dangerous weather/nature effects, something needs to explode in some particular shape, or like that world bending effect in Inception etc.
>>64598407
Who gives a fuck when it only takes one in a hundred to take you out of the movie
>>64598440
this
>>64596001
the thing is GOAT when it comes to practical effects. And practical effects got some charm
I gotta say practical effects are good because it takes effort to made and you can't afford to risk to fuck the shot,time and money, but also depends from the kind of director.
And CGI is not really bad, but the over explotation of it, and the bad use of it affects movies in general
>>64598440
>Who gives a fuck when it only takes one in a hundred to take you out of the movie
obviously not a problem with practical effects
>>64598555
This. The Thing is a prime example of the greatness practical effects can obtain. It looks real because it is *real*, and it absolutely had to look *real* in order to get that icky gooey look. I heard the prequel had originally fully practically made animatronics etc. but then the big fat cats in charge were like no no no and then they had to paint some shitty CGI all over it.
>>64597927
A lot of CG looks convincing, you just don't notice it in the movies. The problem with CG is when it tries to emulate animals or humans up close, it looks synthetic, but so does puppetry. The best has always been to use practical effects and puppetry to get the best visuals and so the actor can properly act.
Bram Stoker's Dracula had some amazing practical effects. It also had based Gary Oldman.
>>64598407
CGI backgrounds are fine. CGI touchups are fine.
CGI characters almost always look fucking terrible. Like Snoke.
>>64598134
Yeah, but I was talking about creatures and the like.
>>64596063
CGI ages way worse than practical effects do, simply because the latter is literally real
Seriously, it was noticeable as fuck in the new Star Wars what was practical (BB-8, Ackbar, almost all aliens in the bar) and what wasn't (Kaz, Snoke)
>>64598667
This makes me sad, I bet Ian misses making the LotR trilogy and being in an actual setpiece, I just watched Fellowship today and it still looks amazing
>>64598635
I just rewatched the prequels and I think that the CGI Yoda is fucking horrible compared to the practical one they used in EP 1. Yes, his mouth movements is akwartd but at least he is there, in that room, with the actors. In the other two, every scene with Yoda looks like a videogame.
>>64598635
Puppet Yoda would have been fine if they actually utilized it well, they literally dug up the old model that was really out of shape over the decades and took little account of the completely different lighting that existed on Dagobah.
CGI Yoda was good in its own rights but it was a completely different character than the old one.
>>64598979
>CGI Yoda was good in its own rights but it was a completely different character than the old one
CGI totally ruined the charater for me tbqh fem
>>64596063
They do have a certain charm to them but I never understood idealising them and sometimes using CGI effects just for the sake of it. If you can make something Practical and have it look convincing then go ahead and do it
>>64596001
Oligatory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24&ab_channel=RocketJumpFilmSchool
>>64599550
I think the guy in the video kind of slips up in mixing complaining about visual effects with complaining about CG. A lot of those examples of good CG are almost entirely CG environments or like >>64598667 real people and sets composited together. Plus the the time honored CG in the dark that hides most if not all glaring mistakes. Not that he's wrong about money and production value having some impact on it's quality. But CG, and to be specific CG CHARACTER effects especially outside of an entirely CG environment have a
long way to go and the movie would benefit from practical applications.
>>64598790
>Cgi backgrounds
They're rarely done correctly
