Practical effects will forever be better than CGI
Prove me wrong
That is fucking CGI you moron
This statements accuracy changes on a case by case basis.
>>67740470
>>67740903
And the shot in OP is still CGI. Jurassic Park alternated between physical props and CG to play to each other's strengths.
>>67740362
nigga this scene was CG
>>67740362
For every example of bad CGI you can fond an equally bad example of practical effects, and for every good practical effect you can find equally good CGI.
I hate all faggots amd everybody that complains about CGI.
There is only bad CGI in a movie when you find out it was CGI.
There is a lot of great movies that are CGI but you don't know it because it's so good.
Did you know that Leonardo Dicaprio is a CGI actor motion captured by Jack Nicholson????
You don't and you probably will never believe me because it was!
CGI is still in its infancy. Fucking 50 years from now, dawg. My body will be ready.
>>67740362
OP that shot is CG.
Only the close ups were practical effects.
This movie is from 1995 and te CGI is better than most of today's.
ED-209 is stop motion and it looks janky as fuck.
The full-scale model looks great, but the stop motion looks awful.
>>67741315
that shot actually is practical. the scene of the Rex running after the Jeep is cgi
>>67740362
how was cg lighting better 30 years ago? I don't understand
>>67741961
The people who made it back then had actually been outside and seen lightning.
![LATEPHASESEXCFXPICSNEWS4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/26CPvaL.jpg "LATEPHASESEXCFXPICSNEWS4[1].jpg")
/tv/, when you scrape the bottom of the barrell, what's worse? CGI, or practical effects?
>>67742425
Bad practical effects are more fun.
