Movies Do you appreciate movies that have less CGI and more practical effects?

[payton]

In 2020, director Christopher Nolan crashed a real Boeing 747 into a hangar for the movie Tenet.

I am a bigger fan of practical effects. I do feel that CGI, if used properly, is definitely necessary, of course, when it is needed.

Mike Flanagan is the first filmmaker that comes to mind. The visual difference between Kubrick's The Shining and Flanagan's adaptation of Doctor Sleep is absurd to watch.
It just looked so cheap and unconvincing in contrast that I didn't feel like I was watching a big budget studio film.

At the end of the day I think it all comes down to personal preference for the viewer. For me, I like movies that don't require much CGI (John Wicks, The Raid movies, newer Mission Impossibles - although those have a little more, but not like most others). I feel that too much CGI in a movie takes away from what a movie is supposed to be.

 

[Kung Fu Kowboy]

 

[Flower2dPeople]

In 2020, director Christopher Nolan crashed a real Boeing 747 into a hangar for the movie Tenet.

I am a bigger fan of practical effects. I do feel that CGI, if used properly, is definitely necessary, of course, when it is needed.

Mike Flanagan is the first filmmaker that comes to mind. The visual difference between Kubrick's The Shining and Flanagan's adaptation of Doctor Sleep is absurd to watch.
It just looked so cheap and unconvincing in contrast that I didn't feel like I was watching a big budget studio film.

At the end of the day I think it all comes down to personal preference for the viewer. For me, I like movies that don't require much CGI (John Wicks, The Raid movies, newer Mission Impossibles - although those have a little more, but not like most others). I feel that too much CGI in a movie takes away from what a movie is supposed to be.

Practical effects > CGI whenever budget and time is abundant.

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

In 2020, director Christopher Nolan crashed a real Boeing 747 into a hangar for the movie Tenet.

I am a bigger fan of practical effects. I do feel that CGI, if used properly, is definitely necessary, of course, when it is needed.

Mike Flanagan is the first filmmaker that comes to mind. The visual difference between Kubrick's The Shining and Flanagan's adaptation of Doctor Sleep is absurd to watch.
It just looked so cheap and unconvincing in contrast that I didn't feel like I was watching a big budget studio film.

At the end of the day I think it all comes down to personal preference for the viewer. For me, I like movies that don't require much CGI (John Wicks, The Raid movies, newer Mission Impossibles - although those have a little more, but not like most others). I feel that too much CGI in a movie takes away from what a movie is supposed to be.

CGI when done well is very impressive. But for some reason despite millions of dollars some movies CGI just suck (looking at Henry Cavill's $5 million moustache). Ironically some great CGI were in smaller budget movies, like Parasite

Same thing for practical effects. If done well it can look amazing and hold up many years later, like Independence Day. Then there are some that look like effects from 60s Godzilla movies

 

[Intermission]

 

[Kardashians]

In horror films I’ll always prefer camp practical effects over crappy cgi.

 

[Dobymick]

Practical effects all day everyday

 

[Sobek]

Real effects are better. I miss 80s movie explosions.

If I remember correctly in the movie 'the reef' they cgi'd the actors into shark footage or vice versa and it actually looked ok.

But generally I dislike cgi. They tend to go overboard with it and cgi blood, fire, gunfire, animals and everything which seems somewhat lazy.
I switched some movie off (call of the wild?) Because the dog was entirely cgi.

 

[Kal-El]

 

[Ebay]

absolutely, cool cgi is fine and I get why so many films utilize it now but practical effects done well are so pleasing to the eye, look up movies like Sorcerer (1977), Dracula (1992), and of course The Thing (1982) for great examples across the board. also can't forget how practical effects used to be used more in shootout scenes with blood splatters and squibs a la The Killer/Hard Boiled and Die Hard

the 747 crash in Tenet was sick, that was a movie I struggled with the first time I watched it just because of how obtuse the narrative was, but after revisiting it I really came to appreciate it a lot more for both it's practical and digital effects.

 

[horc00]

Whichever does it better tbh. There's good and bad practical effects or CGI.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Yes. Absolutely. CGI monsters, airplanes, or whatever, just never looks quite as good as animatronics or practical effects.

I think what works best is when they use practical effects as much as they can, but supplement it with some CGI.

Though one exception may be the monsters from A Quiet Place. Those effects were great.

 

[Deaths Head]

Even movies like this are much better then most really good CGI and this is low budget B movie stuff .

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Yes I do

 

[Prutfis]

Practical effects mixed with CGI. LOTR heavily uses practical and still looks great. The Creator used practical + CGi and on an 80 million budget looked better than most 300million+ marvel movies

 

[Meatspin]

 

[B0l0joe]

I thought Doctor Sleep was great. The CGI didn’t ruin anything for me. Practical effects are always great though. I only found out in recent years that the rooftop explosion in Die Hard incorporated several miniature models. Fooled the hell out of me and stands the test of time.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

It depends some practical effects looks ridiculous, some CGI looks ridiculous. A combination of both in a film is best I think.

 

[SKYNET]

Can't decide what ruins a movie more, bad practical effects or CGI

 

[payton]

Practical effects mixed with CGI. LOTR heavily uses practical and still looks great. The Creator used practical + CGi and on an 80 million budget looked better than most 300million+ marvel movies