Movies Do you appreciate movies that have less CGI and more practical effects?
- Thread starter payton
- Start date
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 22,925
- Reaction score
- 10,883
I do think there's something behind seeing images that someone went out and actually captured on a camera.
It's probably why when I watch an explosion in something like Apocalypse Now, there's a sense of awe and wonder. Where as many other movies have CGI explosions that are twice as big and they don't really register.
Same with the firework factory explosion in Police Story 2 or the hospital demolition in Dark Knight. They just stick in a way CGI scenes don't.
It's probably why when I watch an explosion in something like Apocalypse Now, there's a sense of awe and wonder. Where as many other movies have CGI explosions that are twice as big and they don't really register.
Same with the firework factory explosion in Police Story 2 or the hospital demolition in Dark Knight. They just stick in a way CGI scenes don't.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 32,152
- Reaction score
- 15,207
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.
Yes, absolutely. The extreme overuse of CGI in modern movies is a colossal turn off. I wish studios would get back to using CGI as a tool to augment practical effects instead of just lazily doing EVERYTHING in CGI.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 8,036
- Reaction score
- 610
When the CGI is good, I think it enhances the movie. My guilty pleasure movies are ALL of the Transformers movies. The CGI in the early ones was amazing and makes me wish they had done a Voltron movie around the same time. Seeing Jurassic Park and Abyss in theaters it was groundbreaking.
The CGI now looks worse. Have we got accustomed to it now or has Hollywood gotten lazy?
The CGI now looks worse. Have we got accustomed to it now or has Hollywood gotten lazy?
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 32,152
- Reaction score
- 15,207
Honest to God I prefer the original Clash of the Titans to the remake. The remake was 100x more action packed but also so dull and mind numbing with all of its CGI that it put me to sleep. The OG one with its claymation still gets me excited and keeps me super entertained throughout. (Not from nostalgia. The OG one was before my time. It's from genuinely being better). The jerky claymation is somehow far less offensive than the slick video game looking CGI.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2024
- Messages
- 3,726
- Reaction score
- 9,707
Apocalypse Now was raw and ruthless. The scene where they come across the soldiers fighting a completely unseen (and maybe imaginary enemy) at night is as close to a nightmare in any movie that I can think of.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 32,152
- Reaction score
- 15,207
There was a sweet spot where Hollywood actually tried to do as good as they possibly could with CGI. Now it's more about "what's the least amount of money we can spend" so it looks janky. With few exceptions they've definitely gotten lazy.
There are few instances where I prefer CGI to practical, but an example I can give you is CGI Thanos (IW/Endgame) > Practical Apocalypse (in that dogshit XMEN movie). Oscar Isaac looked freaking RIDICULOUS as Apocalypse. Like an Ivan Ooze looking motherfucker. CGI Thanos is a definite exception where he actually looked pretty great. Like they actually put legitimate effort into making him look as peak as possible.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2024
- Messages
- 3,726
- Reaction score
- 9,707
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 22,925
- Reaction score
- 10,883
Holy cow that's cool to see from that perspective.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 25,840
- Reaction score
- 9,003
Just really depends on what youre doing and the best way to pull it off. Practical effects will never accomplish what CGI can do, but its just a matter of whether the CGI it utilized well.
Jaws or Alien are great examples of how the limitations of practical effects actually create better presentations of what the director wants to accomplish. Less is more. At the same time, prqctical effects have much greater fidelity. Modern movies , especially blockbusters couldn't be done with practical effects. What I mean ,what you see on the screen cant be done. Almost nothing in the new superman movie, or any comic book movie, is possible with practical effects. Yeah, you can have a man fly, but you cant have him zip into the air, spin in circles while shooting dozens of other people out of rhe air with laser beams from his eyes. And if you did, it would look terrible.
Theres a double edged sword to CGI, where the only limits are imaginations. Whatever you conceive of can be put on screen, under your complete control. The limits of practical effects are mobility and interaction with actors and set. Good directors tend to show and do as little as little as possible while leaving much to your imagination.
Something like Kong: Skull Island has special effects that are better than anything any practical effect can ever hope to achieve. But its certainly not a better movie that many we can name, and theres tons of bloated CGI crap fests.
A guy in a suit worked perfectly for Alien, but a guy in a suit would never work for Gollum in LOTR.
Jaws or Alien are great examples of how the limitations of practical effects actually create better presentations of what the director wants to accomplish. Less is more. At the same time, prqctical effects have much greater fidelity. Modern movies , especially blockbusters couldn't be done with practical effects. What I mean ,what you see on the screen cant be done. Almost nothing in the new superman movie, or any comic book movie, is possible with practical effects. Yeah, you can have a man fly, but you cant have him zip into the air, spin in circles while shooting dozens of other people out of rhe air with laser beams from his eyes. And if you did, it would look terrible.
Theres a double edged sword to CGI, where the only limits are imaginations. Whatever you conceive of can be put on screen, under your complete control. The limits of practical effects are mobility and interaction with actors and set. Good directors tend to show and do as little as little as possible while leaving much to your imagination.
Something like Kong: Skull Island has special effects that are better than anything any practical effect can ever hope to achieve. But its certainly not a better movie that many we can name, and theres tons of bloated CGI crap fests.
A guy in a suit worked perfectly for Alien, but a guy in a suit would never work for Gollum in LOTR.
- Joined
- May 15, 2022
- Messages
- 7,104
- Reaction score
- 6,827
humans are wierd as fuck when you think about it
Would any other species go out of their way to build something, blow it up on purpose then loudly cheer at the explosion cause thing go flashy boom?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2024
- Messages
- 3,726
- Reaction score
- 9,707
Art, bro.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2015
- Messages
- 20,626
- Reaction score
- 49,832
Say what you want about them but the CGI on the actual robots is impressive.
The Flash had some of the worst CGI in recent memory.
As a Cage fan I was so bummed out when they showed him there, it looked so bad.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2015
- Messages
- 20,626
- Reaction score
- 49,832
This is good stuff.I've always appreciated movie artifice over attempts at precise realism. Matte paintings etc...
The Rear Window set was created on a set at Paramount Studios, this is the kind of artistry I appreciate:
Also the "bigatures" from the Lord of the Rings trilogy are also great.
