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

[GSP_37]

I prefer saving the budget for use towards boobs and beaver.

I read the Altered Carbon S1 sword fight scene involved multiple nude merkin body doubles and nude stuntwomen.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

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.

CGI explosions never look anywhere near as good. It just doesn’t look as visceral.

It’s like the difference between seeing someone getting knocked out in a boxing ring, and someone getting knocked out in the street. It’s just different.

 

[Adamant]

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:

I wish they would get back to matte paintings, rear projection, models, miniatures, sets (like the buildings King Kong maneuvers around in the 76 film), makeup, prosthetics, animatronics, stop motion, etc. I hate when they just CGI all of it. What they should do for modern movies is do everything they can with practical, with all of the tricks listed above and then use CGI to blend things together, touch up any weak spots, and erase any mistakes. If something needs to be made full CGI, like the T-Rex when running in JP1, the T-1000, or Thanos, that's fine. But dammit we don't need every single thing on screen outside of the human actors to be CGI. It's horrendous!

Look at the new dogshit "Jurassic World Rebirth" film. They went to film in actual real locations (like Southeast Asia) but instead of letting the natural beauty shine through they had to add gobs and gobs of CGI to it for some reason. I'm not even talking about the video game looking dinosaurs. I'm talking about the actual environment. Like the hills and trees and sky and sunshine. It's so freaking janky looking I just don't understand it.

The space scenes in the original Star Wars trilogy look great. The shots of space in Alien/Aliens look great. Compare it to the 100% CGI environments of the Star Wars prequels and sequels, or the CGI space of Prometheus/Covenant, and it looks totally bland and uninteresting.

Also, it's weird that the common excuse for doing everything CGI nowadays is because "it's cheaper". That doesn't even make any sense because look at Hollywood before CGI. They did so much excellent work and with a budget that's a fraction of what budgets are today. So how did it all of a sudden become "too expensive"??

I also wish they would return to shooting on film and lighting the scene on location instead of shooting everything digital and just lighting/color correcting in post. I know it'll never happen, but it should.

 

[B0l0joe]

This thread inspired me to watch The Fly again. Amazing practical effects in this movie that are still disturbing to watch to this day. They give the viewer an uneasy feeling which you might not get from CGI (I’m speaking mostly about horror films).

 

[Luffy]

Yeah I prefer those without CGI. I like the rawness of the scenes. I'm never too keen on a movie due to aesthetics. For instance, Avatar is huge in its effects, but I like the storyline, the drama... The soundtrack setting the tone of the scenes. Those touch way more into me than focused CGI with heavily enhanced computer visual images. Nowadays is tough to have a movie with no CGI tho, even scenes we don't notice might have some level of it, like filling building in the background, aging and de-aging characters. The latter which I don't care when it's meant to be metaphorical (Howl's Moving Castle, tho yeah animation ofc).

I find 90s or some classic westerns from Sergio Leone or The Shining that you mentioned, all classics and huge immersing due to the cinematography — soundtracks, scenario, performances, camera angles shifting to enhance moments...

 

[PeterGriffin]

I wish they would get back to matte paintings, rear projection, models, miniatures, sets (like the buildings King Kong maneuvers around in the 76 film), makeup, prosthetics, animatronics, stop motion, etc. I hate when they just CGI all of it. What they should do for modern movies is do everything they can with practical, with all of the tricks listed above and then use CGI to blend things together, touch up any weak spots, and erase any mistakes. If something needs to be made full CGI, like the T-Rex when running in JP1, the T-1000, or Thanos, that's fine. But dammit we don't need every single thing on screen outside of the human actors to be CGI. It's horrendous!

Look at the new dogshit "Jurassic World Rebirth" film. They went to film in actual real locations (like Southeast Asia) but instead of letting the natural beauty shine through they had to add gobs and gobs of CGI to it for some reason. I'm not even talking about the video game looking dinosaurs. I'm talking about the actual environment. Like the hills and trees and sky and sunshine. It's so freaking janky looking I just don't understand it.

The space scenes in the original Star Wars trilogy look great. The shots of space in Alien/Aliens look great. Compare it to the 100% CGI environments of the Star Wars prequels and sequels, or the CGI space of Prometheus/Covenant, and it looks totally bland and uninteresting.

Also, it's weird that the common excuse for doing everything CGI nowadays is because "it's cheaper". That doesn't even make any sense because look at Hollywood before CGI. They did so much excellent work and with a budget that's a fraction of what budgets are today. So how did it all of a sudden become "too expensive"??

I also wish they would return to shooting on film and lighting the scene on location instead of shooting everything digital and just lighting/color correcting in post. I know it'll never happen, but it should.

James Cameron built a massive, massive tank and set for filming particular scenes with Titanic, he said he really had no other choice. CGI was never going to be a substitute for the realism he needed. I highly doubt the drowning scene in The Abyss could ever have been done justice by CGI.

How do these filmmakers not recognize their own poor CGI before release? Remember the Rock in the Scorpion King? What the fuck were you thinking? Surely at some point you had to sit back and realize... "You know... that really looks like shit.". Did the director or producer(s) not want to hurt someone's feelings? In my opinion, I think Jurassic Park 1 was exceptionally well done but believe that LOTR was basically the perfect balance and execution of blending quality CGI and practical effects.

99% of the time, the CGI's not the problem anyways, it's the hacks along the way.

 

[deviake]

I think CGI is fine, it depends on who's using it and how, that's why CGI from decades ago used by great film makers can look better than CGI used today.

 

[Adamant]

James Cameron built a massive, massive tank and set for filming particular scenes with Titanic, he said he really had no other choice. CGI was never going to be a substitute for the realism he needed. I highly doubt the drowning scene in The Abyss could ever have been done justice by CGI.

How do these filmmakers not recognize their own poor CGI before release? Remember the Rock in the Scorpion King? What the fuck were you thinking? Surely at some point you had to sit back and realize... "You know... that really looks like shit.". Did the director or producer(s) not want to hurt someone's feelings? In my opinion, I think Jurassic Park 1 was exceptionally well done but believe that LOTR was basically the perfect balance and execution of blending quality CGI and practical effects.

99% of the time, the CGI's not the problem anyways, it's the hacks along the way.

To be fair, I think a lot of it comes down to the studio heads. They see a scene with shoddy CGI and likely say "good enough" even if the director objects. Unless the director has significant power like Nolan, Spielberg, Cameron, Tarantino, Scorsese, or Fincher, there's no real fighting back.

(But I've seen some pretty questionable CGI in Spielberg's more modern movies, so yeah, wtf is up with that??)

 

[Adamant]

I think CGI is fine, it depends on who's using it and how, that's why CGI from decades ago used by great film makers can look better than CGI used today.

It's fine when used correctly. But when it's used in place of every other type of effect, that's where I have a problem with it. CGI should be used in conjunction with all of the other effects. Not just relied upon 100% for everything.

Some filmmakers at least try to mix it up. They'll throw us a bone with a model or animatronic among the CGI. But what I appreciate most are guys like Tarantino and Nolan who absolutely refuse to use any CGI, except as an absolute last resort. Which is how it should be with everyone.

 

[jimbob27]

To be fair, I think a lot of it comes down to the studio heads. They see a scene with shoddy CGI and likely say "good enough" even if the director objects. Unless the director has significant power like Nolan, Spielberg, Cameron, Tarantino, Scorsese, or Fincher, there's no real fighting back.

(But I've seen some pretty questionable CGI in Spielberg's more modern movies, so yeah, wtf is up with that??)

I don't think most studio heads micromanage production to that level. It's the directors job to approve each scene both before it's made and afterwards. If the CGI artists royally fuck something up, then it's the directors decsion to either not include it, or to work out if it's even remotely feasible to arrange for a re-shoot. Generally speaking, asking for lots of re-shoots will make a director really unpopular with the studio heads, and will likely jeopardise their chances to be chosen to direct future projects.

 

[shunyata]

I prefer saving the budget for use towards boobs and beaver.

I read the Altered Carbon S1 sword fight scene involved multiple nude merkin body doubles and nude stuntwomen.

The important thing is that multiple nude stuntwomen got paid.

 

[GSP_37]

The important thing is that multiple nude stuntwomen got paid.

I'm guessing one nude stuntwoman (at a time) and multiple nude doubles lying down after they dieded.

 

[Adamant]

I don't think most studio heads micromanage production to that level. It's the directors job to approve each scene both before it's made and afterwards. If the CGI artists royally fuck something up, then it's the directors decsion to either not include it, or to work out if it's even remotely feasible to arrange for a re-shoot. Generally speaking, asking for lots of re-shoots will make a director really unpopular with the studio heads, and will likely jeopardise their chances to be chosen to direct future projects.

You ever hear of the Weinsteins? They were up pretty much every director's ass with a microscope, except for Tarantino, micromanaging. Rob Zombie has horror stories of his experiences with them. But it wasn't even just them. I've listened to a number of commentaries where the director is complaining about studio interference and not getting to do something exactly as he wanted to do it. It's way more prevalent than you'd think. Directors are constantly getting notes from the studio and a lot of the time the director has to fight with the heads to get what they want. So many of them will say "if I just had more time".

Like in Rocky, they told Sly and Avildsen (the director) that they were to scrap the scene where Rocky comes home to Adrian the night before the fight and lays down on the bed next to her and tells her he can't win. When Sly and Avildsen insisted that it had to be in the movie, the heads basically said "you've got one take. If you can't get it in one, cut it." So by some miracle they got it in one.

I'm not saying it's the ONLY reason for bad CGI. But for sure a big part of it.

 

[HwoarangStyle]

mad max fury road was awesome because of the practical effects. i dont think there was much cgi in there besides the citadel and the giant sandstorm.

 

[Big Tuppy Hole]

CGI has ruined the art of the car chase.

 

[MLarson]

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:

Great Movie.

 

[MLarson]

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.

I do generally prefer practical effects over CGI
and it's over used today.

I also don't the look of Digital film.

Also why did Payton get banned for?

 

[Jack Reacheround]

CGI has ruined the art of the car chase.

Honestly, there is nothing I hate more than a movie wasting 10 minutes on a car chase. Once you’ve seen one, you’ve pretty much seen them all. Same with shootouts, unless there is something really creative about how they’re done. But usually it’s just a copy and paste of everything you’ve ever seen in any action movie.

 

[Slobodan]

mad max fury road was awesome because of the practical effects. i dont think there was much cgi in there besides the citadel and the giant sandstorm.

Not true man, Fury Road had more CGI than you'd think but it blended it so well with the practical effects that it wasn't noticeable. This is how CGI should be done.

Check this out.

 

[Barney Gumble]

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:

agreed! just rewatched this yesterday. great movie.