|
|
Post by Robert69 on Apr 23, 2015 6:26:33 GMT -5
So I'm currently in Post on my 3rd Feature, "Alien Harvest", and as a filmmaker doing a Sci-Fi/Action flick in 2015...I have to find what works best on the budget I have to work with...
Add to this that I'm going to be acting in a VERY effects heavy Production in the next couple months, and Star Wars VII/AoU/BvS coming out...it's a great time to be a fan of special effects. And I'm loving every second of what I do.
But, what do you think? Where do you find your preferences lie? Personally, I love a good blend of both practical, and CGI. Practical will always feel more tangible, and tangible means relatable. But CGI allows filmmakers to do things absolutely not possible another way.
I've come across some random videos while doing research, and think they're pretty interesting. Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator etc, all give us a great idea of balancing...
And here's a quick shot I used both practical and CG on...it's not done yet, but it's well on it's way.
So what do you prefer? What are some of your favorite effects heavy movies?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Apr 23, 2015 7:45:17 GMT -5
I like a good blend. Bad CGI can be very distracting. I also happened to have loved the Evil Dead remake, which looked great and used no CGI.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Apr 23, 2015 8:34:49 GMT -5
I like a good blend. Bad CGI can be very distracting. I also happened to have loved the Evil Dead remake, which looked great and used no CGI. Indeed. I actually really enjoyed a lot about the new Evil Dead, myself. And the effects were part of that. Dog Soldiers is another movie that always comes to mind where I enjoy the practical effects. Underworld is a good example, I think, where blending practical and CGI doesn't go over well. (I mean the werewolves, mostly. A lot of the Underworld films are beautifully done CGI) |
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Apr 23, 2015 10:02:41 GMT -5
I think too much CGI ruins a movie. Like the Star Wars Prequels relied on CGI as a crutch
|
|
|
|
Post by Parchandri on Apr 23, 2015 12:47:40 GMT -5
I think there needs to be a healthy marriage of both. There are certain feats that are, simply put, impossible without the assistance of CGI. However, when simpler effects, such as gore in The Walking Dead, are handed over to CGI, it causes a significant disconnect. CGI can pull an audience out of the action when a tried-and-true practical effect would have got the job done in a better, more believable way. Practical vs CGI is an instance where convenience and cost tend to outweigh art and convention.
|
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 23, 2015 14:23:04 GMT -5
I think there needs to be a healthy marriage of both. There are certain feats that are, simply put, impossible without the assistance of CGI. However, when simpler effects, such as gore in The Walking Dead, are handed over to CGI, it causes a significant disconnect. CGI can pull an audience out of the action when a tried-and-true practical effect would have got the job done in a better, more believable way. Practical vs CGI is an instance where convenience and cost tend to outweigh art and convention. This. All day. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Apr 23, 2015 15:23:25 GMT -5
I think there needs to be a healthy marriage of both. There are certain feats that are, simply put, impossible without the assistance of CGI. However, when simpler effects, such as gore in The Walking Dead, are handed over to CGI, it causes a significant disconnect. CGI can pull an audience out of the action when a tried-and-true practical effect would have got the job done in a better, more believable way. Practical vs CGI is an instance where convenience and cost tend to outweigh art and convention. Accurate, however I will note that in the clip I posted from my current project, it was actually cheaper/easier to go the practical route. I dropped about $20 on a toy space ship, plus cost of paint and dowel rods...couple hrs of touch up work, then just used After Effects CGI to enhance certain aspects. As you said, and I agree whole-heartedly with, there needs to be a good marriage of both. |
|
The Dave
Main Eventer
Con-Chair-Tos all around!
Joined on: Feb 2, 2008 15:29:11 GMT -5
Posts: 3,480
|
Post by The Dave on Apr 23, 2015 18:19:37 GMT -5
TMNT 1990 vs. TMNT 2014 answers that question nicely, for my money. I'm not a fan of when a real character in a film is made completely out of CGI for certain other scenes in the same movie either. It's usually quite jarring and doesn't look all that great. There are exceptions and CGI is improving all the time, but still. When I was watching CGI Neo fight all those Smiths back in the day I was not impressed.
When done well and in small doses though, CGI can certainly enhance things. Just don't overdo it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Apr 23, 2015 19:45:03 GMT -5
TMNT 1990 vs. TMNT 2014 answers that question nicely, for my money. I'm not a fan of when a real character in a film is made completely out of CGI for certain other scenes in the same movie either. It's usually quite jarring and doesn't look all that great. There are exceptions and CGI is improving all the time, but still. When I was watching CGI Neo fight all those Smiths back in the day I was not impressed. When done well and in small doses though, CGI can certainly enhance things. Just don't overdo it. Yeah, that sequence in the Matrix sequel was painful. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 21:09:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 8:38:58 GMT -5
I absolutley hate CGI and think it looks like complete sh*t.
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Apr 24, 2015 8:40:57 GMT -5
My biggest pet peeve is CGI blood. It always looks so awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on Apr 24, 2015 11:42:44 GMT -5
The Thing (1984) VS The Thing (2011)
A movie made almost 30 years prior to it's "counterpart" used practical effects rather than CGI... look how that turned out.
|
|
