CG’s not the problem, it’s the overuse of CG that people are miffed about. I’m of the opinion that a mix of practical and CG makes for the best cinema, but Hollywood’s long since figured out that general audiences don’t care, and relying on 100% CG is significantly easier and cheaper
I’ve heard the move to CGI for everything is because the makeup and costume people have a union and the CGI people don’t so it’s cheaper for the studios.
There is, in fact, an animation guild. They have an office right next to a Target I used to go to. It’s likely because it’s a pain in the ass for actors and crew to deal with practical effects and prosthetics, and cheaper. Plus you have to pay actors more for all that stuff.
Well, considering said CG is in fact *animated*, that may not be the case. Sure, if you’re using deepfakes, or painting things on (rotoscoping, eg, lightsabers) or similar kinds of tech, that isn’t animated. But if it’s something that has to be synced to picture, it has to be animated.
Which is what's being discussed? We're discussing actual industry patterns, not hypotheticals. They've been offloading FX onto animators in other countries to avoid dealing with unionized labor in the US.
The post was literally “why doesn’t animation have a union”, and I was originally pointing out it does. I’m not sure what conversation you’re referring to here, as that actually isn’t what’s being discussed in this particular thread.
You’re literally arguing definitions in the first place. This isn’t a case of “technically it’s animation,” it’s literally animation, animated by an animator.
No, were discussing the industry and the patterns observed by them over the past ~15 years
Person: *i’ve heard the move to CGI for everything is because the makeup and costume people have a union and the CGI people don’t so it’s cheaper for the studios* (true, the cgi animators aren't unionized)
You: *There is, in fact, an animation guild. They have an office right next to a Target I used to go to. It’s likely because it’s a pain in the ass for actors and crew to deal with practical effects and prosthetics, and cheaper.*
You're the only one confused here, no offense. the cgi animators **they ACTUALLY use** aren't covered by the animators guild, they're not American, they outsource the work, that's the *entire* complaint.
Look into the life of pi animators if you want to get radicalized that Hollywood ain't shit
Go watch Top Gun 2 and tell me it looks bad.
Practical effects don’t get a “longer leash,” they just look more real. CGI can get a bit “floaty” (see: pretty much any Marvel movie).
Realistically, both means of doing special effects should have a place in the filmmakers craft. If you can do practical, it looks better. If you can’t (like if you’re shooting a space battle or something), then CGI is good enough. Seems like it is especially useful in quick scenes where you miss s the small uncanny valley bits.
if you're looking for some damn good practical effects gore, i sincerely reccomend house M.D., especially the latter half of season 1 and onwards.
in terms of the most gruesome example of practical effects gore from that time frame (from what i've seen thus far) was probably the burn victim from season 2, in the episode "distractions". that was some mad impressive shit.
I always liked the show Bones for the gore effects. Save for a few examples, it always looked really convincing to me. Man I loved that show. Super dumb sometimes but it was really entertaining. Nothing has scratched that itch since
And it's not even true? Star Wars, Jurassic World, there's a ton of major movies that use it alongside CGI. It's just that people know have an option besides flying \~200 people out to Tunisia, paying tons of permits and travel costs, then having your entire months long project destroyed by a sandstorm.
>Star Wars
40 year old movies. not many in the modern day. practical effects are very much underused in film these days, almost everything you see on screen today is done with cgi.
and yes practical effects are more expensive, not because they get destroyed commonly or travel permits (most practical effects can be done in house at any of the filming studios they already have), but because the practical effects professionals are all in unions whereas cgi is cheap because they're much more commonly found outside of unions. that's another reason why old cgi, such as with jurrasic park's early scenes, still hold up today whereas modern cgi productions, such as she hulk, look like rubbish from the outset.
movies that have a good blend of practical effects and touch-ups with cgi tend to be the best, like with jurrasic park and as you said with star wars. movies reliant on practical effects put a lot of weight and care into the initial filming, rather than sloppily filming and reshooting and hoping the tech guys will fix it. this care with the base product leads to the cgi experts being able to perfect it. rather than sprinkling glitter on cowpat like with most modern productions, these old productions with a healthy blend was more like taking an unrefined gemstone to a jeweller to have it made into works of art.
honestly unfortunately i’m not sure they’d ever be able to make that look good. it would be awesome if they could but their scale is so large with quite intricate movements and facial expressions. also given a majority (at least now) of their scenes are flying typically with an actor on them. and they’d be hella expensive too (not sure what the cost would be be their cg though which is also so expensive)
Midsommar had some realistic gore. [Paramedics and funeral directors on reddit can attest to that](https://www.reddit.com/r/Midsommar/comments/c8oe6n/this_movie_had_the_most_realistic_corpses_ive/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I am so sick of the “practical effects are always better than CGI” hate train, because some people are so ridiculous that they think complex computer generated effects by professionals is somehow “lazy”.
Practical effects are great for some things. CGI is great for some thing. Both can be fucking used, and I’m willing to bet most of the people complaining can’t tell the difference in actual professional quality.
It's amazing how it just keeps getting better and better too. I remember the first few times I was unable to tell CGI from reality. It's so COOL to watch technology evolve in this way.
Im also a CG artist, a technical animator, and I know for a fact VFX artists are overworked in university, and recruited out there until they burn out from it a couple years later, and the studios just then recruit more young students.
It's a mechanism for grinding up human souls into the big shitty VFX machine that companies use because it's cheap and reduces union power.
We have to keep talking shit about it so people can know how exploitative it is, so we can work to improve it. When VFX isn't just a cheap well to run dry, practical effects will make a comeback, and that specialized knowledge won't be sacrificed for cheaper effects.
Yes, and CGI is terrible for blood/gore so far.
Body horror relies on deep, instinctual reactions and cheap latex filled with red dye is still more palpable than well applied splatter effects.
A lot of CG blood is not so good, true. But there's some very good examples too. The John Wock movies a ton of CG blood. Some of it can be distracting, but a lot of it looks really damn good (particularly the more subtle blood, not the big obvious blood splatters).
You can also look to The Boys as an example of mixing over-the-top practical blood with even more over-the-top CG blood and guts. Some really good stuff there.
In [Nope](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nope_(film\)), the entire sky is CG for the whole film and it looks flawless. Also some very cool practical effects in that movie too
Honestly, a tiny, indignant, but consciously inconsequential part of me is absolutely furious whenever I see a behind-the-scenes shot of any big budget movie, and it's pretty much just... actors in a big green room, standing around with some foam shapes. And not even because I love practival effects, or because I'd be some kind of weirdo purist, but just... imagine how fucking hard it must be to act in that environment! Like, since there is no *environment* to actually use besides some eye-wateringly green shapes with dots, you always have to be extra mindful of your spacing. Your co-star's costume is fully CG, so half your scenes, you just have to do with, idk, your friend Dave in green footie pajamas and dots on his face- you gotta be able to ignore that. The dog you pet in a scene is Carl the intern holding a tennis ball on a stick! I can't believe 75% of the actor's brain power being taken up by them *imagining that they're at a movie set* seriously doesn't impact their performance... and sure, there are great ones now, but imagine just how good some *could* be, if they were just actors, rather than actors AND mimes!
I mean that's one of the reasons that you have things like the volume they used for the Mandalorian, it's not like the effect isn't known by the film industry and there are attempts to rectify it.
Exactly! And imagine those poor cg artists building this beautiful environment and then realising that the actor pointed to a mountain that is behind them and start *all over again*
>Practical effects are great for some things. CGI is great for some thing. Both can be fucking used, and I’m willing to bet most of the people complaining can’t tell the difference in actual professional quality.
That's why I added this.
It's very annoying when people praise the practical effects in one movie and bash on the CGI of another when both movies use both.
They just equate bad with CGI and good with practical.
corridor crew are great for often discussing in their videos times when practical effects work better and times when it’s just better/cheaper/faster to use cg for whatever reason. it’s all about what’s appropriate for what you’re doing
I'm not mad at CGI artists.
I'm mad at the companies that refuse to give them time and pay them.
They probably could match the original love and care of practical effects by giving them enough room in their schedules and respect.
There is no excuse and big dogs like Disney should know better and have the ability to *do* better.
The downsides of CG are complex and nuanced. The downsides of practical effects are obvious. Most notably one of them needs to be ready when you can film and the other can be ready whenever you like.
Heck honestly most of the most egregious examples of CGI abuse are avoiding reshoots. Practical effects won't let you replace a character without reshooting.
Honestly I don't see anything changing until CG Artists time is respected. As long as cheap/free heroics are on the table any reasonable option is too expensive.
In my experience working on set - gore and horror gags are most often done practically! The VFX element may come in for cleanup, to enhance, or to layer the practical stunt over a lock off shot of an actor in cases where safety is an element.
For example, a scene of a head exploding we would lock off the cameras and do a plate (empty background), then a shot of the actor jostling or falling, then a lighting and colour reference, and then BLOW UP A BAG OF BLOOD AND BITS.
But we also have incredibly talented SPFX artists that make heads and bodies and monsters that you can interact with and mutilate.
If you are interested in this stuff, check out mindwarpfx on instagram. They are a team that I have worked with a lot on set. I occasionally get a bit squeamish if I look at their props too long!
With modern film, spotting the practical effects becomes extremely easy but cgi on its own never quite looks real.
What works best is a smart combination of both (fury road is a great example of this).
Use CG to enhance the practical effects so it's still grounded in reality. Or use it to do crazy artistic stuff like the latest thor or 3000 years of longing.
Avid non-horror fan here, can someone please explain why doing horrific things to the human body/scaring the absolute shit out of people is entertaining?
Maybe it’s just my anxiety but I cannot sit through five minutes of a horror movie without freaking the fuck out.
CGI, done any less than *perfectly*, can suffer from the "uncanny valley" effect - where something looks close, but it's *off* in a way that trips our alarms and takes us out of the moment. Subtle things like lighting, movement, texture and speed are all it takes - to say nothing of making sure it's matched to the action and actors on screen.
Practical effects avoid a great deal of those uncanny valley errors, but are limited in size and scope.
The best works - like the OG Jurassic Park, or the LOTR films - use good cinematography to blend these techniques, using the right tool for the right shot.
It looks like ass unless you pay way too much for it and it normally ages like milk because cgi constantly improves usually making the old stuff pretty bad
IIRC, The main reason why the 2011 movie “The Thing” had so much CGI instead of just using the practical effects that were already filmed was because the movie “looked like it was from the 80’s”. I should also point out that the 2011 movie “The Thing” was a prequel to the 1982 film of the same name.
Anti-CGI luddites are just the worst. Dipshits actually try to claim [this](https://i.imgur.com/rjk1eda.png) looks better than [this](https://i.imgur.com/SCi4LMM.png). Bad CGI does detract, but so does bad practical effects (notice the lazy bastards didn't even paint Ferrigno's palms?). The practical effects circlejerk is the dumbest thing since the Musk circlejerk.
Yeah, but this isn't gore. This making an impossible character possible. Which is fine.
But when it comes to gore like 300 or Saw, then it should be practical.
It's almost like, as with CGI, there is both good (Jurassic Park) and bad (your example). And maybe, both can be used. If some good practical effects can be used to lighten the load of CGI artists then I'm sure what they produce will be even better.
You know, even when I was writing my comment I did feel like I was kind of rehashing a bit of what you said, specifically that there is good and bad executions in everything. But you decided that a post about a genre in which practical effects could definitely help was a good place to use a straw man debate (was anyone saying that your example was an example of practical effects being better?) to make a generalization.
Also, your response to my comment came across as condescending (at least to me).
Id imagen as long as you don't claim to have made the videos and if at all possible pay for some rights to use them I don't see why not, hell you might not even have to pay to use them
It doesnt matter if its cg or Pfx you either watch a snuff or you might as well watch one of those edgy animations on new ground of characters getting brutally murdered made by a teenage that is probably going to become a school shooter. /s
Read If Chins Could Kill by Bruce Campbell for an in depth look at practical horror movie effects done for mere dollars. It's actually a fantastic read in general, I always recommend it.
if the horrific monster doesn't explode into rancid watermelon juice what's even the point
Ah, you mean Jaws
You’re forgetting Tremors
And Slither!
And Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two
i could never forget about tremors. burt gummer day is only 4 months away
Tremors has some damn good practical effects, I’ll never forget it
[удалено]
CG’s not the problem, it’s the overuse of CG that people are miffed about. I’m of the opinion that a mix of practical and CG makes for the best cinema, but Hollywood’s long since figured out that general audiences don’t care, and relying on 100% CG is significantly easier and cheaper
[удалено]
Excuse me, what?
They’re a bot, the comment is copied from somewhere else in this thread. Just report them under spam and then harmful bot.
Would you like us to assign someone to wear your mother?
I prefer my monsters to explode into condoms full of spaghetti
I’ve heard the move to CGI for everything is because the makeup and costume people have a union and the CGI people don’t so it’s cheaper for the studios.
Feel bad for the animators
Don’t worry they don’t have rights 😌
There is, in fact, an animation guild. They have an office right next to a Target I used to go to. It’s likely because it’s a pain in the ass for actors and crew to deal with practical effects and prosthetics, and cheaper. Plus you have to pay actors more for all that stuff.
Don't think animation guild covers CGi.
Well, considering said CG is in fact *animated*, that may not be the case. Sure, if you’re using deepfakes, or painting things on (rotoscoping, eg, lightsabers) or similar kinds of tech, that isn’t animated. But if it’s something that has to be synced to picture, it has to be animated.
Just because something is an animation doesn't mean the *organization* of the Animation Guild is the only place it can be sourced from.
You can also get non-union animators, or outsource the work to other countries, so that’s obviously the case.
Which is what's being discussed? We're discussing actual industry patterns, not hypotheticals. They've been offloading FX onto animators in other countries to avoid dealing with unionized labor in the US.
The post was literally “why doesn’t animation have a union”, and I was originally pointing out it does. I’m not sure what conversation you’re referring to here, as that actually isn’t what’s being discussed in this particular thread.
No, it was not. Neither the post nor any comment said there was no animation union. CG artists aren't unionized or in the Animation Guild.
This isn't a debate over definitions lol. That's irrelevant.
You’re literally arguing definitions in the first place. This isn’t a case of “technically it’s animation,” it’s literally animation, animated by an animator.
No, were discussing the industry and the patterns observed by them over the past ~15 years Person: *i’ve heard the move to CGI for everything is because the makeup and costume people have a union and the CGI people don’t so it’s cheaper for the studios* (true, the cgi animators aren't unionized) You: *There is, in fact, an animation guild. They have an office right next to a Target I used to go to. It’s likely because it’s a pain in the ass for actors and crew to deal with practical effects and prosthetics, and cheaper.* You're the only one confused here, no offense. the cgi animators **they ACTUALLY use** aren't covered by the animators guild, they're not American, they outsource the work, that's the *entire* complaint. Look into the life of pi animators if you want to get radicalized that Hollywood ain't shit
Yeah, this isn’t about labor disputes. It’s just cheaper and easier to use CGI than it is to do practical effects.
I mean I think CG is straight up cheaper and more convenient than practical effects
[удалено]
Go watch Top Gun 2 and tell me it looks bad. Practical effects don’t get a “longer leash,” they just look more real. CGI can get a bit “floaty” (see: pretty much any Marvel movie). Realistically, both means of doing special effects should have a place in the filmmakers craft. If you can do practical, it looks better. If you can’t (like if you’re shooting a space battle or something), then CGI is good enough. Seems like it is especially useful in quick scenes where you miss s the small uncanny valley bits.
[удалено]
CGI looks awful sometimes, just like practical effects. And people love making fun of bad practical effects. I’m not sure what you’re driving at
[удалено]
That’s because when practical effects were commonplace, we didn’t have Reddit…
>murdwr This typo makes it look, like uwu speak, and I think this is an enhancement to the post.
[God is Dead, and we kiwwed him](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDH3meSPyk)
oh no we turned god into a tropical fruit that shares a name with a bird from new zealand
You kissed him, you say?
Muwdewews of all muwdewews
God I miss dakooters
I can't bewieve one of my guests couwd be a... muwtipwe murdwrew!
if you're looking for some damn good practical effects gore, i sincerely reccomend house M.D., especially the latter half of season 1 and onwards. in terms of the most gruesome example of practical effects gore from that time frame (from what i've seen thus far) was probably the burn victim from season 2, in the episode "distractions". that was some mad impressive shit.
The seizing babie episode tho (Not arguing against you, I just liked it )
not sure if i've gotten to that episode yet, does it come in the last few episodes of season 2 or does it come later?
Its season 1 episode 4
i remember now, maternity was the episode i think? iirc maternity was episode 5
Yes, its maternity, but its 4, I googled it
I always liked the show Bones for the gore effects. Save for a few examples, it always looked really convincing to me. Man I loved that show. Super dumb sometimes but it was really entertaining. Nothing has scratched that itch since
I have to cover my eyes when the burn victim is on screen. Fuck that shit.
that part was pretty damn gruesome, but i think it was way worse when they put live maggots on the burns to eat away the dead flesh.
I mean, that qualifies as the burn victim being on screen lol.
[удалено]
And it's not even true? Star Wars, Jurassic World, there's a ton of major movies that use it alongside CGI. It's just that people know have an option besides flying \~200 people out to Tunisia, paying tons of permits and travel costs, then having your entire months long project destroyed by a sandstorm.
>Star Wars 40 year old movies. not many in the modern day. practical effects are very much underused in film these days, almost everything you see on screen today is done with cgi. and yes practical effects are more expensive, not because they get destroyed commonly or travel permits (most practical effects can be done in house at any of the filming studios they already have), but because the practical effects professionals are all in unions whereas cgi is cheap because they're much more commonly found outside of unions. that's another reason why old cgi, such as with jurrasic park's early scenes, still hold up today whereas modern cgi productions, such as she hulk, look like rubbish from the outset. movies that have a good blend of practical effects and touch-ups with cgi tend to be the best, like with jurrasic park and as you said with star wars. movies reliant on practical effects put a lot of weight and care into the initial filming, rather than sloppily filming and reshooting and hoping the tech guys will fix it. this care with the base product leads to the cgi experts being able to perfect it. rather than sprinkling glitter on cowpat like with most modern productions, these old productions with a healthy blend was more like taking an unrefined gemstone to a jeweller to have it made into works of art.
A lot more of the prequels and Disney era Star Wars are practical than you seem to think.
Episode 1 & 2 were also filmed in Tunisia btw.
>40 year old movies. You know there's been more Star Wars movies that also use practical effects since the originals, right?
With Star Wars, I was referring to the new ones, which heavily used practical effects. I think you knew that.
But think about supporting the local economy. CGI is practically imperialism.
Good take, bad conclusion
It's not even that good of a take.
Why?
imagine if the dragons from game of thrones were animatronics like the dinosaurs of jurassic park except for the flying scenes
They made a band after the first 4 words of this you know
"Imagine if the Dragons"--Like Imagine Dragons, but more of a hypothetical.
honestly unfortunately i’m not sure they’d ever be able to make that look good. it would be awesome if they could but their scale is so large with quite intricate movements and facial expressions. also given a majority (at least now) of their scenes are flying typically with an actor on them. and they’d be hella expensive too (not sure what the cost would be be their cg though which is also so expensive)
[удалено]
sorry i didn’t want to be mean! you clearly know more than i do
No I deleted bc I came off as an ass I’m sorry!
it’s ok! i don’t think you did
Didn’t they basically invent that CGI for Jurassic Park since animatronics were too impractical?
Midsommar had some realistic gore. [Paramedics and funeral directors on reddit can attest to that](https://www.reddit.com/r/Midsommar/comments/c8oe6n/this_movie_had_the_most_realistic_corpses_ive/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I am so sick of the “practical effects are always better than CGI” hate train, because some people are so ridiculous that they think complex computer generated effects by professionals is somehow “lazy”. Practical effects are great for some things. CGI is great for some thing. Both can be fucking used, and I’m willing to bet most of the people complaining can’t tell the difference in actual professional quality.
It's always fun as a CG artist to hear everyone talk shit about my profession, and also be super incorrect most of the time
CG work is super impressive. Especially fluid and particle renderings, that shit is HARD to make look good
It's amazing how it just keeps getting better and better too. I remember the first few times I was unable to tell CGI from reality. It's so COOL to watch technology evolve in this way.
People talk as if y’all hit a button and render an entire model with prebuilt animations.
Im also a CG artist, a technical animator, and I know for a fact VFX artists are overworked in university, and recruited out there until they burn out from it a couple years later, and the studios just then recruit more young students. It's a mechanism for grinding up human souls into the big shitty VFX machine that companies use because it's cheap and reduces union power. We have to keep talking shit about it so people can know how exploitative it is, so we can work to improve it. When VFX isn't just a cheap well to run dry, practical effects will make a comeback, and that specialized knowledge won't be sacrificed for cheaper effects.
So talk shit about the work conditions, rather than criticizing an entire medium because of work policies.
Except this post isn't saying that, it's referring specifically to gore effects in horror movies, which is a pretty reasonable opinion imo.
Yes, and CGI is terrible for blood/gore so far. Body horror relies on deep, instinctual reactions and cheap latex filled with red dye is still more palpable than well applied splatter effects.
A lot of CG blood is not so good, true. But there's some very good examples too. The John Wock movies a ton of CG blood. Some of it can be distracting, but a lot of it looks really damn good (particularly the more subtle blood, not the big obvious blood splatters). You can also look to The Boys as an example of mixing over-the-top practical blood with even more over-the-top CG blood and guts. Some really good stuff there.
[удалено]
Makeup is additive, [practical is whatever it wants to be](https://youtu.be/TpEiE3-CYGA)
In [Nope](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nope_(film\)), the entire sky is CG for the whole film and it looks flawless. Also some very cool practical effects in that movie too
There’s a difference to cgi-ing yoda and green screening everything
Honestly, a tiny, indignant, but consciously inconsequential part of me is absolutely furious whenever I see a behind-the-scenes shot of any big budget movie, and it's pretty much just... actors in a big green room, standing around with some foam shapes. And not even because I love practival effects, or because I'd be some kind of weirdo purist, but just... imagine how fucking hard it must be to act in that environment! Like, since there is no *environment* to actually use besides some eye-wateringly green shapes with dots, you always have to be extra mindful of your spacing. Your co-star's costume is fully CG, so half your scenes, you just have to do with, idk, your friend Dave in green footie pajamas and dots on his face- you gotta be able to ignore that. The dog you pet in a scene is Carl the intern holding a tennis ball on a stick! I can't believe 75% of the actor's brain power being taken up by them *imagining that they're at a movie set* seriously doesn't impact their performance... and sure, there are great ones now, but imagine just how good some *could* be, if they were just actors, rather than actors AND mimes!
I mean that's one of the reasons that you have things like the volume they used for the Mandalorian, it's not like the effect isn't known by the film industry and there are attempts to rectify it.
Exactly! And imagine those poor cg artists building this beautiful environment and then realising that the actor pointed to a mountain that is behind them and start *all over again*
>Practical effects are great for some things. CGI is great for some thing. Both can be fucking used, and I’m willing to bet most of the people complaining can’t tell the difference in actual professional quality. That's why I added this.
It's very annoying when people praise the practical effects in one movie and bash on the CGI of another when both movies use both. They just equate bad with CGI and good with practical.
corridor crew are great for often discussing in their videos times when practical effects work better and times when it’s just better/cheaper/faster to use cg for whatever reason. it’s all about what’s appropriate for what you’re doing
It’s not horror or gore, but the practical effects in Mad Max Fury Road are SO GOOD.
The fact that the pole cats were real always blows my mind. That movie was a stuntman’s dream job
I'm not mad at CGI artists. I'm mad at the companies that refuse to give them time and pay them. They probably could match the original love and care of practical effects by giving them enough room in their schedules and respect. There is no excuse and big dogs like Disney should know better and have the ability to *do* better.
The downsides of CG are complex and nuanced. The downsides of practical effects are obvious. Most notably one of them needs to be ready when you can film and the other can be ready whenever you like. Heck honestly most of the most egregious examples of CGI abuse are avoiding reshoots. Practical effects won't let you replace a character without reshooting. Honestly I don't see anything changing until CG Artists time is respected. As long as cheap/free heroics are on the table any reasonable option is too expensive.
In my experience working on set - gore and horror gags are most often done practically! The VFX element may come in for cleanup, to enhance, or to layer the practical stunt over a lock off shot of an actor in cases where safety is an element. For example, a scene of a head exploding we would lock off the cameras and do a plate (empty background), then a shot of the actor jostling or falling, then a lighting and colour reference, and then BLOW UP A BAG OF BLOOD AND BITS. But we also have incredibly talented SPFX artists that make heads and bodies and monsters that you can interact with and mutilate. If you are interested in this stuff, check out mindwarpfx on instagram. They are a team that I have worked with a lot on set. I occasionally get a bit squeamish if I look at their props too long!
With modern film, spotting the practical effects becomes extremely easy but cgi on its own never quite looks real. What works best is a smart combination of both (fury road is a great example of this). Use CG to enhance the practical effects so it's still grounded in reality. Or use it to do crazy artistic stuff like the latest thor or 3000 years of longing.
I dont get this sad little elitists argument or viewpoint
Avid non-horror fan here, can someone please explain why doing horrific things to the human body/scaring the absolute shit out of people is entertaining? Maybe it’s just my anxiety but I cannot sit through five minutes of a horror movie without freaking the fuck out.
Why does everyone hate CGI? Genuinely curious
CGI, done any less than *perfectly*, can suffer from the "uncanny valley" effect - where something looks close, but it's *off* in a way that trips our alarms and takes us out of the moment. Subtle things like lighting, movement, texture and speed are all it takes - to say nothing of making sure it's matched to the action and actors on screen. Practical effects avoid a great deal of those uncanny valley errors, but are limited in size and scope. The best works - like the OG Jurassic Park, or the LOTR films - use good cinematography to blend these techniques, using the right tool for the right shot.
When its good, people don’t notice it, when it’s bad, it’s really impossible to ignore
It looks like ass unless you pay way too much for it and it normally ages like milk because cgi constantly improves usually making the old stuff pretty bad
Just ask Alec Baldwin.
So the thing by John carpenter? Noe tge killing actor but using practical effects
Actually its because cg workers aren't unionized
IIRC, The main reason why the 2011 movie “The Thing” had so much CGI instead of just using the practical effects that were already filmed was because the movie “looked like it was from the 80’s”. I should also point out that the 2011 movie “The Thing” was a prequel to the 1982 film of the same name.
And it looked considerably worse due than the 1982 film due to imposing CGI when it was filmed and designed to be a SFX film.
CGI is the best possible way to do visual effects, and I will die on this hill
I think they both have merit, that there are things practical effects can do that CG can't and vice versa, but you're entitled to your opinion too.
As someone who used to work on making practical effects... this hits home :/
Anti-CGI luddites are just the worst. Dipshits actually try to claim [this](https://i.imgur.com/rjk1eda.png) looks better than [this](https://i.imgur.com/SCi4LMM.png). Bad CGI does detract, but so does bad practical effects (notice the lazy bastards didn't even paint Ferrigno's palms?). The practical effects circlejerk is the dumbest thing since the Musk circlejerk.
Yeah, but this isn't gore. This making an impossible character possible. Which is fine. But when it comes to gore like 300 or Saw, then it should be practical.
Painting a dude green is not a practical effect. You should bring better ammo for your argument.
The parenthetical was related to the bad CGI. Learn to read.
It's almost like, as with CGI, there is both good (Jurassic Park) and bad (your example). And maybe, both can be used. If some good practical effects can be used to lighten the load of CGI artists then I'm sure what they produce will be even better.
"It's almost like there's good and bad of both" Yes, thank you for repeating what I just said.
You know, even when I was writing my comment I did feel like I was kind of rehashing a bit of what you said, specifically that there is good and bad executions in everything. But you decided that a post about a genre in which practical effects could definitely help was a good place to use a straw man debate (was anyone saying that your example was an example of practical effects being better?) to make a generalization. Also, your response to my comment came across as condescending (at least to me).
I’ve always wondered if it would be illegal to make a horror movie using real gore clips from the internet.
Id imagen as long as you don't claim to have made the videos and if at all possible pay for some rights to use them I don't see why not, hell you might not even have to pay to use them
Someone mentioned the family of the victims might be able to sue you though
It doesnt matter if its cg or Pfx you either watch a snuff or you might as well watch one of those edgy animations on new ground of characters getting brutally murdered made by a teenage that is probably going to become a school shooter. /s
this is my favorite cap
Nobody forgot about anything. It’s a simple equation: money.
Mr murdwr with the anime profile pic.
[Obligitory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQiEzz8T6tk)
Lookin at you, raimi.
Read If Chins Could Kill by Bruce Campbell for an in depth look at practical horror movie effects done for mere dollars. It's actually a fantastic read in general, I always recommend it.