|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Jan 18, 2013 17:01:16 GMT -5
I really don't see how a shitty CGI affect is worse than than an equally shitty practical effect.
|
|
Glitch
Grimlock
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,732
|
Post by Glitch on Jan 18, 2013 17:11:27 GMT -5
I really don't see how a s***ty CGI affect is worse than than an equally s***ty practical effect. A crappy practical effect still exists physically with the background and actors. As bad as a rubber monster may look, it still beats very obvious cgi that doesn't look it belongs in the same plane of reality.
|
|
Sin Cara Tres
Don Corleone
Funkasaurus Designs Incorporated
We Are Many. You Are One.
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by Sin Cara Tres on Jan 18, 2013 17:21:37 GMT -5
This is why I like the sudden ressurgance of the 80's action stars sort of making a come back of of sorts..started with the expendables and now Arnold has last stand and Stallone has bullet to the head and a slew of other movies from both of them along with Expendables 3. There's a lot of CG blood in Expendables. The most recent worst CG I've seen was the Komodo dragon in Skyfall. What the hell was that?
|
|
|
Post by jamofpearls on Jan 18, 2013 17:27:58 GMT -5
Sometimes they can be really good, and I don't know that they're CG until some behind the scenes afterward. Like how all of New York City in the Avengers was CG.
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Jan 18, 2013 17:47:12 GMT -5
I really don't see how a s***ty CGI affect is worse than than an equally s***ty practical effect. A crappy practical effect still exists physically with the background and actors. As bad as a rubber monster may look, it still beats very obvious cgi that doesn't look it belongs in the same plane of reality. But ad bad looking rubber monster still looks bad regardless, especially if it's amongst other practical effects that look far better. And what do you mean by "same plane of reality?" Many, MANY practical effects are filmed sepratley from the actors and the really crappy ones still stand out even more. A crappy puppet is a crappy puppet, CGI or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 20:39:26 GMT -5
Sometimes they can be really good, and I don't know that they're CG until some behind the scenes afterward. Like how all of New York City in the Avengers was CG. Came in here to post this. When it's done right (Marvel movies, LotR, Harry Potter) it looks spectacular and realistic.
|
|
Fiddleford H. McGucket
El Dandy
My Mind's been gone for 30-odd years! Can't Break what's already broken!
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by Fiddleford H. McGucket on Jan 18, 2013 21:05:25 GMT -5
A crappy practical effect still exists physically with the background and actors. As bad as a rubber monster may look, it still beats very obvious cgi that doesn't look it belongs in the same plane of reality. But ad bad looking rubber monster still looks bad regardless, especially if it's amongst other practical effects that look far better. And what do you mean by "same plane of reality?" Many, MANY practical effects are filmed sepratley from the actors and the really crappy ones still stand out even more. A crappy puppet is a crappy puppet, CGI or not. Granted. Full disclosure here, The possibility of a Gremlins Remake/Reboot/Ripoff inspired this thread. I WINCE at the thought of fully CGI Gremlins and Mogwai...because I KNOW that if this project gets going, that's what's going to happen. My issue is that it's basically the same style of effects as "The Smurfs" or "Alvin and The Chipmunks" or the like......Small creatures made in a CGI Program interacting with REAL items and co-stars....and they're obviously not there. I'm going to TRY to explain the whole "Plane of Reality" idea that keeps coming up. Imagine you're watching a pantomime of an action. There are no props just an actor attempting to mime an action......hell, try it yourself sometime. You exaggerate the motion and since there's no weight to the (Imaginary) item, you exaggerate the weight based on what you percieve the correct weight to be. Unfortunately, unless you are EXTREMELY well versed in pantomime (And even sometimes when you are), the action comes off as stilted and unrealistic. This Non-realism to motion is off-putting to some people, and this is generally the given reason why people don't like mimes. People CAN pick up on this Unrealistic motion, hence why you can "Feel" that something looks "Too Fake" or "Wrong" but not be able to explain it. Yes...it does happen with practical effects too, along with a host of other problems. You basically swap in the problems of it being "Real" (Fabrication/Breakdown/Quality) over it being "Virtual" (Texture Issues/Integration into the Scene/Actors' Foci)
|
|