So are you, unless you want to say that dig at me was different, in which case stay delusional
What feral Pred looked like before CGI
Might as well give the respect of a proper reply
Completely unrelated, I was using that as an example torwards my eye on lighting
Regardless using proper lighting is a part of film making
You think practical effects work in any light? Often times practical effects have to be partially hidden in the same manner of CGI.
The same is true of practical effects though. Hell they make practical effects that are only partial parts of a body to be used during scenes and rely on the animotronics to be hidden.
You can make physics apply to animations though by changing . And they directly have the reference material next to it to compare.
If have wind blowing why can’t you simulate cloth blowing?
Depends on the cgi as good cgi like say the eagles from LOTR or even the orchestra from the hobbit work
That’s quite a presumption
It was sarcasm used to communicate that Disney was cheaping out
Even this example is bad as star wars speeder chase is a better example let alone the hobbit which I didn’t even know Gandalf was in front of a green screen half the time
A general problem you have is that you take the worst examples of cgi and set them up as the only way to use cgi. “No it’s not good cgi, it’s this crappy cgi that was already outdated by the release day by several years”
The Indian fight alone shows the predator move faster than humanly possible. The choreography would have to take a hit or you do it cgi
I will make this plan and clear
Disney sucks ass and so do their movies. That spiderman cgi was outclassed years ago
So cgi can be good, and all that practical effect work sounds, no what I legitimately said practical effect accidentally because that set up sounds like practical effect work.
I mean what do you want an animatronic bear?
It takes skill to use cgi the same it takes practical effects
Somebody has had their weetabix today
If you are feeling froggy
Take a leap jabroni
We already discussed this.
You can attempt to imitate physics through the use of contact points and conservative camera work, its still visibly off.
But thats not what happens, in reality the producer just goes “you’re already suspending your disbelief whats more wonky physics going to do? More room for hastily made animations!” Since quality control has kind of died after they acknowleged they can’t get physics down perfectly for a film, why go the extra mile at all? End result = more laziness and short production windows. Props don’t have that problem because everyone’s not in the room trying to imagine an apple.
ok so the millions in production is cheaping out here good to know
Not once did I reference the scorpion king lmao. There’s just endless examples of awful cgi due to the infinite capacity for human error, whereas I can point to a horse in a western from the 60’s and it will always be a tangible object because it is - especially compared to cursed animated horses.
Lmfao that part of jaws 3 was so bad lol “omg hes coming this way” then the glass breaking was terrible cgi that part always stuck with me as a example of terrible fx
3D was a cursed phase of human history
The only 3D I know of…
For me its 4D, where they’d shake the chairs and spray water at you
That’s that sea world 4D theatre treatment right there
we haven’t
Not with the right effort
this thing is bad because of poor skill and laziness
Seriously by this logic why don’t we call cinema a failure due to Hollywood’s incompetence.
What about poorly made props?
Or poor directing?
Or poor choreography?
The actors can just magically fix everything?
Halo was also “millions in production”
Hell halo failed to color one of their practical effects
Also it’s more than just money, cgi inherently requires them and effort, something commonly cut for a cheap cashgrab.
So?I
You literally went “no your example of cgi isn’t good, look at my shitier version” and your example was outclassed and improved on drastically already.
Git gud
A. Ya practical effects will have a longer history of proper usage but that doesn’t dictate the quality of modern cgi so your point about 60’s westerns is pointless (though to clarify I’m just knocking the 60’s part)
B. Horses aren’t practical effects and don’t have the same issues as bears, aliens, lightsabers, ect. that make them comparable.
Your comparing real flesh to fake flesh when practical effects V.S CGI are fake flesh to fake flesh
You have name and picture of Tony yet you don’t bother to even act like him
Instead you have this wierd thing going
🚬 👀
I just want to interject something…as someone who is a huge, huge horror fan, and is involved in several huge horror communities, the general consensus is practical effects will always, always always outshine cgi. The 70s and 80s were the heyday of horror and gore, from bloody mutilations to creature transformations. Famous names like Tom Savini and Greg Nicotero made their livelihood working on these films, and they did it so, so good. People would get legit sick from how real these effects looked. But as we got into the 90s, with the advent of computer effects, a lot of these practical effects started to disappear, and nowadays they’re almost nonexistent. And what’s worse, is you can TELL it’s cg, and shit cg to boot. And that’s the problem, its incredibly easy to fuck up cg effects (Prey did this, with the Pred face and pretty much all the fire scenes). Even movies with the biggest budgets, like LOTR, you can tell when something is off and it breaks the immersion if it was done cheaply. There IS good cgi, don’t get me wrong, and usually the best use of cg is in cooperation with practical effects (Evil Dead remake did this, only using cg to hide wires and other things while all the other effects were practical), but it’s almost a lost art to use real tools to create an effect, be it a creature or wounds/gore. It’s just easier to sit at a computer and draw it all out. All in all, nothing will beat having an actual, real thing on camera.
Also, in terms of doing extreme movements in a suit and the fragility…tokusatsu. The art of Japanese special effects. Ultraman, Godzilla, Gamera, etc. For decades, these rubber and latex suits that weighed over 100 pounds were used in some pretty rough and aggressive filmmaking (the late Showa films and especially in Final Wars there was a lot of physical combat) and they never suffered breakdowns or tears. So if the Japanese can make heavy ass suits out of crude material that never suffered during filming during the 1960s, there should be no excuse why a latex Predator bodysuit made in 2022 can’t do all that work and more and look fucking amazing.
yeah… that american werewolf in london transformation looks highly believable
That one was specifically in my head. At the time it was actually really good, but some things admittedly don’t age too well. That transformation is still worlds better than most of the cgi shit you see today.
Ah yes I too remember when practical effects looked 100% real…
Wait a minute
You can’t tell me Tom Savini, a combat photographer in Vietnam who saw legitimate cut up, shot up and blown apart bodies, did not have the most realistic effects in the late 70s and throughout the 80s.
1 Like
I was being sarcastic and no it doesn’t
In fact most gore in films look fake as fuck, starting with the basics, blood. Anyone who’s seen someone get shot knows how they drop like wasps when you hit them with a raid jet. Real blood is far from bright red and turns brown almost black rather quickly.
I didn’t go to Nam… I lived in a city wide hood for 35 years
1 Like
Imagine a transformers movie with “practical effects”
GTFOH with that shit “practical effects always look better” … no, it doesn’t… and that’s the main reason creators have moved away from it
Half the sets in nearly 80% of movies today are digital imaging and you don’t even notice
1 Like