Remember the world before CGI?

Remember the world before CGI?

Other urls found in this thread:

monsterlegacy.net/2013/03/04/prometheus-horrors-trilobite-deacon/
youtube.com/watch?v=ZrjSqK7xPLE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No, gramps.

fuck off miyazaki

Yes, and it was fucking terrifying, in a good way

I remember masturbating to this scene.


Am I beyond saving.

If there was CGI back then maybe John Landis wouldn't have killed 3 people with a helicopter

You could have shit tier prosthetics just as you could have god tier CGI

They're both tools, and it all depends on how you use them, films shouldn't get some kind of pass for using practical effects instead of CGI

harry potter practical effects goblin

>werewolf movie
>bad moon rising starts playing

fantastic beasts cgi goblin

forgot pic

Why in the world would they cgi ron perlman gobling, when all they needed to do was put the actual ron perlman on screen

...

Your post is an insult to life itself

The problem with CGI is it allows filmmakers to be lazy with how things are filmed. When you have a practical puppet or effect you have to film creatively to hide the seams and wires. Now with competent CG they can film everything in generic wide shots with no artistry at all. No need for creative editing or interesting angles, just put the actors in front of a green screen and call it a day. It's like if back in the day movies only used Stop motion and rear screen projection, it would be just as shitty looking.

>being this lazy
For fuck's sake, goblin makeup is very easy. All you have to do is get a midget and slap on a fake nose and fake ears.

I don't get why CGI is cheaper than real effects. Doesn't CGI take longer and is more complicated? It's a bunch of computer mumbo jumbo and adversely real effects just need common sense to make. It's weird.

That's an ineffective use of special effects

He wasn't complaining about CGI.

Hey me too!

I thought I was the only one..

Dude I was born in 94

Because you have to figure out creative ways to film practical effects and there's always a risk that the effects won't go as planned. With CGI you can just plop an actor in front of a green screen, have him react and then you get to call it a day. There's no need to be creative and there's no risk of things going wrong.

Fright Night scarred two years of my childhood. That werewolf death transformation was one of the scariest things I had seen. Nothing CG even scratches that uncanny valley eerieness only practical effects can achieve.

or find a jewish midget

You can CGI out seams and wires m88

And shit practical effects vastly outweigh the good, same as CGI

Pumpkinhead was a fucking trip

Yeah, it was fuckin crazy and a lot better in several regards. Not every regard, but there were a fare number of regards in which things used to be better. Really.

CGI isn't cheaper, just easier and less complicated to pull off. No need for expensive effect re-shoots if you just say forget it the CG guys will add all the effects in later. It has more to do with time then anything. Studio ADI has a good video explaining why practical effects have fallen away and CG is in now.

Fright Night is such a good movie.

I always thought Pumpkinhead looked like a retarded version of the alien in Alien. Good effects, just an unimaginative creature.

Sometimes it's cheaper

kek

Was this CGI?

Is that a Chinese menu in his hand?

Looks like half and half.

Yeah but le charm, le artistry.

You're right. For some productions and schedules it's cheaper, especially now with really short pre-production times. Movies like Moon though used practical effects because for their small budget CG was too expensive to make look good.

TV guide

Here's what you wanted

>For the creature’s gruesome birth sequence, a hollow dummy of the dead Engineer was created, and filled with internal organs and a puppet of the Deacon — which was compressed in a three-foot-diameter latex embryonic sac (it is unclear whether the in-film Deacon was actually ‘compressed’ whilst inside the Engineer’s body). The Engineer dummy was operated from beneath the set, in order for it to convulse and for the Deacon to burst out and fall on the floor. In this sequence, the Deacon was a combination of a rod puppet with digital enhancement and a completely computer-generated creature.

monsterlegacy.net/2013/03/04/prometheus-horrors-trilobite-deacon/

The Deacon was the most confusing aspect of that movie. The fact that it's going to be left out of Covenant makes it even more confusing.

Thanx, famalam
>faith in Sup Forums: restored :^)

I feel terrible for the people who work on massive blockbusters who do such a good fucking job making you not question things onscreen and then get shit all over by idiots who don't know the hundreds of CGI firms who go out of business working overtime on that stuff, who train for potential years becoming computer wizards and clearly have no skill of any kind being able to masterfully off computer generated effects, nah, just hit some beep boops and you're done!

But nah, muh two practical effects puppets!

those days where glorious

the last muppets movies had classic puppetry with digitally removed wiring, I thought it worked fine

>"If we are doing CG compositing, [...] we always have puppeteers perform it. We never go down the road of having a full CG character, which you could easily do. It feels that the joy of this movie is the Muppets exist. They're real; you can touch them. There are very few forms of entertainment in the contemporary world that exist like that, and Muppets are the last bastion of it, and it would be shame to lose that."
—James Bobin on balancing practical and digital effects.[52]

Funny how people only remember the GOOD practical effects.

aaaaarroOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WEREWOLVES IN LONDON

>ron perlman steals jobs from midgets now

youtube.com/watch?v=ZrjSqK7xPLE

>we are truly living in a golden age of uniform mediocrity
>thank god for cgi

I think the problem is you're limited to the same couple of midgets every time. They're such a tiny minority, so the percentage of them that are actually good actors is pretty small.

>Coming from someone who works with producers, VFX and practical effects.
Basically producers just don't want to think about the logistics of practical anymore, and it's become a far more expensive specialized field.
Ironically enough post VFX almost always ends up coming more in the end.

Lack of CGI is is probably one of the reasons why movies from 1960 and earlier are my favorite, they either used very minimal CGI or absolutely none of it. The movie feels a bit more "real" when everything is practical.

>The Searchers
>Top Hat
>The Lost Weekend
>The Wolfman
>The Invisible Man

There's another movie about some Cop escorting a mob boss's ex wife to another state on a train, but I can't remember it.

Watch those movies if you haven't, they're fucking great.

>1960
why not 1990? CGI only really existed post Jurrassic Park

What is this flick called? Remember watching it on tv years ago.

looks familiar lmao

Dog Soldiers

CGI definitely existed in the 80's and especially the 90's. Up to the 60's and maybe the 70's were really the only Points where CGI wasn't used at all.

Dog Soldiers

Every single Star Wars original trilogy movie used CGI.

>movies from 1960 and earlier
>used very minimal CGI

Nigga wat
I hope you're either fucking trolling or in stage 1 toxic shock from too many Appletinis

CGI is subjectively superior to practical effects.

For instance, Yoda couldn't portray the intense concern he is showing here with a puppet.

Puppets may look more real in the sense than they are phyically there, but CG characters can emote 100x more.

The original Yoda puppet is amazing in it's performance, yes.

But it just can't show as many emotions. Period.

And don't just say go to bed Lucas. Actually argue.

*physically
whoops

>muh high five

Are you trying to tell me that movies like Cape Fear used a shit ton of CGI?

like optical printer stuff or what, i don't happen to know specifically what you're referring to

Come back when sobriety/reading comprehension are a part of your world again

yeah and if it was a puppet he wouldn't have been able to do flips !

For instance, in ROTJ, during the Mon Mothma/Ackbar presentation, the hologram of Endor and the Death Star is completely CGI.

this has been my opinion since I was 8 fucking years old

Jurassic Park already showed us that the perfect solution is a blend of the two.
It's very rare that something truly 100% CGI looks actually good, in a "I can suspend my disbelief and enjoy this as part of a movie rather than just drool at SFX like a retard" sort of way. Only example I can get off the top of my head is Davy Jones and his crew from PotC 2 & 3.

See, all you ever do is shitpost.
He doesn't just flip.
His character wasn't ruined.
He reveals how powerful he is without a lightsaber before Dooku challenges him to a duel.

But please, keep shouting about cartoon rabbits and muh OT forever.

Yes, it really enhances great dialogue like ''Good relations with the Wookiees, I have''.

facepalm2012.jpg

You stupid nigger, CGI has been a thing in movies since the 40's. Go read a fucking book.

>my life revolves around Sup Forums spam

Sad!

In a sci fi childrens' movie like this, sure, it's fine.

>Sup Forums is 1 poster

yikes, scoobz.

...

Clearly it is, since you get your opinions from the hivemind.

>everyone is wrong, except me!

ok, my buddy

>He doesn't just flip.
>His character wasn't ruined.
>He reveals how powerful he is without a lightsaber before Dooku challenges him to a duel.
Wow, he deflected some lightning. What an amazing badass. Look, Yodi was cool when he was just a wise monk. Having him do laughably stupid flips horribly damaged his character.

I don't think many people would argue that in a case like Yoda that the CGI didn't allow for more emotiveness in his face.

The issue with Yoda in the prequels was mostly everything else, but that's how it goes. The prequels aren't good movies.

>except me
Plenty of people here like the PT.
Lurk in enough TFA threads and you'll see.

>implying a puppet can't furrow its brow and look at the ground

>Having him do laughably stupid flips horribly damaged his character.
nah
Using the force to become more mobile is merely an extension of "the force is my ally".

wrong

look at the crow's feet

What emotions are you even talking about? Mild concern? Disappointment? Yoda and the rest of the cast barely show emotion at all except anakin so I don't see why CG was important to his character.

Cocknys Put the Kettle On.

I think the guy who made the Xenomorphs designed Pumpkin head, which explains the similarities.

Both practical effects and CGI are fantastic in their own way.

>Using the force to become more mobile is merely an extension of "the force is my ally"
Yeah, an incredibly stupid one. Using his abilities to see the future or read someone's mind would be cool. Using his abilities to flip around like a Gremlin is something a five year old thinks is cool

>Yoda and the rest of the cast barely show emotion at all
Why lie?
Yoda's emoting in ROTS (use your feeling Obi-Wan, and find him you will) is astonishingly good.

It's really quite pointless to talk about this here though, since you will just say
>no it's shit

It's a sad day when Sup Forums is more mature than Sup Forums.

nah

*feelingS

Yoda shouldn't have been dueling either Dooku or Sheev with a saber, it should have been just him strictly using the force against them the little guy can lift a half sunk x-wing out of a swamp with ease, why is he using a light saber to duel?

>It's really quite pointless to talk about this here though, since you will just say
>no it's shit

Quite ironic since all you say is
>nah
when you have no argument

>why is he using a light saber to duel?
Because it's the weapon of a Jedi.

Nobody can explain where in the OT it is implied that he wouldn't use a saber.

Really he implication is that he DOES, seeing as Obi-Wan says that Yoda was his teacher.

And no, the PT doesn't contradict this. Yoda teaches all the younglings.

But I say nah because this post
Is just making inane judgments like "le 5 year old haha".

>wrong
>Clearly it is, since you get your opinions from the hivemind.
All of your posts are dismissive of any criticism and you do the same shit. Don't have opinions like a five year old and people won't call you one

I am dissmissive because you aren't arguing from any sort of logical base.
Just insults.

The first Star Wars had some computer graphic stuff, like the Death Star plans, plans of it exploding, and the targeting stuff, but that was computers-as-display, not 3D generated graphics.

2001 was somewhat earlier and had this, too.

>Anything I don't agree with isn't logical
Half of those posts weren't insults but you dismiss them because to you people disagreeing with you= personal attacks.

CGI is mainly bad because it allows directors to do whatever they want which leads to mind numbingly dull poorly directed action sequences where as before a movie would have proper pacing and a build up to special effect shots (that didn't eat up 20 minutes of screen time)

Sure this mainly because of bad directors but CGI allows them to be awful

and Anakin dual wielded, c000000000000000000l!

Hey, what if someone quad wielded, George?!?!??????????????????????????????????????????????????yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss