Why do some certain people circlejerk to practical effects over the use of CGI? Let's be honest, this doesn't look like a giant monster plant. It looks like a giant plastic prop/puppet being operated by numerous people. And this an example that is often considered to be one of the best physical special effects in cinema.
If you haven't watched this film: do you honestly think this looks THAT good/real? Give a serious answer/impressions.
youtube.com
Other urls found in this thread:
Fuck off this looks and moves perfect.
lucas pls go
because they are pathetic manchild redditors
>cherrypicking some bad practical effects
Just compare Star wars or fury road to The Avengers and tell me which one looks better
Never seen the movie but the plant monster Looks pretty cool to me
There's something sort of soulless about most cgi where it's hard to connect to in the same way practical effects/makeup/puppetry are. I think it's because cgi was (and still is) in the uncanny valley. Somewhere in between real and fake. It's unnerving to say the least. Practical effects are REAL with a capital R. Someone made the creature and is operating it, not some computer simulation of a plant.
>bad mouthing one of the best works of puppetry ever put to film
>bad mouthing Little Shop of Horrors at all and not having it be a complaint about the ending
This is bait.
All three of those movies had CGI and practical effects, what's your point?
Avengers looks like a fucking cartoon.
I'm not opposed to cgi but after 20 years it still looks like shit.
CGI is an insult to viewers intelligence.
Practical effects are actually physically moving and interacting with their environment and therefore are more lifelike.
CGI will _NEVER_ achieve that.
>READ CGI
>mind fixated on CGI as in Common Gateway Interface
>context looks weird
>realize you're on Sup Forums
wew
Practical effects often look better because the director has the finished design right there on set, in front of the camera, so he has to make creative decisions with framing & lighting to make it look as real and effective as possible. Even the very best practical effects can look fake if the scene isn't staged and edited properly, because they ARE fake. Using special effects well is all about hiding certain parts of it, keeping the screen-time brief, etc.
Talented directors who really plan their scenes out visually have used full CGI designs just as effectively as practical effects. But CGI often falls flat because the director plans & shoots the on-set scenes without a clear idea of what the finished design will look like, or how to stage the scene for the camera to make it look real. It's tough to make a CGI creation realistically interact with flesh-and-blood actors if the whole scene plays out in brightly lit wide shots. If the effects were done practically, most directors would realize this on set, and problem-solve appropriately to make it work.
Just look at the difference between the dinosaur scenes in Jurassic Park vs. Jurassic World, that's the best way to illustrate this point
>something sort of soulless
No wonder, look at people who works at IT.
That's a really well-explained way of putting it.
>jurassic park
>Director: okay run from the dinosaur
>actor: what dinosaur? Where?
>director: this one right here.
>lost world
>director: okay run from the dinosaur
>actor: what dinosaur? Where?
>director: idk we'll just drop one in in post. Just run from something in that general area
>muh practical effects
>when you realize this movie is racist because the plant is a black person with big lips
>user, did I ever tell you about the Anal Cannon? The Anal Cannon is loaded when a funnel is placed into an asshole, and the 2nd whore pukes into it. After the ass is filled with puke, a cock then fucks it until the pressure is all built up. After the Asshole has been fucked hard enough, the cock is pulled out and the Anal cannon explodes! To top it all off, ass to mouth occurs, with both ladies licking off the fresh mix of vomit and ass for the ultimate anal dessert! It was a good practical effect.
They both have their place and both can look kino or can fail misserably
No, it's a plant. From Outer Space.
For me, it's more appealing and interesting to look at something that's actually fucking there on set instead of just some computer generated monster that the actors have to pretend is there.
Fun fact: All the Audrey II scenes were filmed at half-speed. So they could actually move the plant well, and when it's played back at regular speed, it moved fast and precisely. The actors had to act and sing against the plant at half speed.
Yeah, I like how the plant looks. I do think it's more immersive to see the plant as a physical prop than as something animated in afterward.
it's difficult to render most living beings cause we are so used to seeing them
But everything else, the environment and objects are easy to duplicate cause it's just simple physics that guides it's movement
You will never be able to tell apart a cgi car and an actual car in a movie
do you really think the effects of 2011's the thing look better than 1982s?
Looks pretty good to me user. Now compare that movie with CGI of that time and tell me which looks better. Also, watch The Thing and Prequel they made that used CGI and tell me which one is more effective.
youtube.com
Practical effects when done right look amazing and CGI can look good too, but not when it's poorly done.
CGI itself is not bad, it's bad when it's used out of laziness and lack of ideas.
Most recent movies praised for their practical effects (Fury Road, Interstellar, TFA) have a shitload of CGI in them too, but it's used as a tool to touch up and improve the already set ideas and set pieces.
Full CGI sequences work only if the director knows exactly what he wants (Avatar, Gravity), but in most cases the director just hires an army of CGI rendering slaves from a visual effects company and tells them only general guidelines of how he wants something to look, leaving the company to be the actual creative part which is an impossible task because it's a whole army of people trying to form a singular piece.
I fucking cannot stand musicals and this film is a god damn marvel of a film that stand true even today.
OP is a fag
That's disgusting
The movement and model is all awful
Is that really practical? I mean, I know it is. But it really looks too good. I imagine some CGI was involved.
Avatar is the only movie that used cgi that I didn't look at the creatures and think "what's this cgi crap"
Instead I saw the Leonopteryx swooping towards the banshee and thought "that's fucking awesome" because the entire scene of Jake capturing the Banshee and flying around and then Leonopteryx attacking was beautifully rendered and was kino as fuck
Also the white ape scene in John Carter was God tier, one of my favourite movie sequences of all time
The white apes were brilliantly rendered, when they landed on the ground you could feel the earth shaking as it looked so real, the apes looked like they had physical mass which is extremely rare for cgi creatures
George, pls go buy hookers or something with your 4 billion dollars. You're a hack, but a lucky one. Don't jinx it.
>linking the theatrical version of the scene
kys
I want things to be done in front of the camera, directed by the director and done by industry professionals. Not just hire some 3rd party CGI company full of teens to do their generic CGI job and get their payment.
OP is a child with a biased point of view. Audrey II objectively looks better and more natural than anything done with CGI up to this point.
CGI has not caught up to well-done practical effects yet. I don't know if it ever will. I do hope it does, though.
That looks awesome. Jurasic Park also looks awesome, way better than the sequels. Best way to go is well done practical effects with cgi used for detail/texture and some imposible movement shit. CGI can look retarded when done bad (big as shit poundind on earth and not a single leaf of the near threes move... shit like that... a lot of little things that just makes it less realistic.
>this doesn't look like a giant monster plant. It looks like a giant plastic prop/puppet being operated by numerous people.
hmm
>this doesn't look like a giant monster plant. It looks like a digital superimposition being operated by numerous people.
The difference being, one is in the room, the other is not. If the monster plant is supposed to make a threatening motion and the actor is supposed to react, its the difference between a large plastic prop invading the actor's personal space and the director describing the scene to the actor then telling said actor to reacting accordingly.
Of course the latter situation doesn't happen very often anymore. As any remotely competent directors will put together as much real analogue as possible then build the CGI around the actor's behavior, rather than try to force the actor to guess what should be happening.
CGI as computer generated image predates common gateway interface by a few decades, yo