When did you grow out of the practical effects meme?

When did you grow out of the practical effects meme?

...

Still haven't. There are bad practical effects and good practical effects just as bad cgi and good cgi.

looks better than anything from the prequels

Go back to plebbit, plinkettdrone

>plinkettdrone
you say that as if it was a bad thing
Plinkett's review is one of the most unbiased, objective reviews of the prequels and they point out all its flaws

By being different from the prequels, the sequel trilogy is instantly better

...

Amazing thing is, this webm looks like shit compared to the 1977 A New Hope. I can't quite pinpoint why - things look appropriately gritty and dirty and physical, but there's some sort of weird glossy plastic feel about the lighting or the color scheme or the effects applied to the visuals... something about it is unpleasant to look at on a visceral level.

Never. For example, well-done model-work starships from 80s movies still look better than any CGI starship I've seen on a screen.

none of the space fights of the OT look anywhere near as good as the prequel space fights, they were only better because of better writing

How is this level of brain inactivity achievable?

They should have the bird turn its head to look at Rey as she is passing by but nah its has to "practical" to appeal to manchildren and RLM cult

what video game?

Don't know that I will. I like them even if they look "worse".

Muh toys and stop motion!

This. I like how many ships there are - which, obviously, CGI makes a lot easier - however, in terms of how it actually looks... it looks like a video game.

Nice videogame. Star Wars isn't really the best example of great practical effects anyway

Kill yourself

it's missing the lucas touch

>the prequels looked good

practicals = toys
CGI = video games

they are both fake, but video games are infinitely better than toys

Heh heh, kinda looks like the cannons are pooping haha

How is it possible to be this wrong? Fuck off, you tasteless gen-z waste of oxygen

It's the camera

almost too clean and crisp...makes your eye is drawn to the junk in the bottom corners even though it is they are the least important things in the shot

When I saw this in cinemas I didn't think this was meant to be good.

It was a clear message and that was

"Hey, WE ARE USING PRACTICAL EFFECTS- YOU ASKED FOR THIS. SO WE DID IT- DO YOU SEE?"

Never really cared for it, personally I don't see it as an ideal that film should strive to represent reality as accurately as possible, it is supposed to be art after all.

CGI excels in filling out otherwise wasted space, but for highly detailed shots practical is better because real models and real light simply look better than 3D models and simulated light. The optimal for these kinds of scenes would be to use practicals for the up-close shots of capital ships and fighters, while CG can add in things like explosions, progressive damage, and other ships and fighters further away. You could easily use models for the broadside shots because the ships aren't really maneuvering much at all, just drifting towards eachother.

they should have had the bird start singing loudly to the camera as Rey passed by

What do you think it is about the camera?

You can't give your brother stitches with virtual toys, retard. What's the point?

It has been filmed by a replicant.

When I realized Rogue One didn't look any worse for lacking them

>They should have the bird turn its head to look at Rey as she is passing by
>implying that can't be done practically

This is how you look like? Hahahahahahaha
>That's how OT fags look like
Kek

>"Hey, WE ARE USING PRACTICAL EFFECTS- YOU ASKED FOR THIS. SO WE DID IT- DO YOU SEE?"

This
Pathetic pandering

>but video games are infinitely better than toy
Are they? I dunno. I feel like I had a lot more fun playing with action figures as a young kid than I did after I found video games.

With the voice of a black man

Practical effects:
> Oh look there's that thing which is actually there, which actually exists in reality

CGI:
>Oh look a mirage, a fake, a counterfeit, a thing which is not actually there.

>right looks like a literal playstation game

Why is the lighting so bad in Marvel movies? Everything looks flat, that's not how you do CGI. It's like everyone got really lazy and forgot how to make stuff look good.

Look at that thing though, they weren't even trying. They only put practical effects in the first place so they could shill the movie even harder and to distance themselves from the prequels, even though I suspect TPM has just as much if not more practical effects.

In 20 years no one in hollywood will remember how to make practical effects. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Good CGI produces the same result as a good practical effect, you don't see it as an "effect" at all

>Giving youself a headache
>Jello wrestling

Fuck off

most of the time the practical effects aren't even there
they build a miniature, then the actos do their job in front of a greenscreen and they are digitally put into the miniature

it's as fake as CGI

there's a reason why all toy manufacturers are going bankrupt
kids no longer want toys, they want video games

It's still physical.

which doesn't make it more real than CGI to the viewer
both are stuff that are not there, you can't touch it, the actors didn't see it, they didn't react to it

What's the fucking difference if it looks atrocious, the end result is what matters not the process

Both look ok.

Now back to Rebbit.

"Realistic" CGI is just intrinsically boring. At least practical effects are real fakes instead of fake fakes, so they retain some connection to reality and therefore interest. The only interesting CGI is comic/anime-style where things are distilled to their essence so we experience an accentuated version of reality instead of a pale, lifeless imitation.

Fucking retard

You are retarded if you think cgi in the thing 2011 looks okay

A bald assertion isn't an argument. I've already refuted your representation based arguments. Give me something else.

Fucking Disney...it'll just never be the same
*wipes away tear*

bloo...I'm ready to apologize, George!!

True realistic CGI looks realistic, there is no difference between that and real life, Good realistic CGI means that the viewer didn't even notice that it is indeed CGI, like 90% of all Fincher films are.

A good example is BR2049. Everyone just talks about the Rachel CGI because everyone knows Sean Young is not in the film, while half of the shots in the threesome scene are with Ana de Armas being completely digital. Goes to show how great the effects were when basically everyone thought that she was completely real

>Both look ok.
I hope you're joking.