Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters
View Poll Results: What you prefer?
Iíll take the real stuff even on a $5.00 budget
100.00%
Gimme cgi even if it looks like a PS1 game
0
0%
I donít like special effects. Get bent!
0
0%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Old 02-05-21, 08:35 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Toddarino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Northeastern Wisconsin
Posts: 2,406
Received 165 Likes on 116 Posts
Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

I was thinking of this as Iím watching the Thing prequel, would you rather sit through really shoddy practical effects or horrible CGI?
Iíve seen this movie a bunch of times now. Itís not great, Hell its not even good, but I love the Carpenter Thing and do appreciate how the prequel leads directly into it. This time however the cgi just took me outta the movie.
Old 02-05-21, 08:41 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
GoldenJCJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 17,207
Received 473 Likes on 341 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Iíll take practical effects over CGI any day. Even when practical effects are bad I still appreciate them for what theyíre trying to accomplish. Thereís still the effort to it.

Bad CGI just feels cheap and lazy. There have been times when I see a bad CGI effect and wondered, if they canít make it look real, why even bother with that particular shot?
Old 02-05-21, 09:00 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Hazel Motes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,768
Received 113 Likes on 82 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Bad practical.

I'd take even average practical over great CGI in a lot of cases too.
Old 02-05-21, 09:04 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 21,392
Received 361 Likes on 278 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Bad practical. The thing is even if practical effects are bad I can still appreciate the effort of the filmmakers attempts in most cases. CG is cool too, but is so often over-relied on. Plus when CG is bad it tends to be more noticeably bad and doesnít have the same charm to it as a bad practical effect.
Old 02-05-21, 10:35 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Michael Corvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 60,796
Received 368 Likes on 268 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Bad practical effects are bad practical effects are bad practical effects.

Bad CGI is bad on day one. ​​​​​​ Bad CGI years down the road is terrible. Bad CGI a decade on his god awful.

The following users liked this post:
SeeingThings (02-06-21)
Old 02-05-21, 11:47 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,785
Received 71 Likes on 56 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Practical effects all day, everyday.

All the recent blockbusters always have the ďfinal boss fightĒ action scene that is a CGI mess. My favorite example to give is ďBatman v SupermanĒ final fight.

Old 02-05-21, 11:52 PM
  #7  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 24,218
Received 350 Likes on 252 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Bad practical effects can have some charm.
Bad or poorly dated CGI is atrocious.

Corvin posted a prime example, but even a more recent one that's supposed to be subtle...
The following users liked this post:
SeeingThings (02-06-21)
Old 02-06-21, 10:03 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
 
TomOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 35,264
Received 223 Likes on 165 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by Toddarino View Post
I was thinking of this as Iím watching the Thing prequel, would you rather sit through really shoddy practical effects or horrible CGI?
Iíve seen this movie a bunch of times now. Itís not great, Hell its not even good, but I love the Carpenter Thing and do appreciate how the prequel leads directly into it. This time however the cgi just took me outta the movie.
I saw The Thing from Another World the other day. I love Carpenter's The Thing. They both use practical effects but 50's movies tend to show their age.
Old 02-06-21, 11:07 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 31,459
Received 163 Likes on 112 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

I get more enjoyment out of man in suit Godzilla than any CG Godzilla.
The following 2 users liked this post by devilshalo:
Ash Ketchum (02-06-21), Mondo Kane (02-06-21)
Old 02-06-21, 11:26 AM
  #10  
Cool New Member
 
SeeingThings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 25
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Practical effects any day.
Old 02-06-21, 11:51 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
lopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,613
Received 37 Likes on 30 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Even good CGI looks dated incredibly quickly. Give me the real stuff all day long.
Old 02-06-21, 12:23 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 25,462
Received 267 Likes on 200 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

We watched part of a zero-budget disaster movie called The 500 MPH Storm, and the CGI effect of large objects being carried away by the wind was truly awful. I much prefer flying saucers suspended on strings. At least physical objects always look right. They might look like a $20 model, but they do have physical presence.
Old 02-06-21, 12:40 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farmington Hills, MI
Posts: 2,366
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 9 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Personally I enjoy practical effects better for the simple fact that I feel that actors are actually interacting with something. There's just a different feel when actors don't see the world around them. That's not to say that cgi can't be any good, even if it's dated. A good film should be a good film regardless of the approach it takes.

I also imagine that most of us grew up on films that relied on practical effects so it could be a generational thing. Young people who grew up on cgi probably have no issue with it and probably think a guy in a rubber mask is completely stupid.
Old 02-06-21, 01:24 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
 
Toddarino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Northeastern Wisconsin
Posts: 2,406
Received 165 Likes on 116 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by TomOpus View Post
I saw The Thing from Another World the other day. I love Carpenter's The Thing. They both use practical effects but 50's movies tend to show their age.
I enjoy the original Thing From Another World a lot.
If the stupid prequel would have just dialed back the cgi, it would have been more tolerable.
Old 02-06-21, 01:45 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
davidlynchfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,338
Received 20 Likes on 18 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Better question would be hand-drawn animation or cgi animation though I think cgi would win hands down on this forum.
Old 02-06-21, 04:17 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 25,462
Received 267 Likes on 200 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by davidlynchfan View Post
Better question would be hand-drawn animation or cgi animation though I think cgi would win hands down on this forum.
Do you mean flat animation vs 3D rendering? South Park is CGI.

I have no preference between cel animation and CGI animation. Any effect that was achieved with hand-painted cels can be matched by CGI artists with about 95% less labor. I love Akira and Yellow Submarine, but instead of needing whole buildings full of animators, one person made Sita Sings the Blues on her home computer. It looks great.
The following users liked this post:
John Pannozzi (02-08-21)
Old 02-06-21, 04:43 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
TomOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 35,264
Received 223 Likes on 165 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post
one person made Sita Sings the Blues on her home computer. It looks great.
You got me curious to check it out, thanks to JustWatch, I found it on Hoopla.
Old 02-06-21, 04:43 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 35,089
Received 497 Likes on 364 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post
We watched part of a zero-budget disaster movie called The 500 MPH Storm, and the CGI effect of large objects being carried away by the wind was truly awful. I much prefer flying saucers suspended on strings. At least physical objects always look right. They might look like a $20 model, but they do have physical presence.
Yeah, there is, to me, another uncanny valley with CGI.

A lot of CGI just doesn't seem to take up any physical space. I think it comes down to the quality the CGI itself, and also the way it has to be filmed. Look at Jar-Jar Binks in The Phantom Menace (and the Star Wars prequels in general) and, to a lesser extent, Gollum in Lord of the Rings. They frequently come off like cartoon characters, which, I suppose they ultimately are. And no matter how hard they try, they just can't get them to consistently move or behave like actual physical entities.

Going back to Star Wars, you could always tell that Chewbacca was an actual physical being that moved and interacted like he was actually there on the set with the actors. Because he was a guy in a suit. Jar Jar and Gollum just don't have that same quality; they feel rubbery, and, even though they were played by actors on the set, they just don't have the same kind of physical presence.


Old 02-06-21, 06:12 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ash Ketchum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,053
Received 77 Likes on 57 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?


'nuff said.

Old 02-06-21, 06:32 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 7,276
Received 83 Likes on 40 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
Bad practical effects can have some charm.
Bad or poorly dated CGI is atrocious.

Corvin posted a prime example, but even a more recent one that's supposed to be subtle...
But on topic with the thread, would an upper lip prosthetic to hide the moustache have been much better?

A shitty effect is a shitty effect. I agree with the consensus that a bad practical effect has more charm, though off the top of my head, The Roomís shitty green screen work adds a layer to its unintentional appeal.

If we were looking at good cgi vs good practical effects, I think it gets a bit trickier. So many movies and shows use cgi to portray locations that would otherwise be impractical or impossible to show and most of us never notice.
Old 02-06-21, 07:40 PM
  #21  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 24,218
Received 350 Likes on 252 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by maxfisher View Post
But on topic with the thread, would an upper lip prosthetic to hide the moustache have been much better?
yeah, good point. In this case, I think shaving for the Superman role then a practical faux-stache for the Mission Impossible role would have made the most sense, but I realize studio politics and contracts is what made that situation what it was.

A shitty effect is a shitty effect. I agree with the consensus that a bad practical effect has more charm, though off the top of my head, The Roomís shitty green screen work adds a layer to its unintentional appeal.
Interesting. I also think a movie like Manborg (which combines a ton of micro budget green screen with its practicals) also kind of fits what you're saying.

If we were looking at good cgi vs good practical effects, I think it gets a bit trickier. So many movies and shows use cgi to portray locations that would otherwise be impractical or impossible to show and most of us never notice.
True. It's fair to draw a distinction between locations/atmosphere and effects like gore or things that need more... weight... to them.
Old 02-06-21, 08:46 PM
  #22  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,400
Received 188 Likes on 132 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by Toddarino View Post
I enjoy the original Thing From Another World a lot.
If the stupid prequel would have just dialed back the cgi, it would have been more tolerable.
https://screenrant.com/thing-movie-p...i-replacement/
https://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3...ed-thing-2011/
Old 02-06-21, 10:12 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
asianxcore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California
Posts: 18,070
Received 138 Likes on 117 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Bad Practical Effects.

It always boggles my mind how films with large budgets have Bad CGI.

It's as if basic Cinematography & Light Study went out the window completely.
Old 02-07-21, 12:44 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 25,462
Received 267 Likes on 200 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by maxfisher View Post
But on topic with the thread, would an upper lip prosthetic to hide the moustache have been much better?

A shitty effect is a shitty effect. I agree with the consensus that a bad practical effect has more charm, though off the top of my head, The Roomís shitty green screen work adds a layer to its unintentional appeal.

If we were looking at good cgi vs good practical effects, I think it gets a bit trickier. So many movies and shows use cgi to portray locations that would otherwise be impractical or impossible to show and most of us never notice.
Good CGI is good. In he director's commentary on The Social Network, Fincher talks about just how much CGI went into that movie. It's in almost every scene. I don't see it, and that's what he wanted.
Old 02-07-21, 01:42 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?

Originally Posted by asianxcore View Post
It's as if basic Cinematography & Light Study went out the window completely.
This this this. I loathe CGI, but even more I hate it's stupid cousin digital color grading. Movies just aren't lit correctly anymore. Horror movies must be so washed out they may as well be in black & white. Superhero movies must use that pukey teal & orange & have grays instead of blacks. Any scene at the beach must use a yellow grading that looks like a happy face took a piss. Romantic comedies, those can use natural colors & lighting for some reason. I watched Apocalypse Now in 4K recently & thought man, I wish movies still looked like THIS.


The following users liked this post:
John Pannozzi (02-08-21)

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.