View Poll Results: What you prefer?
Gimme cgi even if it looks like a PS1 game
0
0%
I don’t like special effects. Get bent!
0
0%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll
Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
#1
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
I was thinking of this as I’m watching the Thing prequel, would you rather sit through really shoddy practical effects or horrible CGI?
I’ve seen this movie a bunch of times now. It’s 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’ve seen this movie a bunch of times now. It’s 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.
#2
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
I’ll take practical effects over CGI any day. Even when practical effects are bad I still appreciate them for what they’re trying to accomplish. There’s 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 can’t make it look real, why even bother with that particular shot?
Bad CGI just feels cheap and lazy. There have been times when I see a bad CGI effect and wondered, if they can’t make it look real, why even bother with that particular shot?
#3
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
Bad practical.
I'd take even average practical over great CGI in a lot of cases too.
I'd take even average practical over great CGI in a lot of cases too.
#4
DVD Talk Legend
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 doesn’t have the same charm to it as a bad practical effect.
#5
DVD Talk Godfather
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.
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)
#6
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
Practical effects all day, everyday.
All the recent blockbusters always have the “final boss fight” action scene that is a CGI mess. My favorite example to give is “Batman v Superman” final fight.
All the recent blockbusters always have the “final boss fight” action scene that is a CGI mess. My favorite example to give is “Batman v Superman” final fight.
#7
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,008
Received 1,186 Likes
on
837 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...
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)
#8
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
I was thinking of this as I’m watching the Thing prequel, would you rather sit through really shoddy practical effects or horrible CGI?
I’ve seen this movie a bunch of times now. It’s 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’ve seen this movie a bunch of times now. It’s 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.
The following 2 users liked this post by devilshalo:
Ash Ketchum (02-06-21),
Mondo Kane (02-06-21)
#12
DVD Talk Hero
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.
#13
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farmington Hills, MI
Posts: 2,746
Likes: 0
Received 71 Likes
on
51 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.
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.
#14
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
If the stupid prequel would have just dialed back the cgi, it would have been more tolerable.
#16
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad 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)
#18
DVD Talk Hero
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.
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.
#19
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
'nuff said.
#20
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
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 Room’s 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.
#21
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,008
Received 1,186 Likes
on
837 Posts
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
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 Room’s 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.
#22
Administrator
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
#23
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
#24
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
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 Room’s 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.
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 Room’s 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.
#25
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Bad Practical Effects or Bad CGI?
The following users liked this post:
John Pannozzi (02-08-21)