they used good practical... them for some reason ruin the scene in last minute.
i like the PT, but why they create every clone in cgi! even in closed shots they use cgi!
exactly, I don't say practical effects are bad, but those practicalfags who thinks every movie needs to use only practical effects are idiots, they even see practical scenes and accuses then to be cgi(force awakens for example )
He's largely right, we ignore good CGI because when it's done right it's not even something we bother to discuss. In the same way no one talks about how the minecart sequence in Temple of Doom was made with miniatures. It's another tool of the artist.
With that said there's a lot to love with old fashioned props and puppets. Look at Yoda in Empire Strikes Back, it's a way more energetic and amusing performance than the vast majority of any CGI performances, part of that is because the viewer knows from the get go that it is a puppet, and so Frank Oz had the creative freedom to do fun stuff with Yoda, look how in the introduction to Yoda he's silly and makes lots of whacky faces but then he looks serious as soon as he reveals himself as a Jedi Master. That's a freedom you get the instant you show to a viewer that this is not something they're supposed to feel is an actual living thing.
My biggest problem with much of CGI is that the ones in charge really try their best to convince us that it's a real flesh and blood human or monster talking to us on screen. It leads to really wooden and boring performances. I'd like to see more Gollums and Dobbys (openly cartoonish CGI animations) and less Na'vi or Benjamin Fucking Button (awful flick).
Well yeah, CG is great for slight and NEEDED touch-ups in a scene that may put an actor in immense danger or would just be physically impossible to do for real.
Putting somebody in front of a green screen for entire scenes though is just laziness.
Test Audiences are notorious for being wrong, and sometimes the inverse happens where for whatever reason the movie did well with the audience but ends up being a turd. The test audiences for Star Wars was actually really tepid and the producers thought it'd just do ok in the Box Office, they never expected people would line around the block to see it.
I'd love to see The Thing Remake/Prequel/Whatever You Call It with the practical effects, lots of movies can be better had they been done how the director wanted them made, Fatal Attraction's original ending is way better.
Have test audiences ever been right?
>My biggest problem with much of CGI is that the ones in charge really try their best to convince us that it's a real flesh and blood human or monster talking to us on screen.
Yeah, my main issue has always been the CG heavy movies where there's absolutely no weight to the character/objects movements.
The last hobbit movie and CG Billy dwarf giving armoured Orcs headbutts and swinging that hammer around like it's plywood was fucking weird
>that feel when the main thing video games and movies will always have in common is playtesters/test audiences
>people who don't care about the product, and just want the free shit/money for their time, are making all creative decisions in every creative industry because every high profile creative project is going for the demographics that don't care about their shit, because those demographics are always exponentially larger than demographics that give a shit about anything
Nope. Nothing wrong here.
Oh god yes those Hobbit movies are arguably worse that Star Wars I-III. At least Star Wars gives us dank memes. Doing realistic portrayals of fantasy beings is hard work.
That's why if I were a filmmaker I'd just go cartoony with my CGI, if the viewer knows the character is fake from the get go you avoid the Uncanny Valley problem and viewers won't get distracted by bizarre moments.
Pixar could easily animated lifelike humans if they wanted to, they don't because getting every subtle detail about a human right is a giant pain in the ass. That's why Inside Out had photorealistic sets of San Francisco but cartoon humans.
Originally,Pretty Womanwastitled3,000(based on the amount it cost to hire a prostitutefor the week) andwas meant to be a realistic dark drama about sex workers in Los Angeles. That film would have ended withEdward Lewis (Richard Gere) kicking Vivian (Julia Roberts) out of his car and driving off without her. Disney wanted todownplay the script’s darker toneand drug use and demanded the production shoot multiple endings to let test audiences decide. Audienceshated the original ending, so director Garry Marshall and Disney chose the happy, rags-to-riches finale, which tested very favorably.
This is retarded. Pretty much every one would agree with the main point in this video. CG isn't a bad thing, it's actually a great thing and can enhance movies. The problem isn't CG, it's over use and reliance on CG particularly when it's unnessicary or will look worse than just going out and shooting something.