practicalfags BTFO! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6 hp8BKB24

>>64608331
>opens with some michael baysplosions bullshit
dropped in less than a second

File: thing-3[1].jpg (106KB, 1431x715px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1431x715px

>>64608411
brava

File: maxresdefault.jpg (360KB, 2160x1209px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 2160x1209px

>>64608411
>>64608460

OP here.
they used good practical... them for some reason ruin the scene in last minute.

>>64608331
Lovely bait. The problem wasn't that the PT used CGI. The problem was that the CGI looked so fucking fake.

>>64608331
He never siad Practical Efect were bad. Actually he acknowleged MOST CGI looks terrible.

The examples he gave were fantastic and seamless. Unlike your's George. GTFO.

>>64608331
spot on

File: you fuck up george really fuck up.png (1MB, 1345x816px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1345x816px

>>64608596
>>64608664
i like the PT, but why they create every clone in cgi! even in closed shots they use cgi!

This faggot's lisp pisses me off. He sounds like a 4th grader.

>>64608664
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).

>>64608563
They replaced all the practical effects with CGI.

Because the test markets were laughing at the puppets.

>>64609201
>the test markets
film making by democracy?

>>64608331
>CGI is really good
>at rotoscoping and mocap
Lol I wonder why.

>>64609354
Oh and don't forget compositing, the reason the computer took over in the first place.

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.

>>64609201
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY_NQK7rJrY

>>64609484
>Putting somebody in front of a green screen for entire scenes though is just laziness.
75% of todays movies

File: Little Shop of Horrors Alt ending.webm (3MB, 1244x700px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1244x700px

>>64609201
Have test audiences ever been right?

>>64609160
>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

>>64608331
Op is a fucking manchild who can't into nuances

File: movie_before_after_cgi_11.jpg (136KB, 550x698px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 550x698px

>>64609354
Reddit leave

File: 1446098635500.jpg (229KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1920x1080px

>>64609561
>that feel when the main thing video games and movies will always have in common is playtesters/test audiences

>>64609669
>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.

File: Pixar-characters-rm-timn.jpg (222KB, 549x366px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 549x366px

>>64609574
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.

File: pepe_kek.jpg (87KB, 640x633px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x633px

>>64609911
http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=64467

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.

Yeah but Star Wars is full of bad CGI.

>>64609911
https://youtu.be/gEzU_Fw7ccg

>>64610340
I fucking hate that old bitch so much FUCK YOU ROSE YOU DIDN'T DESERVE JACK!

>>64610340
What a shit ending. Cameron made the right choice.

Why didn't they just fire up the submarine and go get it?

>>64610518
or pulled from the old bitch hands

>>64608331
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.

>>64610306
This I can't bring myself to watch the OT because of the terrible effects.

>>64609521
To be fair, it really is about the effort put into it and not relying on CG to make the movie.

>>64608331
>mfw the jim henson company almost did a live action Parasyte movie