>he thinks this is better than CGI

File: wew.jpg (23KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 460x276px

>he thinks this is better than practical

File: cg.jpg (50KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x300px

>he likes his monsters to look like video games

>>79340710
That is an accurate assessment of what I think, yes.

File: Harvey Dent.png (543KB, 1058x592px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 1058x592px

>>79340710
Practical + some CGI = masterpiece.

Just CGI = shit.

/thread

>>79340750
>>79340781
>>79340802
enjoy your Patterson tape-tier effects, plebs.

>>79340710
Source?

File: 1464496032076.jpg (156KB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1440x960px

I do

File: meirl.jpg (206KB, 1920x1126px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1920x1126px

>>79340816
This. Titanic still looks amazing to this day.

File: 1474951363484.jpg (477KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 960x640px

>>79340837

>>79340837
Man with the fully intended CG enhancements this would have been the best looking effects movies in recent years.

>>79340837
I'm still mad about this.

Lord of the Rings looks miles better than the Hobbit.

Jim Henson is a great example too.

File: tnf.jpg (104KB, 656x292px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 656x292px

>>79340710
That reveal was fucking incredible
>Am I not all that you hoped for?

puppetry and animatronics are more uncanny and will always be more disturbing.

File: American-Werewolf-in-London-transformation-gif.gif (2MB, 620x286px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 620x286px

this is cool

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (360KB, 2160x1209px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 2160x1209px

>>79340890
Same. The CGI department who destroyed all the practicals deserves to never work in Hollywood again

>>79340835
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Flier_(film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKWISD_vGPA

>>79341018
Hollywood:
>"WHAT IS THIS? LOOKS TOO REALISTIC AND TAKES TOO LONG TO BUILD THESE. LET'S JUST DO IT IN A COMPUTER INSTEAD LMAO"

>tfw re-watching hellraiser
>that retarded monster that comes from the wall
Trained effects were a mistake

>>79341032
The makeup actually looks fantastic in motion

1:18:40 onward

File: Orgrim.jpg (230KB, 819x1024px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 819x1024px

>realer than real

>CGI is expensive
It fucking isn't for God sakes. I was at a university where I watched a student project film where someone created a CGI Medieval castle and it looked even better than what you see on low budget mini series.

You know what makes CGI expensive? Building the set layouts so you have a little practicals and then the rest is CGI.

BUT if you are just putting actors in front of a green screen then that is the cheapest you can go. Only thing that makes it expensive is paying the CGI department to sit at a computer and click buttons.

Don't believe the Hollywood shekels lies.

>>79341032
Thanks, buddy.

>>79341086
I think it looks great even in the still OP posted. Enough to catch my attention, anyway.

File: no plane9 CGI plane.webm (1MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x480px

9/11 is proof that CGI fucking sucks, but practical effect wouldn't crash the WTC

wat do?

use nano thermite and C4 and edit CGI planes into it.


fucking CNN niggers can't even afford Jets

fucking kikes

File: 1472929720300.jpg (68KB, 736x440px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 736x440px

This wouldn't work in CGI

>>79340883
lol'd

>>79341075
>rewatching Resident Evil 1
>that CGI animated monster near the end
wew

>>79341123
Nigga, tens of thousands of people in Manhattan were looking up and directly observed the plane hitting the building

>>79341032
Damn. Now I'm reminded Miguel Ferrer is dead again. I'll need to check this out in his memory

File: no planes hit the towers15.webm (3MB, 712x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 712x480px

>>79341140
not really, most people didn't see shit

only ones who reported Planes hitting the building were CNN employees

It sucks that its fake, I always hoped those were real planes but they destroyed my fantasy with their cheap shitty CGI bullshit.

>>79341123
>he doesn't know that real life glitches exist
It's where sometimes light doesn't fully interact with an object due to it moving at a large speed or something.

There are heaps of documented cases of this.

The universe isn't some 100% full on working thing. There are some glitches in it. Not saying it wasn't "built" by a God. Just like computers that man has made, there are glitches so the same is with the universe (black holes for instance).

Also, if you study into the Occult, spirituality, you will know that you can change events based on positive and negative energies.

/pol/ praying to KEK made Trump President because they used positive energy and sent it to Trump.

Anyone have the face melting scene from The Fly 2.

>>79341128
Brendan?

>>79341189
Do you have a single to back that up?

File: 1479688201378.jpg (36KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 620x388px

>>79341229
In his final stage

>>79341128
JUST

File: no planes hit the towers9.webm (3MB, 712x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 712x480px

>>79341256
Do you watch movies with cheap CGI and think its real?

watch every footage ever of a plane approaching the WTC and notice shit doesn't add up

People who worship practical effects are, in general, either too young to remember movies before CGI or are letting nostalgia get the better of them. Before CGI, most people kind of gave special effects a pass because we knew they really couldn't do much better than film model planes exploding. The bar was set low. As long as you couldn't easily see the strings or the zipper on the guy's suit, then you did a good job. When CGI became a thing, at first people were legitimately impressed with the special effects in movies, but then the bar raised, and now the expectations are so high that there is no pleasing anyone. But, really, your average scifi film of today looks better than your average scifi film of 50 years ago, or even 20 or 10 years ago.

>>79341311
>Daily reminder: Al Quaeda never existed
I'm not saying Islamic extremists don't exist because they sure as hell do but there never was anyone calling themself "AL QUAEDA".

This was just CNN lies, similar to how people on /pol/ are called the alt right when the alt right doesn't even exist.

>Osama worked for the C.I.A. in the 80's.
>Decided to say '"Fuck you" after they armed him as he fled
Basically what happened and the Bush family remained close with Osama's family and didn't want him assassinated

File: 1470443115323.jpg (30KB, 521x552px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 521x552px

>>79340710

Of course it fucking does.

CGI HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER get the lighting right on anything.

Just not possible.

File: mini-batman (1).jpg (34KB, 620x385px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 620x385px

>>79341329
>He thinks CGI is better than practicals
The CGI batmobile in BvS made me want to shout with how disappointed I was.

Miniatures and practicals are the way to go as Chris Nolan realises.
>mfw the entire Dark Knight tunnel chase scene was all miniatures

>>79341311
first shot is plain. second shoot is obviously zoomed in. zoom makes distant objects seem closer. the distance the plane travelled after it finishes the descent and heads to the tower is the exact same from the first video. count, it's roughly 4 seconds before impact on both

File: brianSD.png (871KB, 700x506px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 700x506px

>>79341329
This thing looked better on film than any spaceship in the Prequel Trilogy

>>79341089
Too bad about the plastic armor.

File: star-wars-episode-i-the-phantom-menace-3.jpg (201KB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1920x816px

>>79341420
The Phantom Menace used a lot of practicals and that is why that is the best looking prequel.

Pic related is a miniature

>>79341103
Just because it's cheap doesn't mean it's easy. Do you have any idea how many CGI production companies shut down after doing one movie due to deadlines and shit pay? A lot. CGI is cheap but that's not good.

>actually arguing with 9/11 retards
lmao

File: jar jar meets astro droids episode one star wars.jpg (81KB, 715x535px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 715x535px

>>79341463
What I liked about PTM is how almost all the sets were practical so it actually looked like they were walking around in an actual setting (which they were) whereas Episode 2 and 3's rooms look so cartoony because most of them were CGI and it was so off putting.

>>79341194

I'm not a truther and don't know about the source of that webm that was posted but saying that that what is seen in that video is a 'glitch' sounds even more retarded than coming to the conclusion that the plane is just CGI. Guessing it was made by some truther though and that planes did hit the towers. Any other examples of glitches besides anecdotal ones posted by preteens on /x/?

File: tumblr_m9ebvomjkR1rey8wlo1_1280.jpg (95KB, 720x483px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 720x483px

>>79341463

>>79341329
>either too young to remember movies before CGI
>letting nostalgia get the better of them
These two statements make no sense when put together. You point out that people are too nostalgic to accurately judge the quality of practical effects, and, in the very same sentence, you dismiss the only age group whose judgement can't possibly be clouded by nostalgia because they weren't around at the time.

File: 1485968445481.jpg (580KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1000x1000px

>>79341463
>The Phantom Menace used a lot of practicals and that is why that is the best looking prequel.

Because real lighting is impossible to replicate. That's why you can always detect CGI, no matter how good it is.

File: 74c1b924493d3f7d3c672cba3009fe9a.jpg (55KB, 736x484px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 736x484px

Can you imagine if Luca made this room fully CGI? It would not have looked good at all. I love the Obi Wan/Maul fight scene thanks to this being a practical set.

>Sheev's office
>Opening fight of Sheev and Yoda
>Obi Wan Vs Grevious
All these look so cartoony due to the sets being just green screens

File: no planes hit the towers2.webm (2MB, 712x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 712x480px

>>79341514
funny how we all fell for the shit CGI

>>79341311
>browses /tv/
>doesn't understand what perspective is

pls leave

>>79341140
Nope.

>>79341544
I need it. The Micro Machine isn't enough.

File: Titanic [1080p] Full.mkv_snapshot_02.40.23_[2016.07.31_02.06.00].jpg (105KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1920x1080px

>>79340866
fucking amazing

File: attackoftheclones.jpg (82KB, 851x361px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 851x361px

>>79341571
what the fuck Lucas?

>>79341514
>Any other examples of glitches besides anecdotal ones posted by preteens on /x/?
The Double Slit Experiment seems like a legitimate bug in physics

There's also the Planck Length, which seems to demonstrate that no atom in the universe truly "moves" in a smooth fashion, it just teleports minutely from one location to an adjacent one - like pixels snapping to a grid in an old arcade game.

File: no planes 911 was a hoax.webm (3MB, 712x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 712x480px

>>79341587
yea lets check some perspectives

shit is hilarious

I miss watching a movie and wondering "wow how the fuck did they accomplish THAT??" after watching a cool practical effect. That was like half the fun with spectacle movies.

File: geonisisjedifight.jpg (182KB, 1600x869px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1600x869px

Apparently Lucas did do miniatures of this actual part of the movie.. so why not put the miniatures in the background instead of making the background CGI?

Would have made it look better

>>79341567
Do you not know what the word "or" means?

File: phonecall.jpg (62KB, 636x743px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 636x743px

>>79341626

>>79341584
how old are you?

File: Ce8cCRmW4AEgGYK.jpg large.jpg (119KB, 881x622px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 881x622px

>>79341709
27

File: tarkin rogue one.jpg (43KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x300px

Tarkin in Star Wars Rogue One was some of the most impressive CGI I've ever seen. It actually took me like 15 seconds before I noticed he wasn't a real guy.

File: christopher-nolan.jpg (316KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1600x1067px

>>79341662
>I miss watching a movie and wondering "wow how the fuck did they accomplish THAT??"
That is why Chris Nolan exists.

Memes aside: he is one of the most dedicated directors ever. Sure he should have directed all the extras in TDKR better so they acted better and more realistically but come on: he makes sure that almost every scene has practicals and rarely uses CGI at all because he hates it.

>>79341123
Buddy you can go fuck yourself. I work a half a mile away from where the World Trade Center stood. I was headed to work and watched that plane hit the building.

People pretending the planes didnt hit are the same as the ignorant fucks who say the Holocaust didnt happen.

Grow up you fat ass neckbeard

>>79341671
>you're the one making the mistake
No, I'm really not. Go back and read my reply as many times as it takes for you understand the impossible situation you created in your first post.

>>79341738
How many of you noticed Tarkin wasn't real while watching Rogue One?

>>79341414
>He thinks CGI is better than practicals
On average, CGI looks better than practical effects.

>>79341739
Problem is that today I just assume everything I see is CGI and green screens.

>>79341189
Youre so unbelievably full of ignorant shit.

>>79341420
The ships in the original trilogy all look like toys, especially on close-ups.

File: Advanced Warfare.png (1MB, 1583x741px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1583x741px

>>79341738
Leia's CGI in Rogue One was so terrible and so fake looking. Hell Xbox One cutscene games look far more realistic than what Leia looked like.

Pic related is from a 2014 game's cutscene.

How the hell did Leia look so fake looking compared to this game? Also, game's cutscenes have some amazing lip syncing too whereas Leia's lip syncing was terrible.

>>79341808
fuck off kike

>>79341779
Not to people with good eye sight. I noticed Tarkin was CGI immediately in Rogue One and none of the other 3 people I went with did. I had to tell them "Hey, did you notice he isn't real?" and they couldn't tell while looking right at him on such a massive screen. BLIND!!

>>79341772
>it's either red or blue
>"so you're saying it's both red and blue that makes no sense"
You need to learn English.

File: Mohamed_Atta.jpg (27KB, 260x320px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 260x320px

>>79341768
yea man I was in the North tower when it crashed
saw it with my own eyes
actually could see Mohammad Atta in the cockpit yelling in arabic saaying "osama bin laden did it allahu ackbar"
then his passport landed in my wifes sons pocket

>>79341845
>I noticed Tarkin was CGI immediately in Rogue One
That's because you probably play heaps of vidya and watch tons of cheap low budget movies and therefore you can easily pick out what is real and what is not.

>that scene in BvS when Batman uses a hook from his batmobile to drag a car along the ground
That was 100% CGI and looked so fake. I am surprised no one criticized that part. If Nolan had directed that, he would have made sure the car being dragged was all practical

>>79341103
Who the fuck says CGI is expensive? Isn't the general belief that it's used because it's cheaper?

>>79341861
so why didn't you stop the plane? why didn't you throw a typewriter or something through the window and into the plane so it exploded before hitting the tower?

>>79341897
>Who the fuck says CGI is expensive?
all the Hollywood shills say that

>>79341892
>>>79341845
>>I noticed Tarkin was CGI immediately in Rogue One
>That's because you probably play heaps of vidya and watch tons of cheap low budget movies and therefore you can easily pick out what is real and what is not.

are you implying this is a bad thing?

>>79341920
>are you implying this is a bad thing?
No I am not. I am implying that those who play vidya actually develop better eyes than those who don't

>inb4 /v/

>>79341847
>people who were around at the time only like practical effects because of nostalgia
>people who weren't around at the time only like practical effects because they weren't around at the time
You need to learn logic.

>>79341189
>>79341311
>>79341634
>>79341843

Thousands of people watched the planes hit, two kids in my HS were from NY and saw it happen....also, my dentist's sister was career Army officer who branched Medical and was actually headed into work at the Pentagon when the plane hit, she said it flew right over her car and the highway that runs adjacent to the Pentagon

>>79341189
You're logic is beyond retarded, and I mean that in the true sense that you are fucking retarded.

Listing SOME people that saw something that work in an industry doesn't mean OTHER people didn't see it, retard. Holy shit, you truthers are the absolute worst. Why couldn't you fucks have been killed on 9/11 instead?

>>79341845
From talking to people, I've found most people didn't notice the CGI on Tarkin. In my opinion, that makes it a good special effect if it managed to fool general audiences.

File: BvS CGI.webm (799KB, 1280x538px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1280x538px

>the way the car moves
The car being CGI immediately makes me notice how fake it looks.

Why the fuck couldn't Snyder make this scene full on practicals?

HOW HARD IS IT TO MOVE A REAL CAR LIKE THAT?

>>79341943
What's your native language? Maybe a translation would help you understand things.

>>79341919
Then why NOT use practical over cgi, if it's in theory cheaper? It makes no sense.

>>79342015
The subsurface scattering in his skin was wrong. I noticed that when I looked closely because something just wasn't quite right

>>79341982
So. Thousands of people were involved in the "moon landing" too. Money (or threats) will make people say whatever you want them to say.

>>79342049
>petty non-response
I win.

>>79342071
>Then why NOT use practical over cgi, if it's in theory cheaper?
because it takes too long to build practical sets and do miniatures you idiot. Can't you use your brain?

It's quicker to just do clicks on a computer

>>79341847
Not him, but he is right you know. You said that people that like practical effects where the ones old enough to have lived when they where around, and feel nostalgic, or the people who is too young and wasn't around when practical effects where around. So basically everyone, the people that was around or the people that wasn't around, haha.

File: kjhkgjki.webm (500KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1280x720px

>>79340750

OH SHI-

>>79342077
http://www.fluentu.com/english/blog/best-websites-to-learn-english/

File: BvS CGI 2.webm (964KB, 1280x538px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 1280x538px

I was shaking my head in the cinema during this part. So fake looking

I witness the planes crash and the the Apollo 11 land on the moon

No i'm not Jewish and no I'm not a paid shill

>>79342118
The reason why this works as CGI is because the whole frame is just a green color and it is darkly lit.

Now try taking this and putting the monster in daylight. It is going to look so fake.

File: eddie-bravo.png (497KB, 900x450px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 900x450px

>>79342075
>mfw people believe buzz aldrin

>>79341738
It's good, don't get me wrong, but it's kind of obvious in motion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jw7R4AwSQA

Also, that still is NOT the Rogue One Tarkin, as the filename suggests, to any non-SW fans reading.

File: max1360285554-front-cover.jpg (1MB, 3240x2175px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3240x2175px

>>79342118
>It's a dvd cover uses a sequence from the movie itself
Post more kino that does this

>>79342108
Except there are people who were alive for pre-CGI practical effects but aren't so nostalgic for them that they allow it to blind their judgment, and there are people too young to remember pre-CGI movies who don't hate on CGI mindlessly. In fact, I would say most people fall into those categories I've just described. Blind CGI hate is in a pretty small, albeit vocal, minority.

>>79342130
you're a retard though from the way you type

>>79342162
In 5 years time Disney will re release Rogue One with better effects like Lucas did with his trilogy.

>>79342075
You're retarded. Two people can't keep a damn secret you think they could pay off thousands? You know how much money they could make off selling the story of how it was faked? The government would be bankrupt from payoffs. Do you people even think?

>>79342072
>i looked closely for a flaw and found one
Alright, but the majority of people who watched the movie weren't looking for things to complain about and thus were blissfully unaware that Tarkin was even CGI, and so that means it was a good effect when most people didn't realize it was an effect.

>>79342202
Unlike Lucas, hopefully without adding CGI dinosaurs walking in the background, fucking awful extra scenes and getting rid of yub nub.

>>79342075
Well considering the fact that 60s TV tech wasn't actually at a point where you couldn't actually fake a landing, yeah they went there. Oh, and it was more like tens of thousands. Remember the Spaces Programs was more than just NASA, it was NASA, the DoD, the 5 branches of the military and other groups too. Not to mention, it would be impossible to have that many people stay quite about something so big. Do you honestly believe that in a city of 12 million, in the most continuous in motion/awake zone (the financial district) only a handful of people saw it happen.

>>79342192
>Post didn't start with a capital letter.
Heh...Looks like you are the retard here, kid.

>>79342224
Except there ARE lots of people trying to spread the truth, only they are called conspiracy nuts and are not taken seriously.

>>79342250
where you could fake*

>>79342233
Sure it was a good effect, really good in fact. I just got a weird feeling whenever I saw him

>>79342187
That's true. I think that it depends on who is making the effects and how are they used. There are as many shitty practical effects as shitty cgi effects. But if one can make a good practical effect, it will be timeless. It will look good for ever.

>>79342246
The CGI dinosaur walks in the foreground. It wouldn't have been quite so bad if it were just in the background.

>>79342187
>Blind CGI hate is in a pretty small, albeit vocal, minority.
Really? That's an interesting claim. You're not just saying that because you saw the phrase "vocal minority" used elsewhere and thought it sounded like a good way to dismiss viewpoints you dislike, are you? Give us some statistics that show it's a minority. I'm sure you have some saved.

>>79341018
>>79341052

The CG department isn't to blame its the producer who complained that the practical stuff only works from 1 angle and couldn't understand you would only be seeing it from the angle that works.

>>79342252
>Heh...Looks
>No space between the third period and "Looks".

Do your handler know you're using the internet unsupervised?

>>79342287
>But if one can make a good practical effect, it will be timeless.
I think that's true of really any effect, whether it's practical, CGI, or a blend of both.

>>79342254
No, they're idiots. They use anecdotal evidence and half truths to push an agenda, which is almost always based in anti-antisemitism when you peel back the layers. Not to mention having to come out with updated versions of the "truth" that contradict each other every few years.

>>79342254
Yeah, and none of them have any firsthand knowledge of the subject. One moron trying to find discrepancies in the moon landing and selling pamphlets isn't the same as one of the DPs showing up with never before seen negatives of the moon landing set. Those people aren't taken seriously because they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. And the fact is so many conspiracy theories conflict with one another so which is the truth? Why should I trust you over any other number of conspiracy theorists?

>>79342304
I'm not talking from statistics, just from my own observations, just like just about everyone else in this thread. Personally, when I talk to people about movies, it's pretty rare that I hear people say that outright hate CGI.

>>79342328
Interesting how your capitalization and punctuation changed after I pointed it out.

Seriously though, did you really take my post seriously? I thought I had left more than enough hints that it was bullshit.

>>79340837
what the fuck is this from?

>>79341571
>real lighting is impossible to replicate
kek

>>79342390
The Thing (2011)

>>79340710
Practical effects are timeless because they will always look more real. CG will always be outdated by real CG. That's why the characters in the Star Wars original trilogy still look good and real, while all the CG that was added into the special editions and prequels seem outdated and more fake.

>>79342556
>Practical effects are timeless because they will always look more real.
Yeah, they always looks like real toys and real makeup and real Halloween costumes and real tin plates held up by real strings.

>>79341189
It amazes me that people still think that 9/11 was not an inside job. The evidence that we were lied to and that they were brought down by controlled demolition is backed up now by overwhelming evidence.

>>79341845
What the fuck, how could anyone not notice that?

I went with 4 other people and we all walked out and said how fucking shit it looked next to real people

>>79342601
And that student's name? Albert Einstein.

>>79340750
>>79342118
>>79342151
This is practical. It's a guy in a suit.

https://youtu.be/RC0q-xvy0TI?t=6m36s

>>79342601
>>79341845
Quite honestly, I wasn't sure how the fuck it had been done at the time having not yet seen the twatty articles complaing "hurr durr it's disrespectful to the dead" etc. etc. If you look at it objectively it really is quite impressive, I at first thought it was just an extremely good lookalike coupled with decent make up artistry.

>>79342721
Yep.

>>79342187
I'm afraid your point still doesn't make sense. You're saying that

>there are people born in the era of CG effects who prefer practical effects, and these people only prefer them because they weren't around at the time to see how bad they were
>there are people born in the era of CG effects who prefer CGI, and they think this because they are reasonable people

The problem is that being around at the time (i.e. probably the 80s, when practical effects took off) is seen by you as a prerequisite for today's moviegoer to accurately judge their quality. If they say they prefer practical effects to CGI, the *only* reason they think that is because they are incapable of making a proper judgement because they weren't around at the time, according to yourself.

However, as summarized in the second greentext, you say that some people from today are still able to see that practical effects are garbage compared to CGI. But how can this judgement be accurate, if they weren't alive in the 80s to see how bad practical effects were?

There is no way of resolving this without saying that

a) no-one born in today's world is qualified to make an accurate judgement about the quality of practical effects

or

b) it is not necessary to have been alive at the time to make an accurate judgement about the quality of practical effects

Either way, your reasoning falls apart, to a greater or lesser extent (lesser in the former).

>>79341634
Focal length you mong

File: crashing this plane with bad cgi.webm (2MB, 926x646px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 926x646px

I love practical effects and I love CGI when it's done right, I can understand the need for doing CGI when any other means is unrealistic but examples like this just annoys me, you'd think they put a little more effect into this scene considering it's the big climax, and remember that Jurassic Park was years earlier so it's not like the technology wasn't there.

>>79341103
>sit at a computer and click buttons

>>79342098
>just do clicks on a computer.

You're literally retarded my friend, you should consider killing yourself.

>>79343065
You sound mad

>>79342954
I'll make it simpler for you, then.

A) Person was born pre-CGI and misses "the good old days" while forgetting all the bad effects of the old days
B) Person was born post-CGI and wishes movies were made like they were before not realizing a lot of effects used to look bad
C) Person was born pre-CGI remembers that not all practical effects looked good and most were really cheesy
D) Person was born post-CGI but has seen old movies and knows practical effects looked cheesy

A and B are the people who fall into the category of people who blindly hate CGI, while C and D do not. You're hung up on when people were born when that really doesn't factor into it all that much.

How exactly do they determine the cost of CGI? I remember listening to the audio commentary for something and the director said how this one effect was the most expensive in the whole film, how do they work that out? Is it just based on wages?

>>79342151

>It works in the scene it was intended for, but if it showed up in a completely different scene it would look fake

wow

>>79343273
They consider how many people were working on the effect and how long they were working on the effect, and then how much those people were paid for that time. The same is true of a practical effect, except a practical effect would also have material costs and other costs a computer effect won't have (like, if you blow up a car, that car also costs money, also you'd need to pay insurance and stuff).

>>79342185
Found footage needs to fucking die already

>>79342600
>the evidence is backed up by evidence
Care posting some?

>>79343387

Pleb

>>79341738
fuck off that pictures from a new hope. tarkin looked terrible in rogue one

>>79341189
you're fucking retarded. I could understand not many people seeing the first plane, but I along with the rest of the entire country was watching at that point and saw the 2nd one hit live

>>79342683
No watching this 10 minute shit. Tell me where it is or fuck off

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hewimSXd5yM

I'll never understand why they picked shitty CGI over this fucking circus freak (no offense, he looks like a chill dude but still)

>>79343420
>wargames
>insider trading
>PNAC
>stand-down order
>CIA/Mossad creation of Islamic terror networks supposedly behind the attacks

>>79342246
yub nub is shit

do people prefer it?

>>79343999
2 and a half minutes about, friend

>>79341610
fucking ticks. I took a girl to this movie. Fuck you lucas.

File: 513546175846.jpg (29KB, 960x398px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 960x398px

>>79340837

>>79340837
>butimjustacreep.jpg

File: demon knight.png (195KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 600x315px

Practical effects will be creepier than CGI will ever be.

>>79341845
My girlfriend didn't notice it. I did immediately and it ruined those scenes. They could have just referred to him and never show him rather than put a console tier animation at the centre of an ebil gubment conspiracy.

>>79340750
>>79342118
>>79342683
>plebs knocking practical effects
>posts "cgi" shot as an example of bad cgi
>it's fucking practical

The irony here, I hope, is not lost on any of you.

>>79347346
DSP really let himself go.

Not that he started off great though.

AAAUUUUUUUUUUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

HELP ME!

HELP MEEE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC1Gfyp8C6I

>>79342090
Nice image, thank you

>>79340837
>they didnt even use this.

>>79340710
>>79340750

These look great.

>>79341414
>Dark Knight tunnel chase scene was all miniatures
wow i didnt know. im impressed.

File: cersei.jpg (31KB, 353x399px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 353x399px

>>79341634
whats hilarious is the autistic amount of effort made to make an "I don't understand how cameras or perspective works" video

>>79341739
Are you an imdb refugee? Its refreshing seeing Nolan not get shit on for no reason here.

>>79343063
holy fuck

>>79340710
the company of wolves

>>79343063
why didn't they just buy a plane? would've looked a lot better

>>79343999
fucking retard

File: thing 2011.jpg (219KB, 1728x968px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1728x968px

>>79340837
>>79340886
>>79340890
>>79347346
>>79347792
>>79349450

at least the proper version

>>79342038
I dunno, why couldn't Snyder have Zod wearing a real costume or Superman wearing a real cape?

He's addicted to CGI to an insane degree. Everything but the actors in 300 is CGI.

>>79342098
You're literally retarded but right now is one of the two times a day you're right.

Time is money, nowhere moreso than Hollywood. You know the engineering triangle? Good, cheap, quick, pick two? CGI is quicker to build and rebuild than practical, after all.

>>79343999
>https://youtu.be/RC0q-xvy0TI?t=6m36s
Literally copy and paste it you fucking subhumanoid.

>>79340710
I'd hit that desu

File: Dunne-steals-the-show-as-Jack.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>79340710
>Can I have a piece of toast.

File: 1486680060800.gif (578KB, 480x592px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 480x592px

>>79342075
M8, it happened to the 2 largest buildings in a metropolis full of millions of people.

I can understand dabbling in 911 conspiracies, but claiming it was CGI is just plain retarded.

>>79344029
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM0pJ52Xr0
Why does the monster look so retarded? Like, literally so?

>>79351400

This will forever be the best makeup + prosthetics job in history.

File: tumblr_n4rj8qkucz1t0demio10_250.gif (999KB, 250x135px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x135px

>>79351495
It's one of many of my favorites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

can these threads stop now

>>79348794
loved this movie as a kid, this part gave me nightmares

>>79351400
This movie was one of the first I ever watched as a child. I remember this scaring the shit outta me

File: mos-bts.jpg (136KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1920x1080px

>>79351052
Superman did wear a real cape. And only didn't in some scenes because of action. Zod armor wasn't real because it wouldn't work with action scenes and would be too heavy and impractical to walk around in because of the design. Faora design is way simpler and that's why she had a real suit made. Snyder said that most of the time if an actor is gong to touch something, then they won't use cgi.

>>79341634

and there you have it. 9/11 is PROOF that I am married to Christina Hendricks.

>>79351655
>1:03
why would you even cg something like that?

>>79341794
this, fuck today's cinema

File: what the fuck did I just read.jpg (98KB, 520x800px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 520x800px

>>79351655

>guys says that michael bay and transformers has created the greatest CGI of all time

>>79342393
he is right

File: 1486071474068.jpg (194KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1000x750px

>tfw too intelligent to complain about bad cgi

people need to complain more about bad cgi so that the quality of cgi is forced to improve itself

File: maxresdefault.jpg (241KB, 2044x858px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 2044x858px

>>79351951
Credit where it's due, the Transformers in the first movie were goddamn amazing.

>>79341089

The orcs looked amazing. Everything else in the movie looked like it was made from cardboard.

File: 1458222416385.webm (866KB, 484x360px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 484x360px

>>79342075

I don't get how people can say the moon landing was fake

>satellites provably exist and allow you to broadcast your retardation
>human space flight is well documented and you can see the ISS with a telescope if you want
>they had the raw rocket power with Saturn V
>they had space docking experience with Gemini
>they had the navigation/computing power as proved by their successful onboard ICBM INS capable of internally guiding a missile onto target with a reasonable CEP
>not to mention powerful ground based navigation capable of performing complex missile guidance like the Spartan/Sprint ABMs

you think navigating to the moon and back is hard?

try making a IBM supercomputer process and datalink input from multiple early warning radars and a missile targeting radar then using that data to intercept a nuclear warhead entering the atmosphere at Mach 18 with a Mach 10 Sprint missile

all while PAVE PAWS, SAC at Offutt/Omaha and NORAD are getting bushwacked and nuclear warheads are going off in space like fireworks EMPing every unhardened civilian transistor in the country

>>79340837
https://youtu.be/NLrOf44nfhA
Holy shit, you weren't kidding.

The fucking insult of taking one of the films with the best practical effects ever and using almost intentionally shitty CGI in the reboot... jesus christ.

File: 3452.gif (866KB, 245x230px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 245x230px

>>79341229
>>79341268

>>79351861
as a consumer you are not allowed to know

>>79340710
Do you have a torrent for that movie?

>>79340837
This makes me sad and angry.

>>79341189
>people who reported the planes crashing on live TV are all related to news organizations
GEE WHAT A SHOCKER

Practical effects, even if not perfect, are actually happening on screen, enabling me to suspend my disbelief and engage in what's happening. When it's CGI, I know some fucking nerd sat in a computer room making it. I know that the actors are interacting with light bulbs showing them where to look and not much more. It looks completely unconvincing.

The one exception I can think of is Davy Jones and his pirate crew from PotC 2 & 3. That shit still looks spectacular.

>>79342683
Which makes it confusing that it looks like bad cgi.

>>79352972
I just dled and watchin it on piratebay

>>79353363
>When it's CGI, I know some fucking nerd sat in a computer room making it. I know that the actors are interacting with light bulbs showing them where to look and not much more

How is that so much different from
>When it's practical, I know some fucking nerd sat in a workspace making it. I know that the actors are interacting with a guy in a goofy suit and not much more

File: terminator.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>79353959
It's easy to love practical effects when you either forgot or never saw all the really shitty ones out there.

>>79354175
that was like for 2 frames, you can't really notice it

>>79341739
I remember being absolutely blown away by the ship and space effects in Interstellar, and thinking "how the fuck did they do it?"

Got home and looked it up, the answer was with 52ft models filmed against rear-projected 4k backgrounds to provide accurate lighting. Nolan is too good for us.

File: genisys.jpg (80KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1280x720px

>>79354175
sure it might look fake as hell but it's still infinitely more interesting to look at compared to pic related

File: new-terminator-genisys-trailer-shows-arnold-schwarzenegger-back-in-action.png (273KB, 659x494px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 659x494px

>>79354175
behold

>>79341739
Nolan cannot direct actors because he is a robot and does not understand emotion

>>79354229
It's on the screen for quite a while and is extremely noticeable and looked horrible at the time and worse today.

>>79354175
This only looks bad thanks to the advent of HD. At VHS resolution this was a truly awe-inspiring model effect for such a low-budget film.

>>79354327
Saw it in theaters. People laughed.

>>79341768
>same as the ignorant fucks who say the Holocaust didnt happen.

Of course Moshe. Remember the 11 gorillion.

>>79354376
>I saw it in 9k

Yeah, great counter-argument.

>>79342038
>HOW HARD IS IT TO MOVE A REAL CAR LIKE THAT?
Really hard, and extremely dangerous. No wonder why they try to use CGI in case the studio gets sued.

>>79354417
>movies weren't made to be shown in theaters
You sound smart.

>>79354175
bad practical effects are kinda charming, at least. bad cg isn't

>>79340946

The "Hell" vision of the dead people at the airport was straight-up nightmare fuel.

File: 1486633328136.png (348KB, 1440x1569px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1440x1569px

>>79354175
>It's easy to love practical effects when you either forgot or never saw all the really shitty ones out there.

It's easy to forget The Terminator was a low budget film and they had to cut corners to make the effects. It's also from 1984.

You have to do some major mental gymnastics to use this as a "CGI is better" argument, given that the equivalently budgeted film today would have effects that look like absolute dogshit.

For fucks sake Genisys had awful effects and that's a modern reboot with a big budget. That torpedos your entire argument.

>>79341414
>The CGI batmobile in BvS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo9MbpMY9ng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_o-Ey_lGck

the thing was engineered from the ground up as a real vehicle and drove for real through he streets for the chase

>>79341663
Nothing about that pic tells me that the final shot isn't the miniature, tard.

>>79354603
You're making lame excuses for a bad practical effect, but at the end of the day, it was a bad practical effect that looked terrible and was laughable at the time, and it looks worse than anything in Genisys.

>>79354527
They're only kinda charming now because they're antiquated. At the time, seeing a shitty dummy or model was just as bad as seeing shitty CGI is today.

>>79341983
>You're logic
>you are fucking retarded

No, your retarded!

File: BUZZ.jpg (28KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 320x180px

>>79352230
OUR
BUZZ
TAXMONEY
ALDRIN


most conspiracy theories are retarded as fuck.

File: Burger.jpg (59KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x720px

>>79354763
>lame excuses

The economic realities of the movie is an excuse?

> it was a bad practical effect

You're probably young so you have no real way to compare it to how it looked back then, or what was standard effects at the time.

>it looks worse than anything in Genisys.

My picture is undeniable proof you are wrong.

File: tinman1.jpg (54KB, 702x576px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 702x576px

>>79354801
but in the eighties they had even ancienter shittier practical effects to compare with

just look at this "robot" from some 20s movie. The jump in quality between this and puppet Arnold is astronomical, while the cgi in Genisys looks every bit as fake as the puppet in T1

>>79354859
Yes, you excuses are lame. At the end of the day, what showed up on screen was laughably bad and worse than anything in Genisys, because at least he actually looks like Arnold in Genisys. At least the character looks like himself. Be honest: Genisys looked better.

>>79342162
It's the eyes, they look so 'empty'.
... And they're probably the only thing they didn't CGI over

>>79354859
Not him but >>79354266 and >>79354283 both look infinitely better than >>79354175.

>>79354603
>It's also from 1984.
It's almost as though computers and technology have made movies look better.

File: terminator-2.jpg (111KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x768px

>>79354999
this was made 6 years later on an actual budget and looks much MUCH more convincing than Genisys

>>79341626
Alright, you just have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>79355083
Yep, T2 had some really great practical effects in it, which doesn't disprove what >>79354175. The fact that you're trying to ignore the shitty practical effects by only focusing on goods ones in an attempt to forget about the bad ones actually goes to prove what he was saying.

File: false maria.jpg (189KB, 1024x916px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1024x916px

>>79354885
The Tinman is intended to be a fairy tale character he's not meant to be a realistic robot. Also Wizard of Oz is form 1939

Here's what a robot looked like in the 1920's

File: 1486875819593.jpg (31KB, 570x574px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 570x574px

>>79340946
>>79354589
>>79340710
I need to watch this again. Thanks for reminding me.

>>79341311
HAHAHA fucking numbskull

Look, let's say there are two magic tricks on TV. One of them has a guy sawing a woman in half which is kinda impressive but you kinda figure out she's just crawled up in the top part of the box and the legs jutting out are just fake legs but it's a well choreographed spectacle so you end up pretty entertained even though you know it's fake.

Then the next trick comes on AND IT'S A MOTHERFUCKING GUY MOTHERFUCKING JUGGLING FULL SIZE OIL TANKERS WHILE STANDING ON THE SURFACE OF JUPITER AND THE CAMERA SWOOPS AND SWOOOSH AROUND LIKE A ROLLER COASTER HOLY FUCK THIS TRICK IS SO AMAZING HOW CAN SAWING A FUCKING WOMAN IN HALF EVEN COMPARE WHO CARES IF IT'S OBVIOUS CGI IT LOOKS SO REAL!!!!

>>79355356
Why would I be entertained by the first one? Second one sounds more entertaining given that I know both are fake.

>>79355413
because the entertaining part of a magic show is to try and figure out how the trick is performed.

>>79355507
silly anon.

>>79355507
But it's obvious how the first one did it, so it's not entertaining in the slightest.

I mean, hell, I could personally replicate the first one. Just about anyone could. I couldn't do the second one, and only a few highly skilled individuals really could. Second one just sounds more impressive and more entertaining.

>>79355590
It was just an example. Most tv magicians has moved on to newer tricks.

>>79355138
What a stupid fucking basis for an argument. Nobody is saying all practical effects are automatically good.

>>79355759
And nobody is saying all practical effects are automatically bad.

>>79355696
Yep, magicians and movie studios alike have moved onto newer, better ways to create convincing illusions.

>>79341123
Wow. You can actually see the debris jet out of the nozzle. Good catch anon.

File: jurassic-park-t-rex.jpg (83KB, 739x445px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 739x445px

but anons....why not both real and CGI?

>>79356059
Because a computer killed my dog.

>>79356059
CGI used in moderation can be amazing. Problem is directors go mad with power when they realize they can do pretty much anything anywhere anytime.

>>79356119
I agree movies should just be two people sitting around talking for two hours fuck exciting shit.

File: file.png (2MB, 1893x959px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1893x959px

who did it better?

>>79356196
BASED FILE.PNG

>>79356195
>action movies didn't exist before cgi

are you for real?

File: RoboCop_233Pyxurz[1].jpg (175KB, 1600x1055px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1600x1055px

>>79351495
I think this sequence is slightly better tbqh

>>79340816
Too bad Dent was the worst part of The Dark Knight.

>>79340710
yes?

>>79356237
>greentext of something that wasn't said
Heh, that's a pretty dumb thing to say.

>>79356195
You completely missed the point.
Are you one of the Thing 2011 executives?

>>79354175
Not even meming but they should've had Arnie look like this the entire film. The uncanny valley aspect is so strong here.

>>79356196
obviously the dinosaurs in the Jurassic World look better, but it's stupid to compare it like that.

better to compare the effects from Jurassic Park effects vs others from that period and the effects from Jurassic World vs others from this period.

I think the best use of CGI so far is probably the main Orcs in the Warcraft movie, but there are many scenes where you don't even notice it's CGI and those are the best.

>>79356195
>he hasn't seen my dinner with andre

File: dick-jones-dies.jpg (46KB, 400x238px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x238px

>>79356243
Robocop also has some really bad special effects in it.

>>79356318
Fair enough, but Rob "Based" Bottin didn't do that doll.

>>79356284
You misunderstand. I agree, stuff happening in a movie is the worst.

In fact, two people talking is a bit much. Can't we have movies where it's just a blank screen for two hours?

>>79344029

>starve yourself just so you can play monsters and wear costumes

that's really fucked up

>>79356272
so please explain to me exactly what his point was

>>79356336
True. I guess my point is movies have always been a mixed grab bag of good and bad effects. There's good and bad CGI now, and there was good and bad special effects before.

>>79340890
the studio also made them completely truncate the ending where mew would've discovered pods full of alien specimens where the thing broke out and impersonated the pilot to crash on earth, but now it's covered up with a game of jenga, and cgi kai from banshee

https://youtu.be/NxPK3sYb90w

>>79356368
No, but thank you for asking nicely. I appreciate the please.

>>79356407
you're welcome

>>79341128
oh, body melt
>the part where that guy's dick explodes
thanks new zealand!

>>79350341
Ha ha. That's not what he said. He was saying CGI is sloppily used. It is to this day.

File: Revenge of the Sith.jpg (2MB, 5400x1389px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5400x1389px

>>79341463
But Revenge of the Sith is both the best and the best looking of the three prequels

>>79341194
wow, you're fucking retarded

>>79356464
Why did you post the video game?

>>79342312
Maybe he was thinking about selling action figures.

>>79342118
Man, Outlast 2 is looking good

>>79356569
It's a pretty good one.

>>79340883
hahahahaha shit

>>79343999
Nigger

>>79341311
the boats in the "al quaeda" shot are there for the appearance of normalcy; you're supposed to either not realize >>79341417
or come to the conclusion that it's sped up. Boats are there to dissuade you from that

>>79356770
That darkside ending where Anakin wins and stabs Sheev immediately after he gives him a new lasersword kek

>>79342121
He's right, you're wrong.

>if you were around then you like it because you were around
>if you weren't around then you like it because you weren't around

So being around practical effects, and also not being around practical effects both make you like practical effects. Basically, having been around or not makes no difference so "nostalgia" is a non-argument.

>>79342587
Yeah, as opposed to fake painted toys, makeup etc. that float magically and never quite fit into any scene because lighting.

>>79341004
Jesus this still looks as painful as the first time I saw it.

>>79341634
Oh i love these kind of videos.

They tend to play off the uniformed over silly things like in this case focal length as pointed out by >>79342996

You use tactics of either using the wrong kind of science in the wrong ways to outright lie or misinform people who wouldn't know what any of those things are, then you get smug assholes who go online and go even further of distorting the already distorted information. Jesus look what happened Waco Texas, that was a cluster fuck of the press framing the story like the next Manson Family, then conspiracy nuts misinform over videos of the ATF shooting themselfs as some kind of conspiracy as to silencing people when in reality they were just incompetent cops who were not trained and they shot innocent people due to orders that they could and they wanted to be big damn heroes.

>>79354972
Not at all. Those look horrible like shitty photoshop.

>>79355190
What a good movie.

>>79342393
It is pretty fucking hard mate.

>>79351655
No because that video misses the entire point.
CG is a tool. It should not be the only tool used but it is.

>>79358338
This, CG is always best when used to agment practical, the best Marvel CGI is when the actors get to act and not be animated over.

Like the last two cap movies are a shinning example of both, there are moments were they used wires and CGI and they are times when you can see the whole shot is CGI. The best moments of both movies are when they don't just animate the whole thing with CGI.

>>79344029
wow this looks a lot creepier than the monster in the actual movie.

File: saint-laurent paris.jpg (2MB, 5120x5120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5120x5120px

>>79356363

on the upside

if you have a cute twinky face then you can kill two birds with one stone and double as a high fash model

>>79359956
I'd fuck the one on the right no homo

>>79356318
How could they not have noticed the arms were too long?

Practical effects are just artistically better, it's not really a matter of what looks more convincing. Same reason film is better than digital, it's more tactile and has presence, instead of just everything being diluted down to binary numbers on a hard drive. Imagine if De Niro at the end of Raging Bull just had CG enhancements on top of him to make him look fat. Even if it looks exactly the same, it simply has less merit. The craft is just as important as the result.

>>79360508
>implying getting fat is hard work

>>79360587
i spent the majority of my teenage years trying to put on weight, had a constant weight of 120 lbs and didn't gain weight until i was 18 where i gained 20 lbs

>>79340816

How did he keep his eye from drying out?

>>79361482
Yeah but DeNiro wasn't a growing child when he filmed Raging Bull. Once you hit your thirties it's like a constant battle not to gain weight.

>>79342118

>BIG OPENMOUTH GHOST OOH SO SPOOPY


I fucking hate everything that became popular because of millennialfaggots. typically generations get more and more worldly, but you faggots regressed into minimalist pussification

File: virus_jamie_lee_curtis_john_bruno_008_jpg_nkbu.jpg (307KB, 737x1113px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 737x1113px

>>79340710

>he doesn't

>>79362205
Damn, Jamie Lee Curtis loks like THAT?!

>>79342075
i know this is just bait but i love this video and your bullshit gives me an excuse to post it.
https://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU