CGI vs practical effects

File: 235235235346436334532.jpg (38KB, 451x490px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 451x490px

>>82145775
CGI

File: 1481885300979s.jpg (8KB, 208x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 208x250px

>>82145815

Some Practical effects from the 80s still hold up while CGi from the 2010s look like such a mess

Practical. CGI always looks like a video game to me.

Practical and stop motion are the GOAT

>>82145880
Nah, you're just being biased due to that you grew up with movies from the 80s. Movies from the 2010s are much better when it comes to effects, scripts and diversity.

>>82145775
Never seen these movies, but the one on the right looks like a real goblin. The left is obviously some dude in make up it's pretty embarrassing

File: 1471609751827.jpg (22KB, 300x279px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x279px

>>82145923
subtle bait

>>82145945
this

>>82145885
That's because video games are made using CGI. You could just as easily say that video games look too much like movies.

Are you retarded?

>>82145923
I think you are meming but starship troopers holds up and honestly looks better than a lot of shit today

>>82145945
what if I told you the one on the right is practical effects and the one on the left is just mocapped cgi

>>82145923
lol

>>82145945
>he pretends to think that a character from the new Warcraft trailer is a guy in makeup
Why lie?

It depends on the quality and purpose of either.

File: 1493338891281.jpg (54KB, 305x309px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 305x309px

>>82146011
Wow, really? So that's why! Thank you for informing me. I had no idea. And yes, mommy tells me I'm special

Jurassic Park still looks better than anything since, because of the heavy practical dinosaurs. JW looks utterly shit in comparison.

>>82145775
Left panel! I tried watching The Hobbit series and it was like watching a cartoon. I'm guessing a handful of people pocketed truckloads of production capital intended for stuntmen,extras and location

CGI if done right ie guardians of the galaxy 2 is fine

File: javy_dones.jpg (709KB, 1182x802px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1182x802px

Why is Pirates of the Caribbean the only series that can get it right? This was in fucking 2006

File: 1488921744064.jpg (22KB, 252x249px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 252x249px

>>82146666
hoo boy

>>82146666
I agree

>>82145775

If you can notice that it's CGI, then it's shit.

>>82146666
It doesn't look that good in motion, especially in the second movie

>>82146888
It's the same thing with practical effects. You just need a competent art department and money

>>82146906
You're nuts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8qmUV6PDGY

The reason Azog looks shit is because Jackson only had a few weeks to do it in. The practical suit they DID make for Azog turned out to be shit and not right, so they put it on and CGI'd over it.

People attack The Hobbit films, but I believe that they would have been as good as LOTR had Jackson been on them from Day 1, rather than filling in for G 'All Whites Are Evil Racists' Del Toro. What Jackson pulled off was quite incredible based on the time he had. The first one was fantastic, the second one was OK, the third one was 50 pages of book stretched to 2 hours long and it'd have been shit no matter who had done it.

>>82146888
Good Practical > Good CGI > Bad CGI > Bad Practical.

>>82147041
A mix of good practical with good cgi > all the things you listed

Props from Poundland is all ya need

>>82147250
Don't dis Poundland, lad. That shit is awesome.

File: MV5BYmVlNzAzNDctMmU1Zi00MzI2LWJlMGEtZWZjYzMxNzA0NDMzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTU1MjQ0MDc@._V1_.jpg (99KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 720x960px

I watched this doc the other day on the subject, it was amazing wathcing all those people talk with such passion.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5253754/?ref_=nv_sr_4

>>82146666
Still the high point for cgi character work.