Which modern films have great practical effects?

Your mom

>>83635850
The film of me having sex with your mom

>>83635850
The Void

>>83635850
The most recent BLACKED episode, starring your mom.

The void your mom's pussy makes when I dick her

>>83635850
remind me again why hey replaced all these with CGI?

>>83636370
CGI studio bribes

>>83635850
I really loved the practical effects in the original The Thing.
The were so well executed that you could hardly tell the monster was really just me and your mom banging in rubber suits.

>>83635850
Effects like this one work better with CGI. I mean, look at it - you can immediately spot that it's fake. Now the CGI wasn't all that great either but at least they have some more control over motion instead of stiff pieces of plastic.
Practical effects have their place and can help ground things in reality, but the fetishization of them is just ridiculous.

File: (you).gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>83637019

>>83636415
elaborate

>>83635850
Sorry anon, I was told practical is reddit

>>83637247
sorry just especulation

>>83637019
>real object looks "fake" compared to computer generated image
you're stupid for many reasons but you don't even understand the argument

>>83636370
Practical effect require a vision, heart, and actual artistry. It's cheaper for movie studios to cut that and just ship all the effects work to some Chinese animation studio instead, and spend the extra money on advertising.

>>83635850
15 posts and not 1 serious answer.

Prometheus. Bet you didn't realize how much of it was practical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1iVJExd5vA

>>83639841
Too bad they made everything look fake as shit in post-production.

>>83638618
They may look like real props, but that doesn't mean that these things look more like what they're trying to represent, than a computer generated image may.

>>83639841
do they dump this after the movies?

Fury Road

>>83639959
watch the movie and tell me it looks more real

>>83639841
Holy shit, I'm gonna look into these guys, thanks anon

>>83639997
It doesn't look worse. That's the whole point. Organic effects never worked too well with the use of props. You are fetishizing practical effects.

>>83640075
may be I am but I'll tell you practical ages way better than cgi
look at any hellraiser movie for example and tell me
the thing original looks good the new one looks already bad

>>83640201
I'm generally in agreement with you that the current overuse of CGI sucks, but you are glorifying practical effects too much. The sculpture in the OP is unmistakeably a sculpture. Replacing the shitty CGI with it wouldn't do anything for immersion - it would just be another kind of fake looking. Imo the best results are achieved by combining these techniques.

>>83640385
it's very diferent when you see it for a couple of seconds in a scene with a good angle

>>83635850
Suck a dick OP

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

>>83640385
Jurassic
park


Practical if possible, if not CG it.
The movie still holds up except for the brachiosaurus(?) daytime scene in the beginning.

>>83639881
>This CGI is fake as shit!
Actually it's practical
>W-w-ww-w-wwwwell they made it look like shit in post!
k.

>>83636370
Because CGI is better, despite the whining of autists blaming the tools rather than the artist.

does anyone else feel like they were born in the wrong generation? i wish i lived in an era when practical effects were still the norm instead the heartless cg we have now that literally looks like a ps2 game. like this post if you agree.

Every Studio Laika film.

>>83640777
Even kubo used CG..
Most is still practical though.

File: cgipractical.jpg (155KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1920x1080px

B... blame the tools, cgi can... can be better, believe me

>>83640687
>Implying I'm wrong
Doesn't change the fact that it looks fake.

>>83640853

OP didnt say the movies have to be 100% practical.

>>83636370
CGI is not cheaper. It costs about the same. The difference is CGI allows producers and visual effects supervisors/directors more control over the end product. For example let's say a movie has a shot with a prop monster and it is shot and done. It'd cost much more money to go back and do the scenes again, than it is to have animators and artists work on the same shot in CGI for tweaking or changes. The freedom and flexibility is why CGI is favored. The benefits of CGI become even more apparent when things get blown up or destroyed. With practical effects the budget usually allots money for one effect shot two times (one for safety). If they fuck up both times, then they have to go and redo all that shit over again costing the producers or studio more money. So in that sense their is a hidden cost whenever people choose to go the practical route thus making it more expensive in the long run; a lot of variables, and most of the time things do fuck up on set. However, the initial costs of hiring animators/CGI artists vs prop makers and craftsmen is about the same, if not more so in a lot cases! You have to realize that a big effects movie has hundreds of animators, lighting designers, texture artists, model makers, etc, etc working all to complete a shot, whereas with the practical props you pretty much only need to hire a few people. The idea that CGI is cheaper is completely bullshit, and only something people who have very limited knowledge of how films get made say. Why do you think film budgets for blockbusters are getting so high? Compare the budget of Star Wars which ended up being $13 million (roughly $54 million in today's dollars) to the whopping $200 million dollar budgets of the latest MCU films which all use lots of CGI.

Slither

>>83640726