Why are practical effects almost never used anymore? They look

People on the internet have bitched so hard about it, that it's actually making a resurgence.
If Del Taco had made the hobbit movies it would have been very practical based. Alas, Jackson was foisted in and had no prep time so it was a necessity.

>>87616531
cost more, time consuming, whiny actors/actresses

File: 172.gif (434KB, 512x807px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 512x807px

>>87616596
Bitching on the internet works?

>>87616653
>whiny actors/actresses
can't they use another man to play the monster/orc or whatever, than have the real actor to do the dubs?

File: cow mutant.jpg (168KB, 1917x796px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1917x796px

>>87617489
You mean their main draw? Hell no, Gotta have Jennifer Larence play Mystique to get that Hunger Games audience, who cares if she wears a shitty obvious bodysuit now to play her, who cares if you never see mystique in her natural form for less time than human Jlaw?

Practical effects are a pain in the ass for directors since they need to be set up for the shot each time and you have less opportunities to reshoot. It's much easier for them to say fuck it and fix it in post.

Practical effects don't look better or more realistic in many cases

They originally shot Azog with an actor (Conan Stevens) in a suit. But the mask limited facial expressions so they went with motion capture.

>>87617800
>Practical effects don't look better or more realistic in many cases
>real things don't look realistic
Stupid motherfucker.

>>87616531
Actors and directors don't like practical effects because they don't "emote" well. I would much rather a character look realistic than be an expressive cartoon.