Do you prefer CGI or the real thing?

Do you prefer CGI or the real thing?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Depends desu

Some things cant be done/too hard without cgi. The majority of the time though the real thing, soc it looks more real.

Props should be used whenever possible.
CGI tech isn't advanced enough at the moment.

THEY ARE ALL THE THING AT THE END OF THE MOVIE

>the real thing
I see what you did there

Proof it

I prefer the real thing, if you know what I mean.

CG's good for inorganic objects with lots of flat surfaces and hard angles.

CG is pretty terrible for living things unless you put a LOT of work in and have someone who really knows their craft working on it.

If it's too large (like Dune sandworms and shit), you have to go with the CG, miniatures won't look good with modern cameras and super advanced lenses. Otherwise, practical all the way.

Nah, McReady was definitely normal at the end.

I wonder if people on death row will eventually be able to sacrifice themselves as background kills in movies (for absolute realism)

Can someone make a Jonah Hill meme outta this already??!!!!

Provide the Jonah hill pic first.

Didn't Fury Road prove a mix of both was best when done right

Every cgi hater should watch this
youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

I don't mind CGI but I respect practical effects a lot more

Here's a good one.

>implying

Neither. If a movie uses special effects then it's a piece of shit that relies on style over substance to impress the viewer.

The thing and it's prequel sequel alone prove that over reliance on CG is shit.

See also: Star Wars prequels.

When they are preparing blood for the blood test scene, Naul's cuts everyone's finger with the same scalpal. He doesnt even wash it, he just wipes it on his jeans.

The prequels used tons of miniatures. I guess when practical fx are shit it become retconned as bad cg.

Denim was extremely course back then, and would easily displaced all traces of blood from any sharp object.

But bad practical effects ARE cgi's fault. Look at Warcraft.

I'm starting to think what I was blaming on excessive CG is just a result of everything looking so polished overall, since movies come out now that make a point of using more practical effects again and it all looks like the same shit to me. Every effects-heavy movie just feels like I'm watching the same load of glowing/particle shit flipping around the screen the way you can always tell a game's using a generic engine or something.

with 2 little lazy jean swipes? no sir.

No. Look closely at the clouds of their breath and you'll see that only McCready is breathing. This was even confirmed by Carpenter himself.

Clearly Bennings is human because of his breath, you retard.

the real thing
youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU

CGI mixed in with live action never ages well. Even the small amount they had in Fury Road stuck out like a sore thumb and actually took away from the visual aspect of the movie. That and the colour filters, anyway.

good video thanks

Still looks like shit. Bottin's fx were superior. Not all practical fx are created equal.

Most fx don't age well.

Practical ones do, unless they look really, really fake.

CGI should be a tool used for composition, background stuff... the odd enhancement or extra bit of rubble. When something is gonna be the focus of the shot it should be practical unless it would literally be impossible to film.

>ywn have an assless chaps slave

That's smoke from the flares you gay fag.

Twinks a precious commodity in the wasteland, user

No it isn't. That's his breath.