CGI vs. Practical Effects

[DACrowe]

For years, the operating wisdom amongst fans has been that practical effects are superior whenever possible to practical effects. It is one of the many reasons so many (myself included) loved what Christopher Nolan achieved with his Batman movies, which used so many practical and analog special effects that it "hid" the CGI in almost seamlessly (like when the real motorcycle all of a sudden would do a very unreal spin-turn).

Similarly, there have long been complaints about too much CGI in Spider-Man movies, or too much CGI in Iron Man movies.

Well now, it feels like we might have turned a corner. We got our first look this week at a very practical effects Apocalypse from X-Men: Apocalypse, and the near universal reaction has been disappointment. I include myself in that camp. While it's admirable they tried to do it all with make-up, it will now rest solely on Oscar Isaac (an amazing actor) to make something that hideous work.

In its place, I am hearing fans championing motion capture and comparing it to Ultron or Thanos. Yet, Ultron and Thanos are both entirely CGI, motion-capture or not.

Have effects reached the point where fans prefer CGI? Or is it just a change in the fandom paradigm as younger fans grow up in a world where they have always had CGI in all their movies?

It is an interesting shift I noticed. And as a proponent of practical, at least in this latest fan reaction moment, I am leaning toward the CG argument. So, is there a change in expectation?

Also, please no need to flame anyone in this thread for their opinion.

 

[Greens]

I really think it's a case-by-case thing. If you look at the new Planet of the Apes movies, the CGI and motion capture are AMAZING. However, I think Marvel dropped the ball a bit with Thanos. He looks too much like a cartoon character to be threatening, at least from what we've seen of him up until Age of Ultron.

Someone did a manip of Apocalypse, made him bulkier, and it looked better than what we're actually getting. So in this case, a little CGI or possibly a different costume/make-up wouldn't have hurt.

What practical effects will ALWAYS have over CGI is that they feel real. That truck flip in The Dark Knight feels real because it actually IS real. Snyder is pulling off some great visuals with Batman v Superman, but there's always this soundstage-y look to it. Like, when you see Superman carry that water tower (or rocket, whatever it is) you know it's just Henry Cavill trying to look like he's holding something heavy. Suicide Squad is more down to earth with practical effects and actors doing their own stunts. Killer Croc is a PERFECT example of a practical/CGI blend. The skin is real, everything is real, but little digital changes make it a seamless product.

I do have to say that the CGI capes we've seen in superhero movies lately (Man of Steel, BvS, Suicide Squad, Age of Ultron) look amazing. That has been perfected.

 

[YoungBlood]

Just keep remembering that they said Apocalypse will be a mixture of practical effects and CGI so hopefully the first trailer might show that.

 

[Vulture]

I don´t prefer CGI. I have yet to see something created in CGI that actually looks real. You can feel the fakery all over it. I prefer practical effects. Look at the Batwing in Rises. That´s amazing. Do you think any digital vehicle would look as real as that? No! Look at the Batwing from Batman 89. 26 years ago we had a Batwing that looked real. Now we have a video game. And we call this evolution? Lol. I don´t know how can anyone defend CGI for things that can be done in a practical way.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think CGI should mainly be used for things you simply can't do properly with practical effects. You will never be able to properly transfer The Hulk or Rocket Raccoon to the screen with makeup, prosthetics, and puppets. Likewise there are certain physics defying stunts, especially from superpowered characters like Iron Man or Superman, that need CGI to work. There is no question that Man of Steel looks far better than the Donner Superman.

But if something can feasibly be done practically, it should be. Too often we see CGI cars, CGI stuntmen, and CGI explosions in places where practical effects could easily be used to greater effect. CGI can look really good these days, but it still falls short of real life.

 

[Greens]

I don´t prefer CGI. I have yet to see something created in CGI that actually looks real.

I'm 100% sure that's not true. CGI is not only used for big blockbuster spectacles. CGI is used in EVERY movie from drama to comedy. The best CGI is the CGI you don't notice.

 

[Greens]

I think CGI should mainly be used for things you simply can't do properly with practical effects. You will never be able to properly transfer The Hulk or Rocket Raccoon to the screen with makeup, prosthetics, and puppets.

That's absolutely true, and in reality we are blending practical and CGI even with those characters. The movements of those characters don't come from thin air anymore, they're acted out by a motion capture artist. Obviously the effects artist do a lot of the work, but you need that human framework for it to be convincing.

But if something can feasibly be done practically, it should be. Too often we see CGI cars, CGI stuntmen, and CGI explosions in places where practical effects could easily be used to greater effect. CGI can look really good these days, but it still falls short of real life.

CGI explosions can look absolutely horrible. I hate those.

 

[Snow Queen]

I'm 100% sure that's not true. CGI is not only used for big blockbuster spectacles. CGI is used in EVERY movie from drama to comedy. The best CGI is the CGI you don't notice.

For example, The Wolf of Wall Street was filled with CGI. It was just used well.

 

[Greens]

For example, The Wolf of Wall Street was filled with CGI. It was just used well.

The Wolf of Wall Street VFX video is a real eye-opener for people who hate CGI full stop.

 

[YoungBlood]

CGI is great, just don't let it become a distraction from the actual story in which people will call it Style over Substance.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I think CGI characters can seem real enough to make you forget theyre CGI but this is quite rare and really requires a great motion capture performance and character. Caesar & Koba just last year did this for me but aside from Gollum i can't think of any others.

With Apocalypse. I wouldn't want to sacriifice losing Isaccs performance though so i'm not sure on that one. It's likely he will change size in the movie so it might be amix of practical and CGI

 

[redfirebird2008]

I prefer practical effects, but I would not mind a CGI or motion capture version of Apocalypse. For one thing I don't get why he seems to be so short. Couldn't they have at least put Isaac in stilts to make him taller than the other actors?

 

[Batmannerism]

Once upon a time I would have said this is an either/or debate, and I would have gone with practical effects.

Like the OP, I am a sucker for great practical effects, and of course Nolan's Bat-movies had some wonderful practical effects (although both the Dark Knight and TDKR use a bunch of CGI too, but it's well done and seamlessly blended into the practical effects. ).

As for motion capture, well Gollum was brilliant, Thanos I find a bit camp (too much shiny gold bling) , Two-Face (in TdK) has a motion capture face and looks appropriately gruesome,

In comparison Nebula, Ronan the Accuser and Drax the Destroyer looked great - alongside Groot and Rocket Raccoon, two totally CGI characters.
So it's possible to have CGI and practical characters side by side and have it look awesome.


Both Tron Legacy and Oblivion are visually stunning films, due to Joseph Kosinski's sense of aesthetics ( I think he was an architect before turning to film).

It's probably been said before, but really it's all about execution, and having a synthesis of both practical and cgi effects to make it believable and engaging. I believe that the execution really depends on the director and his/her ability to translate concept art onto the screen.
I guess concept art is super important too, although one only has to look at the differences between Ralph McQuarrie's Darth Vader concept art, and the actual thing, to see how the director makes a difference.

E.G. In ROTK Peter Jackson makes a believeable world, because he mixed a lot of CGI with our lovely scenery. In the Hobbit, he did a lot more in the studio and as a result it just looks fake IMO. Having said that a lot of the great concept art and its execution is the result of Sir Richard Taylor and the amazing folk at Weta.

Again, like the OP, I am simply horrified at the live-action Apocalypse, how on Earth can people at Fox (especially Bryan Singer) be looking at that and
think - wow that's great !

For whatever reason something's gone wrong there, maybe the art department was ****, who knows ! I always think of Apocalpyse having a massive presence, he's huge and often changes shape to be even bigger. Simply put, they should have gone for motion capture to make him more imposing, and perhaps resemble the comic book version, who IMO has always been one of the most imposing X-Villains like this:

Rather than like this:

Sorry, started to ramble then, but anyway, my point is that I think a balance of both practical and CGI can make a movie look really fantastic.
It's not that one is intrinsically better than the other, it all comes down to the execution and how a skilful director blends the two.

 

[AlmightyWho]

I could write a thesis on one of my biggest pet peeves, which is the CGI hating among movie nerds, but I digress.

Like others have said, it's a case by case thing. CGI can look great and terrible in any given film. But I don't think practical is always some magical, flawless tool that so many CGI bashers want to be. There is just as many bad practical effects as there are CGI effects.

Take for instance this recent example with DOFP. I adore that film, but Beasts and Mystiques make-up often looked pretty hokey and cheap. I actually think Beast would look better with make-up and CGI enhancements kinda like Where the Wild Things Are.

 

[Fosterson]

I really think it's a case-by-case thing. If you look at the new Planet of the Apes movies, the CGI and motion capture are AMAZING. However, I think Marvel dropped the ball a bit with Thanos. He looks too much like a cartoon character to be threatening, at least from what we've seen of him up until Age of Ultron.

Someone did a manip of Apocalypse, made him bulkier, and it looked better than what we're actually getting. So in this case, a little CGI or possibly a different costume/make-up wouldn't have hurt.

What practical effects will ALWAYS have over CGI is that they feel real. That truck flip in The Dark Knight feels real because it actually IS real. Snyder is pulling off some great visuals with Batman v Superman, but there's always this soundstage-y look to it. Like, when you see Superman carry that water tower (or rocket, whatever it is) you know it's just Henry Cavill trying to look like he's holding something heavy. Suicide Squad is more down to earth with practical effects and actors doing their own stunts. Killer Croc is a PERFECT example of a practical/CGI blend. The skin is real, everything is real, but little digital changes make it a seamless product.

I do have to say that the CGI capes we've seen in superhero movies lately (Man of Steel, BvS, Suicide Squad, Age of Ultron) look amazing. That has been perfected.

Agreed on Thanos. He looked awful in GOTG. Hopefully, they'll have "fixed" him by the time of his next appearance (probably in Guardians 2 or Thor 3).

 

[The Joker]

They both have their strengths and uses. But I believe practical effects should always be used where ever possible, and CGI should only be done for things that really need it.

Movies are becoming too lazy and using CGI where it isn't necessary.

 

[Tony Stark]

The answer is both. There have been a ton of bad movies with bad practical effects and a ton of movies with bad CGI.

Abrams is a better example than Nolan of effectively using practical effects. Nolan is almost afraid to use CGI, where Abrams has been a master of balancing both. Most of the scenes you think are CGI in Star Trek 09 are actually practical effects, like the space jump scene was filmed with the actors standing on a large mirror in the parking lot, with the camera mounted facing down and using a giant wind machine.

 

[Vulture]

I don´t think this is a debate between bad practical effects vs bad CGI. The best possible CGI still doesn´t look nearly as good as the best possible practical effect. Put the best company in charge of creating the best possible digital car, and it still won´t look like a real car.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I could write a thesis on one of my biggest pet peeves, which is the CGI hating among movie nerds, but I digress.

Like others have said, it's a case by case thing. CGI can look great and terrible in any given film. But I don't think practical is always some magical, flawless tool that so many CGI bashers want to be. There is just as many bad practical effects as there are CGI effects.

Take for instance this recent example with DOFP. I adore that film, but Beasts and Mystiques make-up often looked pretty hokey and cheap. I actually think Beast would look better with make-up and CGI enhancements kinda like Where the Wild Things Are.

Beast is a weird situation because the Kelsey Grammar version looks great and the Nicholas Hoult version looks terrible. Therefore I blame the design more than anything in that situation.

 

[The Endless]

Both should be used.

The only time i hate CGI is when it's used as a crutch, or because of pure laziness and lack of imagination.

 

[Smilodon]

I think when it comes to stunts, practical effects are always going to be valued more than CGI. Something like Interstellar comes to mind, with Nolan building the Ranger which McConaghuey and co. rode to be like a ride simulator in a sense, as well as filming on location in Iceland. The CGI augments the film, but I think in addition to the realism that using practical effects can bring, there's a certain appreciation that we as an audience can feel towards building elaborate props and sets as well as the time taken to set and rehearse all those things. I think having good practical effects can also help the CGI feel less out of place. The fight scenes in The Matrix and the practical set of the Nebuchadnezzer helps offset the crazy Sentinels in the film. I think practical work in stuff like Police Story 3 and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or the sets in Alien or Blade Runner will always have a sense of timeless to them because of it.


That being said, there's tremendous amounts of work and craftsmanship in CGI too though. CGI has given us characters such as the Hulk, Rocket, Groot, Ultron, the Transformers, Caeser etc and they all look great and in a sense, provide a more accurate representation of these characters than any practical effect ever could. But I suppose an overreliance on CGI does come as a bit eh, but I think that's in terms of stunt work as opposed to the creation of characters. Oscar has already said that they're doing both practical and special effects for Apocalypse, and I dig the base design of Apocalypse to begin with, so as long as they make sure his powers are as fantastic as they are in other adaptations of him, it'll be fine.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

The answer is both. There have been a ton of bad movies with bad practical effects and a ton of movies with bad CGI.

Abrams is a better example than Nolan of effectively using practical effects. Nolan is almost afraid to use CGI, where Abrams has been a master of balancing both. Most of the scenes you think are CGI in Star Trek 09 are actually practical effects, like the space jump scene was filmed with the actors standing on a large mirror in the parking lot, with the camera mounted facing down and using a giant wind machine.

That's crazy! I love that space jump scene so that just makes me appreciate it even more. And anticipate the new star wars even more as well.

 

[jmc]

A combination of both but the foundations should be practical. Mad Max Fury Road has some serious post production CGI work, but you'd never know it because everything was shot for real first. CGI can be too much of a crutch sometimes and that's why some action sequence don't have any weight to them. Why does the effects in Jurassic Park still hold up pretty well? Because they built a freakin' life size T-Rex to help sell the illusion.

 

[Batmannerism]

Just to go further with the whole "it's down to the execution " point.....

In The Hobbit, the goblins were supposed to be actors in animatronic heads, one of the stunt guys told me. But, they looked terrible ! So, Peter Jackson had them all redone using CGI, and they looked a bit better. The huge orc Bolg was done with a combination of both - he was a guy in a pretty terrifying costume who's around 7 feet tall, but he got a serious digital touch up in post production. I didn't enjoy the Hobbit films that much, but I have to admit that the monsters looked pretty good.

But then animatronics can be awesome. Also from the Hobbit, Smaug was impressive but IMO nothing beats Stan Winston's epic creation Vermithrax Pejorative, as the most frightening and impressive movie Dragon (totally done with stop motion models and giant puppets) from Dragonslayer, waayyy back in 1981

Smaug was pretty good, but nowhere near as menacing as VP.

Contrast that with the TMNT turtles, in the first film the animatronic faces were pretty good and had some personality - last year's CGI creatures were hideous and deviod of charm.

So really, it does come down to execution. That's all I can say. Cheers.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Superman II (1980):[YT]HsKbNzMHLFQ[/YT]
[YT]vkfUUqowQjA[/YT]


Man Of Steel (2013):[YT]Ets2KtNYiis[/YT]
[YT]3J72eEF2X-Q[/YT]

Avengers (2012):[YT]2Pa89iJPVKk[/YT]

Guardians of The Galaxy (2014):[YT]OxwM-fzcYRg[/YT]

Planet Of The Apes (2001):[YT]x5SwlS-qbns[/YT]

Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014):[YT]rVnZ-Nx6FoE[/YT]

The Incredible Hulk (2008):[YT]z02M17sXzGQ[/YT]

Thor The Dark World (2013):[YT]ZJneSSYTZFo[/YT]


So... Discuss the differences to be seen with your own eyes in real time.

For myself... The time of practical being the superior path that has "real weight" on screen every time over CGI has passed. Was there a time it was true? Yes. But... That passed some time ago and frankly in a world post the new Planet Of The Apes films I really can't take seriously the position that nuts and bolts effects are always inherently better. There is just no way that the makeup of the 2001 film or the 1968 film can compete with the Mo-cap SFX which look like REAL apes talking and moving around and not like people with masks on, no matter how good those masks are. While I do think that the Thanos SFX in Guardians is... It could be a lot better lets say... Frankly it's not as though the practical make up of Ronan and Nebula doesn't also look pretty damned goofy. Ronan may have at least been a memorable villain visually if he had been a Mo-cap creation wrather than just a guy with blue skin. Compare the fight in The Dark World with the fight in Incredible Hulk or Man Of Steel. Kurse and that whole fight doesn't have a lot of impact and he looks too much like a guy in a costume.

There was a time when CGI stood out too much, but the effects are better and film makers have learned to use them well. Plus the VFX now allows for a versatility that make up and nuts and bolts stuff just doesn't have. Even FURY ROAD has a lot of CGI enhancement to... EVERYTHING.

There is something so strange about fanboys pining for SFX from when they were kids. It truly is the nostalgia goggles effect.