CGI vs. Practical Effects

[Batmannerism]

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

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

First, yes, the CGI effects from Man of Steel (fight between Supes and Faora/Nam Ek) were a-mazing, as was the Hulkbuster fight in A of U.

I don't dispute that when CGI is done well, it can be fantastic ! And not for a second am I saying we should go back to the effects that were used in Superman II, but, at the same time certain practical effects can still be pretty impressive (even compared to CGI effects) two words man, truck flip ! (and I still stand by my Dragonslayer comment).

As for costumes, well Thanos, I still find him too blingy and shiny, which the CGI doesn't help with -whereas the practical costumes for Ronan and Drax (in particular) looked pretty good.

Besides when CGI isn't done well, it really ain't good - Michael Bay's TMNT and Green Lantern anyone ! That's not nostalgia talking.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/

A little something to show that in order for FURY ROAD to work as it did that there was a crap ton of CGI. It's impossible to want some kind of digital tool free effects in a modern blockbuster.

 

[ThePhantasm]

There's no denying that CGI is often necessary and of high quality. But as a general rule, practical effects are better. Just compare the Star Wars prequels to the original trilogy. The prequels are cartoonish, the OT looks much more gritty and lived-in.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

First, yes, the CGI effects from Man of Steel (fight between Supes and Faora/Nam Ek) were a-mazing, as was the Hulkbuster fight in A of U.

I don't dispute that when CGI is done well, it can be fantastic ! And not for a second am I saying we should go back to the effects that were used in Superman II, but, at the same time certain practical effects can still be pretty impressive (even compared to CGI effects) two words man, truck flip ! (and I still stand by my Dragonslayer comment).

As for costumes, well Thanos, I still find him too blingy and shiny, which the CGI doesn't help with -whereas the practical costumes for Ronan and Drax (in particular) looked pretty good.

Besides when CGI isn't done well, it really ain't good - Michael Bay's TMNT and Green Lantern anyone ! That's not nostalgia talking.

I think Thanos in GOTG is suboptimal for sure... But again, I don't find Ronan or Nebula or Drax all that impressive and Kurse just looks kinda goofy, even with CGI enhancement.


And absolutely when CGI is bad... It's bad. My point is when you have a practical effect at it's best, and a CG effect at it's best for a lot of reasons the CGI effect is going to win out it overall quality as well as in versatility for the film maker.

Take the Apes movies. Let's assume that in fact the Ape makeup and costuming is SO good it does what the Mo-cap version does. They don't end up looking like what they are, people in masks. Let's say they end up looking amazingly like real apes, a match for the Mo-cap version. Well that's all well and good but even if that were so Matt Reeves is still going to use the Mo-cap. Why? Because he doesn't want to blow the budget of his film. To apply make up and costumes to all the actors required for the scene I posted would have taken up time. And on a movie set, time is money. You got the application, the breaks for over heating, bathroom breaks, make up touch ups and on and on. No way that using the make up is more cost effective than the CGI, especially if the results are as STUNNING as they were in DOTPOTA. You can just free up the director and his crew to do so much more with CGI these days. Again, no arguing that there are still spectacular nuts and bolts stunt and SFX work done.I just don't cotton to the idea that all nuts and bolts practical effects are automatically superior. I think there has been a tipping point and expecting film makers to forswear a tool that makes for great visuals is just impractical to my mind.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think Thanos in GOTG is suboptimal for sure... But again, I don't find Ronan or Nebula or Drax all that impressive and Kurse just looks kinda goofy, even with CGI enhancement.


And absolutely when CGI is bad... It's bad. My point is when you have a practical effect at it's best, and a CG effect at it's best for a lot of reasons the CGI effect is going to win out it overall quality as well as in versatility for the film maker.

Take the Apes movies. Let's assume that in fact the Ape makeup and costuming is SO good it does what the Mo-cap version does. They don't end up looking like what they are, people in masks. Let's say they end up looking amazingly like real apes, a match for the Mo-cap version. Well that's all well and good but even if that were so Matt Reeves is still going to use the Mo-cap. Why? Because he doesn't want to blow the budget of his film. To apply make up and costumes to all the actors required for the scene I posted would have taken up time. And on a movie set, time is money. You got the application, the breaks for over heating, bathroom breaks, make up touch ups and on and on. No way that using the make up is more cost effective than the CGI, especially if the results are as STUNNING as they were in DOTPOTA. You can just free up the director and his crew to do so much more with CGI these days. Again, no arguing that there are still spectacular nuts and bolts stunt and SFX work done.I just don't cotton to the idea that all nuts and bolts practical effects are automatically superior. I think there has been a tipping point and expecting film makers to forswear a tool that makes for great visuals is just impractical to my mind.

After that last post I went back and watched the Smallville fight scene, man that's a battle I've been waiting decades for.

To be honest I haven't seen any of the Apes films - not really a fan of the series, but I can certainly believe they'd be a lot better CGI rather than a bunch of guys in ape suits.

Anyway, I think the optimal combination uses both CGI and practical FX. I know that Nolan used a bunch of CGI stuff in the DK trilogy, but did it well enough that it's not completely obvious (except maybe Two-Face).

Given how awful the practical Apocalypse looks, I'm praying that when Darkseid comes along they motion capture a WWE wrestler who's at least 6'6" and give him an epic voice. Still not sure who should voice the Lord of Apokolips yet, but it needs to be someone pretty awesome. Since gravelly voices have been done to death, maybe a voice that's quite smooth, though incredibly deep.

But yes, to make Darkseid sufficiently otherworldly and menacing they'd need to use CGI. Probably one of the best movie monsters of this century was the Balrog from LOTR, it only appears briefly but it's damn scary, and I concede that if done with models or practical effects it might not have been as awesome (although the T-Rex giant puppets from the earlier Jurassic park films were still pretty great).

Okay, I lost my point there but yes, film-makers shouldn't turn their back on CGI, in favour of practical effects - but the reverse is also true, even Tron Legacy backed up an entirely virtual world with live action performances - to go totally CGI, I reckon our brains can tell the difference (which is one of the weaknesses of the recent Hobbit films). What's really optimal is when practical and CGI are seamlessly blended (e.g. the Bat missile dodging in TDKR).

Cheers.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

After that last post I went back and watched the Smallville fight scene, man that's a battle I've been waiting decades for.

To be honest I haven't seen any of the Apes films - not really a fan of the series, but I can certainly believe they'd be a lot better CGI rather than a bunch of guys in ape suits.

Anyway, I think the optimal combination uses both CGI and practical FX. I know that Nolan used a bunch of CGI stuff in the DK trilogy, but did it well enough that it's not completely obvious (except maybe Two-Face).

Given how awful the practical Apocalypse looks, I'm praying that when Darkseid comes along they motion capture a WWE wrestler who's at least 6'6" and give him an epic voice. Still not sure who should voice the Lord of Apokolips yet, but it needs to be someone pretty awesome. Since gravelly voices have been done to death, maybe a voice that's quite smooth, though incredibly deep.

But yes, to make Darkseid sufficiently otherworldly and menacing they'd need to use CGI. Probably one of the best movie monsters of this century was the Balrog from LOTR, it only appears briefly but it's damn scary, and I concede that if done with models or practical effects it might not have been as awesome (although the T-Rex giant puppets from the earlier Jurassic park films were still pretty great).

Okay, I lost my point there but yes, film-makers shouldn't turn their back on CGI, in favour of practical effects - but the reverse is also true, even Tron Legacy backed up an entirely virtual world with live action performances - to go totally CGI, I reckon our brains can tell the difference (which is one of the weaknesses of the recent Hobbit films). What's really optimal is when practical and CGI are seamlessly blended (e.g. the Bat missile dodging in TDKR).

Cheers.

You need to see the two newer Apes films PRONTO. They aren't just good sci fi, they are good movies in general. Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is very good, a very satisfying re-boot... But the doors come off their hinges in Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes. It's quite the cinematic experience in that the SFX is as important to the film as the story is. Without the SFX the story, while still good, would have less impact. It really needs to be seen to be believed. And... It's just an amazingly well told tale. Above all else that is what works and makes it a keeper of a film.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Dawn's CGI was amazing, but its the cream of the crop. Few films reach that quality. Though no doubt the industry as a whole is improving.

 

[Greens]

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.

The orcs in The Hobbit looked like ****. The uruk-hai in LOTR were ****ing terrifying because they looked real.

I see a lot of praise for the Hulkbuster fight but there are some things in there that annoy me. Namely, the fake dirt they insert into the scene to cover up the characters so they don't have to do as many details. It's so blatant.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

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.

Agreed with every single word here.

 

[Batmannerism]

The orcs in The Hobbit looked like ****. The uruk-hai in LOTR were ****ing terrifying because they looked real.

I see a lot of praise for the Hulkbuster fight but there are some things in there that annoy me. Namely, the fake dirt they insert into the scene to cover up the characters so they don't have to do as many details. It's so blatant.

Having seen both the costume for Bolg (when I worked as an extra on the Hobbit) during filming (before the digital touch up) and then afterwards in the finished film - personally, I thought both were scary.

As for the Goblins in the Goblin-town sequence, well I would agree with you that they didn't look great as totally CGI creations (but apparently the animatronic heads just didn't work or look right - and that's what the stunt guy told me, so I admit it's second hand info) and I definitely agree with you that the Uruk-hai from the first LOTR film were really
menacing (partially because the guys playing them were pretty big, and with the costumes on they looked enormous).

 

[Boy Scout]

Personally, I prefer practical effects when applicable. There are just some things you can't bring to life without CGI, and I don't have aproblem with that as long as it doesn't look (too) fake.

 

[Greens]

Having seen both the costume for Bolg (when I worked as an extra on the Hobbit) during filming (before the digital touch up) and then afterwards in the finished film - personally, I thought both were scary.

As for the Goblins in the Goblin-town sequence, well I would agree with you that they didn't look great as totally CGI creations (but apparently the animatronic heads just didn't work or look right - and that's what the stunt guy told me, so I admit it's second hand info) and I definitely agree with you that the Uruk-hai from the first LOTR film were really
menacing (partially because the guys playing them were pretty big, and with the costumes on they looked enormous).

I believe they couldn't use make-up and animatronics because it wouldn't look right in 3D. It's a shame, because the 3D effects were negligible.

 

[Batmannerism]

I believe they couldn't use make-up and animatronics because it wouldn't look right in 3D. It's a shame, because the 3D effects were negligible.

You might be right, the stunt guy said that the heads were a nightmare, they had problems breathing in them and they were incredibly hot.

I still thought the CGI goblins weren't great, but who knows how they would have looked if done practically ? I found the Great Goblin ( Barry Humphries mo-cap) very cartoony ( but I guess he was meant to be a bit comical).

As for 3D, well sometimes it looks awesome (like in Guardians of the Galaxy and Pacific Rim) and sometimes not.

 

[Greens]

As for 3D, well sometimes it looks awesome (like in Guardians of the Galaxy and Pacific Rim) and sometimes not.

Most of the time it does not. Most movies will have one or two shots where they throw something at the screen and that's about it.

Compare Scorsese's Hugo to any other 3D movie and you'll start to wonder why they were 3D at all. Well, except for financial reasons.

 

[Batmannerism]

Most of the time it does not. Most movies will have one or two shots where they throw something at the screen and that's about it.

Compare Scorsese's Hugo to any other 3D movie and you'll start to wonder why they were 3D at all. Well, except for financial reasons.

Some recent decent examples of 3D I can think of

-Guardians of the Galaxy (during the escape from the Kyln, the final battle, and Knowhere).

- Pacific Rim, well....pretty much during the robot fighting.

- Star Trek Into Darkness, during the debris field sequence and the Crash of the evil starship.

But yeah, otherwise 3D isn't usually worth the couple of extra bucks, and sometimes it's just distracting really.

Since I don't go for 3D movies that often, any recent examples of bad 3D anyone ?

 

[Snow Queen]

The entirety of Gravity I'd put there.

 

[OcStat]

Thank you Snow Queen, I was just about to comment "How has no one mentioned Gravity yet?"

That is a brilliant film, and brilliantly made. Watch the special features if you are able, what was actually accomplished to make that movie will blow your mind.

 

[DKDetective]

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.

I think you are responding to a straw man version of the pro-practical effects argument that no one is making here. Those video comparison don't really add much to the debate. Both sides can cherry pick examples like that. For instance, with maybe the exception of Interstellar (which involved a mix of practical and CGI effects), show me a CGI space battle that looks as good as this shot:

I don't think it can be done as great as modern CGI is. Now, I'm not saying every shot from the original Star Wars trilogy is as flawless as the above. They are not. There are many shots that are not as visually convincing and show the problems of analog compositing and the like. However, I find that modern CGI often gives itself away in the lighting. As CGI has gotten more advanced and complex, objects tend to have too much bloom to them. They glow in an unnatural way (see for example Gravity), which is what I often think of as "CGI sheen" in modern effects driven films. It is just incredibly complex and hard to replicate. Real, natural lighting is hard to mimic, which is one of the greatest strengths of the model shot above. The real lighting helps sell that the models are physically there.

Also, the more of the shot that is CGI, the easier it is notice the effects. With rare exceptions like the new Planet of the Apes films, I find that the best modern effects try to use a combination of the two and are aware of the respective strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. CGI works best in smaller doses when mixed with practical effects. The practical elements of the shot help confuse our eyes about what they are seeing and sell the authenticity of the CGI. As well, it gives the CGI artists a frame of reference and something to blend their work into. The more of the frame is CGI, the less real it looks. The small flaws of CGI become more noticeable.

With respect to the recent unveiling of Apocalypse which was the impetus for this thread, I think the reaction was simply just the result of Bryan Singer and Louise Mingenbach's horrible design sense. Don't forget what they made Superman look like... A practical Apocalypse would have looked a lot better if designed by Michael Wilkinson for instance.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think you are responding to a straw man version of the pro-practical effects argument that no one is making here. Those video comparison don't really add much to the debate. Both sides can cherry pick examples like that. For instance, with maybe the exception of Interstellar (which involved a mix of practical and CGI effects), show me a CGI space battle that looks as good as this shot:

I don't think it can be done as great as modern CGI is. Now, I'm not saying every shot from the original Star Wars trilogy is as flawless as the above. They are not. There are many shots that are not as visually convincing and show the problems of analog compositing and the like. However, I find that modern CGI often gives itself away in the lighting. As CGI has gotten more advanced and complex, objects tend to have too much bloom to them. They glow in an unnatural way (see for example Gravity), which is what I often think of as "CGI sheen" in modern effects driven films. It is just incredibly complex and hard to replicate. Real, natural lighting is hard to mimic, which is one of the greatest strengths of the model shot above. The real lighting helps sell that the models are physically there.

Also, the more of the shot that is CGI, the easier it is notice the effects. With rare exceptions like the new Planet of the Apes films, I find that the best modern effects try to use a combination of the two and are aware of the respective strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. CGI works best in smaller doses when mixed with practical effects. The practical elements of the shot help confuse our eyes about what they are seeing and sell the authenticity of the CGI. As well, it gives the CGI artists a frame of reference and something to blend their work into. The more of the frame is CGI, the less real it looks. The small flaws of CGI become more noticeable.

With respect to the recent unveiling of Apocalypse which was the impetus for this thread, I think the reaction was simply just the result of Bryan Singer and Louise Mingenbach's horrible design sense. Don't forget what they made Superman look like... A practical Apocalypse would have looked a lot better if designed by Michael Wilkinson for instance.

Boy that reminds me how well the Star Wars films have dated - as in they've stood the test of time. Maybe that says more about good filmmaking than just effects.

Yeah, I think that's been said a few times, that the combination of CGI and practical effects yields the best results. But you're right, probably why the original LOTR trilogy had such a great authentic look, whereas the Hobbit not so much. Nolan certainly used a mix of practical and CGI in the DK trilogy - he just used it well.

Personally, I think there have been some good examples of costumes working well in cbms (Drax, Ronan the Accuser, Nightcrawler, Mystique, Spider-Man) as well as bad ones.

So I guess you're right, it comes down to design sense. That's probably true as well, that its more an awful design rather than the overall failure of practical costume/effects. I bet Weta could have made Apocalypse look awesome. Now we'll never know

 

[Dr.]

In fantasy films, I expect to see special effects that depict the impossible: monsters, space battles, superhuman powers, etc. And so long as these effects are reasonably well done, it doesn’t much matter to me whether they’re practical or CGI. In both instances, I know I’m witnessing a cinematic trick - and that I’m supposed to suspend my disbelief.

 

[spiderman2]

You need to see the two newer Apes films PRONTO. They aren't just good sci fi, they are good movies in general. Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is very good, a very satisfying re-boot... But the doors come off their hinges in Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes. It's quite the cinematic experience in that the SFX is as important to the film as the story is. Without the SFX the story, while still good, would have less impact. It really needs to be seen to be believed. And... It's just an amazingly well told tale. Above all else that is what works and makes it a keeper of a film.

Yeah those 2 apes movies are really good and there CGI is ahead of its time.

 

[Mjölnir]

I don't think it's relevant to pick one before the other on principle, it all just has to do with making it work.

The only thing I could say categorically is that CGI beats practical in the amount of things it's able to achieve. Other than that it just comes down to good vs bad implementation.

 

[Batmannerism]

Hey , anybody check this out ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47txSar483U

Collider's take on CGI vs practical

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

^There is another thread in the Misc. Film section where that same video was posted. Here it is.

[YT]bL6hp8BKB24[/YT]


http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=341160&page=19

My thoughts are there as well.

 

[The_Manhunter]

I generally prefer CGI. I think it allows for a greater sense of the fantastical and escapism, which is one of the main reasons I watch movies in the first place.