God I miss practical effects
Forgetting the epic practical effect nuclear explosion from award winning film open himmler?
>>219205681Blame Lucas and the Prequels. Avatar as well.
They have been moving back to blue actually.
>>219205681i dont give a shit if i cant tell the difference
>>219205880Might I suggest glasses?
Audrey II reminds me of adult actress Lily Thai
>>219205681>The Thing prequal had a bunch of practical effects>They replaced them with CGI anyway>>219205681LSH even had the inside of the patients mouth effect for like 3 seconds of footage.
Good practical effects still exist. And there were plenty of bad practical effects back in the day.
>>219205860what the benefit of blue over green
>>219205681Right looks better unc. The world agrees
>>219205681This is what we call a truth nuke. Affectionately called a ‘trvke’.
>>219205681good effects and bad effects will always existput creepy stop motion king kong next to davey jones from the pirates films
>>219205681this board will seethe over shitty cgi but when a show comes out that is 90% practical effects (one piece) this board shits on that too? can you ever be pleased?
>>219206053Avatar is made 100% by Cameron's CGI team, which is mostly old farts with high skills on the subject. And they take years of posproduction.Fuck off, retard.
>>219205681This is like a decade out of date. Today it would be a bunch of actors on a Volume stage with some of them wearing face capturing cameras so they can be wrapped in a shitty CGI skin later.
>>219206017The green is a much less natural color so there’s basically no possibilities of it being on a person or prop, but it’s also brighter, so Indian cgi farms have a harder time color grading everything to muddy grays.
>>219205681i remember watching "idle hands" as a kid and all i remembered was that it was goofy and wild. i rewatched last halloween, and was impressed by how many practical effects they had. still a ridiculous movie like a fever dream, but you have to respect HOW they made it.
>>219206421Your point? The best CGI looks better than the best practical effects. Uncs cherrypicking shitty CGI when practical effects had plenty of garbage then too.
>>219205681I don't know about effects and as such stuff but I read that new hail Mary movie the sets themselves are real, or at least the ship interior is
>>219206705>The best CGI looks better than the best practical effects.No. It depends entirely of the shot what looks best. Practical effect usually looks better, providing it doesn't have to do things that are impossible for such prop to do; if so, then CGI preferably combined with a practical element will look better. There's no catch all solution, and trying to do everything with CGI is why modern stuff often fails compared to movies like T2 and Jurassic Park, when it clearly shows that there could have been a better option than to do everything in post with characters acting against nothing.
the 90s was the best balance of practical effects mixed with minimum CGI. The fact that most computer effects were re-shot back on film too meant it appeared more seamless with the rest of the movie
>>219206982They used a tiny bit of CGI ice falling mixed with a real model ice berg and actual ice on deck, and you can barely even tell
>>219206301>stop motion king kongSOVL kino.>davey jones from the piratesSoulless product.
>>219205921>We send movies off to be rendered in India>This is the result Tell me again what an advanced civilization India is again
>>219205681AI generated practical effects look better.
>>219209252To be fair most plebian normalfags (like this guy >>219205880 ) can't tell the difference between good effects and shit ones, so better get the cheapest option.
>>219205880How can you not tell? Maybe for something really small and unnoticeable it may fly under your radar, but otherwise there’s like zero times I’ve looked at full CG and thought it looked real. Even AI is better at this point
>>219209434Fuck I miss good gore sequences like this
>>219205681>each shooting daynigga it was shot in 2 days because it's a broadway play
>>219209917Do horror movies even have gore anymore or has A24-induced brainrot caused the new generation to abhor gore in horror?
>>219209434The best thing is a good CGI on top of a good practical from the director, who knows what he is doing. But, I gonna agree that all my favorite movies are made before CGI was even a thing.
>>219210811https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3942960/they-will-kill-you-director-kirill-sokolov-fought-to-keep-splatstick-eyeball-scene/do you think this fits your definition of gore?Also I recommend "Suitable flesh", because there is a sex and gore, iirc
>>219206017DEI hiring eliminated actors with blue eyes
Everyone calls stuff like this goofy but have they ever actually made it look any better using CG? And I’ve seen enough webms of people actually being gored to know how often they break apart weirdly in real life.
>>219209252I hear they have the most convenient bathrooms in the world.You're never more than two steps from one
>>219211087They don't even mention it in the articleI feel jipped
>>219205681Yeah, but that would require paying talented artists and craftsmen local to the shoot a fair wage for their work. It's far cheaper to throw an army of jeets at it getting paid next to nothing.
>>219206053literally only Jameron can do an entirely CG movie that actually looks amazing. everything else should be as practical as possible with minimal or no CG. especially marvelslop, and star wars too. marvel could be way more endearing and less soulless if they made any attempt at using practical fx.
