Discuss Practical Effects VS CGI effects: Which is better and Why?

[joebiwan]

With all the discussions bouncing around regarding CGI vs Practical effects I thought it would be fun and interesting to have a thread dedicated to that topic.

My idea here is to have a thread with both sides weighing in here.

Topics could include:

1) Weigh the pros and cons of each method in regards to film making (including but not limited to the actors ability to perform against something ie Practical or nothing ie CGI)

2) Why to some CGI isn't considered artistic (which is beyond me!) when compared to creating an effect by hand in real materials (which if you ask me is akin to calling a painter a "hack" and a sculptor an "artist").

3) Why it is such a "sin" to rely on CGI but okay to rely heavily on Practical effects or Vice Versa.

4) Comparisons to support your opinions on where certain Practical effects look better than CGI would have.

5) Comparisons to support your opinions on where certain CGI effects look better than Practical effect would have.

6) Man in the Suit vs CGI Creation: Which looks more real and which looks just plain fake.

7) Movies that could have done it all Practical but went CGI instead or Vice Versa.

8) Movies that had a perfect balance of both techniques.

I am sure there are other areas to discuss, these are just a few that I could think off.

I will begin with the obvious film series to rely on CGI to bring its world to life but do it perfectly and this is one of the most beloved film franchises of this modern film era. The six movies in the Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit trilogy. There is no denying these films look absolutely beautiful and there also there is no denying that there is no way these films could have been AND made in the short amount of time they had been made had they not relied on CGI. Gollum is a living breathing character that would have been impossible to create using a man in the suit method or even a puppet. Are there any CGI haters that love these movies despite all the CGI?

Godzilla (2014) is another film that comes to mind. I don't think todays audiences would have come out of the theater all that impressed if the new version of Godzilla had men running around in rubber costumes fighting it out over miniature built cities. The film would have been laughed at and lampooned for it's lousy effects. Are there any Man in the Suit lovers that didn't like the movie because Godzilla was made using a computer?

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I think this in in the wrong section

 

[Lejuan]

Visual FX is a tool that services storytelling. When the story is told well I don't care what tool is used.

 

[fosing]

it still feels like i'm doing someone's homework though.

 

[Lejuan]

it still feels like i'm doing someone's homework though.

 

[thecapn]

Visual FX is a tool that services storytelling. When the story is told well I don't care what tool is used.

This, essentially.

You can discuss it until the cows come home, but here's the end of it - if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. There was a time when everyone was doing all-digital SFX, no practical...and the digital SFX just weren't up to par. But we're at a point now where you can look at practical effects that are amazing, and digital SFX that's amazing, and as long as it's done well, it's seamless.

I do argue with you on LOTR/The Hobbit, though. What made LOTR great was that it mixed CGI with practical effects. You mention Gollum, an all-digital creation, but remember there was also a live-action Andy Serkis acting out the scenes on-set, which made it so much more realistic (and set a precedent still followed for digital characters). There was also a great deal of practical effects, when you consider the ways they did scale with forced perspective and little folk for Hobbits and dwarves, a lot of the battles, and how many of the creatures were "real" people rather than just digital. The Hobbit, though, went way more CGI than practical, and it shows in some scenes.

I think the best bet in filmmaking (in my humble opinion) is a balance between the two, and it takes a REALLY talented SFX overseer to know when practical will work better than CGI and vice versa. Rule of thumb: If you can make it believable in practical (maybe, with some CGI tweaks), then do it practical. If not, do it CGI. Use CGI to expand practical if possible.

Oh, and there is of course the exception when you're not even TRYING to look real, but create an atmospheric feel - along the lines of Zach Snyder films, Sin City or Scott Pilgrim, which is another being all on it's own.

 

[darthviper107]

Whichever method gives the desired result better.

The issue with effects in general is that not every director pays as much attention to them, and they don't care as much if something is done correctly. The worst thing I think is done with CGI when they use camera angles and moves that are super impossible, it always proves it's fake and doesn't add anything.

But there are limitations to both, certain things that practical effects do better and cheaper that CGI can't do, and things CGI can do better and cheaper that practical effects can't do. I don't think one should be used over the other just out of principle, like with Episode 7, they've said that they're using more practical effects and lots of people think that means that they're going to use them as much as they can--that's false, they'll use whatever's cheaper to get the most realistic result. I think the only difference is that they will be choosing locations that can be filmed more as-is without bluescreen.

 

[joebiwan]

What sparked me to make this thread was that I watched From Star Wars to Jedi: The Making of a Saga the other day and it was an amazing look at how those first three films were created and I watched it thinking in terms of contrast to the prequel trilogy. Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi for example is an incredible example of a practical effect that the actors could interact with and it was a man (men) in a suit and I prefer that over the new CGI Jabba. However - I find myself liking the new CGI Yoda that replaced the puppet in The Phantom Menace WAY more than the puppet that they had used originally.

 

[wavestuff]

practical effects tend to have a greater feel of realism to me.

cg effects on the other hand have become over utilized as well as done poorly so they don't have quite the same effect because. the excuse many times for utlizing cg is cost effectiveness but it ends up being just as pricey.

we've come a long way where cg effects but i still think we have a ways to go.

i like the approach from the likes of spilberg on jurassic park and del toro on hellboy where they utilize both mediums.

 

[The Ween]

I honestly don't care anymore because there's room for both. Whatever fits the purpose better and still looks good. There's plus and cons to both.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

I honestly don't care anymore because there's room for both. Whatever fits the purpose better and still looks good. There's plus and cons to both.

This.

 

[a-dev]

One of my problems with CGI is that it makes writers and storyboarders go too far with OTT crap that they know they can do with CG where they couldn't do it with real people, real vehicles and stunts.

Take for example that part in the Terminator Genisys trailer where Arnie jumps out of a helicopter and skydives head first into the rotor blades of another helicopter. Now of course they're going to do that with CGI, so you'll know it's CGI when you're seeing it. Is that the fault of CGI? Probably not but the scene itself is going to be ridiculous and excessive. Not helped by the fact that you're seeing a 67 year old Arnold Schwarzenegger doing it, something that exceeds anything his younger and 'more capable' self ever did in previous films. It just doesn't add up and feels really inconsistent.

The point is - just because you can do something because CGI enables it, doesn't mean you should do it. If you're escalating things to a point where only CGI can possibly allow you to do it, filmmakers should maybe question whether they're going too far, where they might aswell be making a cartoon rather than a live-action film.

 

[Lejuan]

I have no intention of ever watching the 2nd and 3rd instalments of The Hobbit. Sorry Peter, I'm done with the massive CGI crowd battles and the sweeping overhead shots that punch the viewer in the face with just how massive they are. And tbh, I think you are too.