These 80s practical effects…

These 80s practical effects…
CGI BTFO

Other urls found in this thread:

8ch.net/1980s/index.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

no that's just what a jew looks like without makeup

Hollywood should bring back squibs. CGI blood is horrible.

This. We all know it's not that damn expensive, Hollywood spends hundreds of millions on movies, they can shell out the cash for some squibs and fake blood.

Think of all the advances we've had in robotics/tech, what kind of weird practical animatronics they could build nowadays.

CGI can be anything and move any way you want it to, but it always looks like CGI. Plus, the limitation practical effects imposed forced directors to be creative, instead of going with the first thing that came to mind.

CGI in general isn't nearly as good as directors think it is. It should be used sparingly and only for things that absolutely can't be done through natural means. All I can think while watching movies now of days is "this looks like a cheap video game" and it kills any sense of immersion I have.

I've had this thought a lot and it's always a depressing one.

Nolan understands this. He said that 'CGI is boring' and uses a lot of practical effects in his movies. For his latest one Dunkirk, he is using an actual decomissioned Naval Destroyer which will be made for use in his movie.

Truly, Bravo to this great man.

Plane Scene wouldn't be such a mastepiece without the clumsy stuntwork.

CG is really good at doing things like energy weapon effects or fluid transformation effects. For everything else it's not great.
The worst damage that CG has done to movies though is what it's done to B movies. Every fucking creature feature has the same damn CGI style monsters. It's a tragedy.

And then when we do get practicals it's done by people with no experience so they don't move right or even move at all.

Krampus is a fine example of this. Everyone screamed how great the practical effects were and they were goddamn awful. It was people wrestling with dolls and CGI on everything that movie beyond a static position.

How come no one's posted Arnie Terminator yet?

CGI blown the btfo out! Eat your heart out lifeless computer effects.

those were no special effects
that's the natural form of the jew

Krampus was fucking garbage. It's only liked by hipsters who like things that are "bad on purpose"

I don't think that's true, because it wasn't celebrated as a B movie, they liked it for what it was. Which is even worse TBH

Interstellar had some superb space effects.

Probably not the ~best~ example, but I still think the effects in Ghostbusters was better than the cg in cisbuaters.

The fuck are you talking about? No one has said it's "so bad it's good" all the praises I've seen are as follows:

-The characters were likable.
-The cast and writing never felt like it was pandering, and felt like movies back in the 80's did when they didn't constantly feel like they were written with an agenda.
-The monster designs were really creative and memorable, particularly the jack in the box worm thing.
-The sound design was great (usually pointing to the scenes where Krampus is jumping from roof to roof)
-It had an unhappy ending, which purists say horror movies need for them to actually be horror.

ITT: reddit tier plebness

You've got some nerve calling anyone else a plebbitor.

Just letting you guys know (without advertising), but I've created a board where this discussion would be right at home; /1980s/ which is dedicated to the discussion of retro and neo-80s shit.

8ch.net/1980s/index.html

… Shit Graphical Interface?

Shit Generated Imagery.

ShitG is enough then, sillly.

Are practical effects superior just for the fact that they are tangible and our brains can sense this?

I was fooled by it at first but upon reconsidering I find there's little merit to the argument that good CG never gets any credit because you don't notice it's there. Yes, some trickery goes completely unnoticed and is therefore proven well done. But there are plenty of things happening in CG-heavy movies like capeshit that you know can't be real so when those things happen in a film you just need to pay attention to details and there you go. Convincing CGI can still be observed as CGI because we know what is and isn't feasible in film production. We know they don't blow up real cruise-ships or real skyscrapers. We know they don't wait for a real meteor to fall from the sky if a script requires one. So there plenty of elements in movie imagery that could look as convincing as they want, we will always absolutely know they are fake. Imo those are the real tests of CGI. Those are the fields where CGI has to prove itself worthy. And imo it hasn't and it's far from doing so.

CGI does a great job at faking things that don't necessarily have to be fake. Like in Titanic, when is the ship CGI and when are we looking at a model? Hard to tell. Most shots are composites of both any way. But traditional miniatures/puppetry/pyrotechnics really pull ahead when it comes to stuff you know at first glance has to be a trick. When you're already looking for flaws you'll find that while traditional effects are never perfect they still show you a real thing and you recognize that, that's why you accept it. The CG alternative is an anomaly, it resembles nothing.

Even CGI explosions fail hard. Instead of a nice fireball it looks like someone scribbled on the screen.

in this day and age cgi is used for more than just effects like a meteor falling from the sky.

like you said, when it's hard to tell if it's real or not (forrest gump playing ping pong) then it's usually received well.

Not remotely true. Only the gun nut guy is remotely likable and that's only after 20 minutes of him being made a joke out of.
Muh right wing conspiracy theories
Muh progressive father and Jewish kid are the good guys
They appear for all of 5 seconds each and don't do shit worth a damn
Maybe it's just my set up but I didn't find it special, if anything I had the usual problem of quiet talking and loud action scenes.

CGI doesn't work when it's too perfect the same way practical effects don't. It's just easier for practical effects to be imperfect.

Can you give a example of a film when "this looks like a cheap video game" has happened, please?

I thought the clumsiness made it look real, not "movie real" but legitimately real.

What's that?

Like Iron Man's hand-cannons?

That was noticeably-fake though.

Can you give examples of films that were written with and without a agenda? How can one tell there is a agenda in the film?

Is there a nigger anywhere near the main cast, or do the main cast frequently meet niggers? If yes the film is agenda-driven.

Pro-tip: The answer is always yes.

what about the thing, or they live? both had black folk in supporting roles with more than a few lines. i can't really get the idea that carpenter was driving an agenda.

No shit fucktard.

...

Not him, but all three of the Hobbit films.
Particularly the third.

Not true. Eddie Murphy was really popular in the 80s, he could carry a movie the same way The Rock can now. Yes 95% of black actors are narrative pushing but there are a handful of good ones.

Murphy's standup was pretty politically incorrect as well. More so now than in that time period but still anti-PC. The thing is, as anti-gay as most of his content was on stage, he is probably just a closeted faggot.

Well, he WAS caught sucking the toes of a tranny in his car.

full retard

also Jurassic World, the Star Wars prequels, and the new Indiana Jones. You can easily tell the actors are walking around and doing their stunts in green screen. It's just zaps all the magic away.