Just something in my mind makes these older films seem more real than the newer CGI fests. Sure CGI looks cooler, but it just doesn't seem as real.
shareI'll take hackneyed opinions for 200, Alex.
share90% of CGI looks fake. I'd rather see a practical effect that looks fake and know some effort when into it than crappy CGI by some intern.
shareNo. There are a lot of people about it who will go on and on about old-fashioned "real" effects vs. CGI, but as geeky as I am I can't get worked up about it.
Particularly as CGI is generally better, remember all those old werewolf transformation scenes and the like, where the camera was constantly fading and the subject's head was moving with each fade? You don't get that shit with CGI!
I said SFX not VFX. Replacing explosions, car crashes, and so on with CGI is lame.
shareIt's only lame if it's low-budget and badly done, and a lot of the old effects were low-budget and lame as well.
The people who romanticize the old effects forget how bad the bulk of them were.
And I think you're constantly thinking about VFX when SFX is a real effect, they actually blew cars up in the old days, they actually dropped cars on top of other cars. Do you not understand the difference? VFX is done after the filming, SFX is doing something for real while the actors are playing their roles.
So when there was an explosion in a movie, there was actually an explosion... it wasn't VFX and added in later.
Honey, if you want to ruin the fun of an action movie by telling yourself that the explosions aren't as good as they used to be, you go right ahead.
Just don't try to convince people like me that it matters. A screen explosion is a screen explosion, and yeah - some of the old-fashioned explosions were crap, too. They used to do stuff like make a miniature set, set off a pathetic little squib in slow motion, and try to pass it off as a proper mushroom cloud.
You're the one who is trying to convince people that fake looking explosions and lame ass fake cars being flipped around is better than real explosions and real cars. All I am trying to do is explain that what you keep insisting are worse effects from the past aren't what the thread was about. I've seen CGI being used to replace stuntmen.
They built buildings that they would actually demolish with the stunt doubles on the set. Controlled demolitions, controlled explosions, all expensive now replaced with cheap CGI. You're going to extremes with the idea of city destructions, but the majority of destruction were small buildings which were built life sized and destroyed life size.
I freely admit I'm no conesseiur of car chases!
I also freely admit that I'm being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, just because I heard that "the old special effects were SO much better" crap one too many times last night. And in the spirit of being a contrarian bitch, I'm going to point out that a big factor in a lot of the old chase scenes (foot, horse, car), was obviously speeding up the film. Yeah, they'd film a low-speed chase, speed up the film so it looked like the cars were moving faster, and try to pass off the resulting jerky mess as a high-speed chase! And that's something that CGI has eliminated from modern film!
Seriously, some of you practical effects nerds really overstate how good the old special effects generally were.
Otter, The Howling had the first real-time practical werewolf transformation, much of it based on inflating condoms attached to the actor’s body.
shareYeah, I've seen some of the 80s mask-based werewolf transformations, and they look like plastic with fake fur glued on being manipulated.
Seriously, CGI is better at some things.
An American Werewolf in London had a very convincing werewolf transformation, as well. Vastly better than what we saw in the CGI Werewolf in Paris. Even in the mid 90s when a lot of CGI was clearly not as good, the technology wasn't as far along as it is today obviously, they were using it for things where practical was clearly better. After Jurassic Park, it was like the executives were convinced the public wants CGI, so they were going to give us CGI everything.
The thing is, though, JP actually used a combination of CGI and practical. Spielberg understood it had limitations, which is why JP turned out so well.
Yes. Especially since CGI nowadays is overused and too much in-your-face.
shareYes. CGI has its place, but its overused. The Thing prequel was originally going to use practical, to give it more of a look like the '82 movie, but the suits decided audiences wanted CGI, I guess. The effects looked good, though, based on the clips that were leaked.
shareAbsolutely
shareI agree. Well lit miniatures often look better and more believable than pure CGI.
To be fair CGI is getting better but I just wish they'd be a bit restrained in it's use.
It depends on the context in which it is used. And you've already watched films where cgi was used in more subtle ways, but you didn't notice, b/c it looked real enough for your brain to be fooled.
share