case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-07-13 06:40 pm

[ SECRET POST #3844 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3844 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.































Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 22 secrets from Secret Submission Post #550.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
kaijinscendre: (Default)

[personal profile] kaijinscendre 2017-07-13 10:49 pm (UTC)(link)
This is the secret version of this video.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-13 11:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Wow that's a great video, with excellent points! Especially the "Bad CG sticks out and looks like crap. Good CG blends into and serves the story so well that you don't notice it's there."

Having said that, I do think that the practical SFX that Miller used in MM:FR added a special something -- if for no other reason than I knew that it WASN'T CG.
cbrachyrhynchos: (Default)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2017-07-14 12:55 am (UTC)(link)
Miller used CG, because let's be clear, you can't successfully mic an interior car scene and do stunts with it.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-07-14 01:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-07-14 02:16 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2017-07-13 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Personally, I think movies do best with an intelligent mix of both practical effects and CGI. While I haven't seen the same assertions you're talking about (i.e. practical effects are inherently superior), I think a lot of the criticism of CGI has a good point. It can be overused, and used badly, which is a shame because we clearly have the technology to do a good job. When that happens, it's the opposite of immersive because it screams "fake".

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 12:06 am (UTC)(link)
I agree with everything in this comment.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 01:39 am (UTC)(link)
Agreed. CGI can be beautiful but there is a tendency to overuse it and things stop feeling like they are the real world (and even in a fantasy film, you still want things to feel a certain amount of "real" just to help people relate and get into the story.)

Practical effects can help ground a film and it helps with the tendency to overuse cgi. I think a lot of modern directors could afford to be more creative and look at how older films solved problems because there are a lot of older films that used their limitations in effects to their advantage and made some amazing work as a result.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-13 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)
CGI effects tend to not stand up to time where practical effects tend to more often than not.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-13 11:23 pm (UTC)(link)
except in TV shows, I think.

The CG vampire dustings have held up. The monsters in rubber suits, not so much :p

(Anonymous) 2017-07-13 11:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree. Forbidden Planet is 60 years old and it looks fucking flawless.

Even when practical effects don't hold up, you can always just say "Lol, old effects!" I have a soft spot for stop action and obvious models and other old-style effects. I can just let it go when they look bad. I have never been able to feel that way about CG that has aged badly (or was bad to begin with). It just makes me cringe.
ninety6tears: (sw)

[personal profile] ninety6tears 2017-07-14 12:04 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, an outdated but nicely designed practical effect can have charm, and fit within the general look of a film even if it doesn't look real. Outdated CG is just "...Well, you tried."

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 01:54 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah I tend to find even really big budget cgi movies where everyone praised the animation at the time only have a limited shelf life where they remain impressive where good practical effects can be fun to watch for years and years.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 02:42 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think this is necessarily true. A lot of practical effects weren't great in the first place (early Doctor Who, anyone? Or you know, most of the movies that appear in MST3K?) and some CGI does stand the test of time (LOTR trilogy!), so you can't really make a sweeping generalization that one is timeless and the other isn't.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 03:08 am (UTC)(link)
DA I agree that sweeping generalizations are bad but comment op didn't say it's true all the time, just more often then not (which may also not be true but I can't say for sure either way.)

I also would argue that LOTR didn't hold up all that well, a lot of the cg doesn't look that great by modern standards. It looks better then the Hobbit, but you what's funny about that? LOTR used sets/makeup and camera tricks more then the Hobbit did, and the Hobbit relied so heavily on cgi that it ended up looking worse then films set in the same universe that came much earlier.

I mean yeah there's definitely bad practical effects (though personally I think even bad practical effects can have their charm) but I think if you compared on an even level, like say compare a multi million dollar movie that used all cgi versus a multi million dollar movie that used all practical effects, chances are the practical effects would hold up longer.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-07-14 03:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-07-14 04:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-07-14 04:32 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2017-07-13 11:54 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't find CGI (especially the CGI in the Marvel movies) to make movies more immersive at all. CGI can be used sparingly to good effect, but the way it's used today usually makes movies look flat, generic, and lifeless.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 02:44 am (UTC)(link)
I agree. Used wisely and sparingly, a little CGI is fantastic. But I think a lot of movies rely on it too much. It's like looking at a really incredible painting where you can admire the artist's skill and eye for detail, but there's no way you're mistaking it for real life.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 03:18 am (UTC)(link)
Same. Honestly cgi often takes me out of a movie because I start noticing things about the animation and I stop thinking about the story and the characters. "Lifeless" is definitely a good word for it because I stop feeling like there is any life in the story.

It reminds me how I don't like a lot of modern horror movies with ghosts because they've come to rely very heavily on cgi and I just can't for the life of me find a cgi ghost scary. Part of my brain will always just know how fake it is, but for some reason if you utilize cgi less then I can get into it.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-07-14 08:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-07-14 17:02 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 04:40 am (UTC)(link)
Marvel is actually a great example of really lifeless fake looking CGI, honestly. Especially Spiderman. When the trailers came out for the first one, I remember how fake and stupid it looked with the camera flying all around a really plasticky looking Spiderman as he darted around the city.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 12:02 am (UTC)(link)
CGI makes shitty, lazy filmmaking way easier but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it /thread
ketita: (Default)

[personal profile] ketita 2017-07-14 12:17 am (UTC)(link)
My issue with CGI is that I think the glut of options makes directors/filmmakers go for the spectacle rather than thinking through what's happening on screen. Too often I just find myself bored by films with a ton of CGI, because they replace clever and creative scenes with flickering images and whatnot. It kind of stops having meaning for me.
I think that sometimes when people are forced to work within certain limitations it leads to more creativity in solving the problem, and that makes for more interesting movie scenes.
nightscale: Starbolt (Marvel: Falcon)

[personal profile] nightscale 2017-07-14 12:22 am (UTC)(link)
I personally prefer a mix, some things are just easier to do with CGI(scenery, crowds and backgrounds for example) but when it comes to characters a blend of the two I think holds up better over time. And in some cases fully GGI characters can look a bit too obviously fake next to actual actors.

But really for me it depends on how they're used.
cbrachyrhynchos: (Default)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2017-07-14 12:53 am (UTC)(link)
Hint, even physical effects movies like Mad Max: Fury Road made heavy use of CGI compositing to make the performance work.
tabaqui: (Default)

[personal profile] tabaqui 2017-07-14 01:04 am (UTC)(link)
I love CGI for things we just don't have - like spaceships and Ironman flying all over and things like that.

I *hate* CGI when it's everywhere and everything and in your face super-hard core. Then i just start to hate it. But good CGI can totally make a movie, and even 'old' CGI doesn't bother me. It is what it is, and if i like the movie enough, I don't care.

I like good practical effects better than good CGI.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 04:53 am (UTC)(link)
But they both have their place. There are some things you can't do with practical effects, and I think there are some things you shouldn't do with CGI. I think have someone who is really good at make-up and you can use it, you should.

I think that sometimes filmmakers are so caught up in how expensive or how amazing they think an effect (either practical or CGI) is that they don't do as much work as they should to disguise that it's an effect - they want it to stand out.

I often find with CGI, longer sequences sort of bother me because the longer the sequence goes on, the more I see it as CGI - I think judicious intercutting can be a very good tool to alleviate this.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-14 05:44 pm (UTC)(link)
I know some people are being stupid and irrational in their assertions that the old method is better, but I feel that at least some of them (perhaps a minority) are peeved at what I would call the mis-application of tools. CGI and practical effects are essentially tools to create the image you want, and it's super situational.

CGI can definitely do a lot of things that PE cannot, but I see the former as like using some advanced tool like a lathe- it's expensive and easy to mess up, so it had better be something that cannot be accomplished with more commonly understood tools.

There is also the fact that there is some give and take when switching from an old art tool to a new one. You end up with a ton of novel capabilities with the new tool, but it doesn't have the acquired history of tricks developed by people experimenting with the older method. So once again you get a situation where the choice that works best depends on what you are trying to do.

I feel like the CGI vs PE argument is a lot of people using, metaphorically, a lathe for something a file could do with less effort and the same amount of error. I think the best tool to use is a more complex decision than just getting the fanciest machine possible; it depends entirely on what you want to do.

I do not mean to argue with you, I definitely agree that a lot of people are just conservative, and that there is a TON CG can do that PE cannot, but it's just an exciting subject for me because I think about the pros and cons of art tools a lot :D Perhaps I should have used the metaphor of using photoshop for something that watercolors can do far more easily.