[ SECRET POST #5112 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5112 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 39 secrets from Secret Submission Post #732.
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.

Comments

Re: CGI or traditional effects?

[(Anonymous)]

It depends on what they're being used for. If the actors have to interact with the effect, then either traditional or a combination of the two. Most actors still have trouble with treating CG like it's physically there. Quality CG "costuming" is usually more effective, particularly if the final product is supposed to move fluidly, but only if they stay mostly away from the eyes and mouth. Full CGI characters are almost always at least slightly Uncanny Valley in a way that puppetry only manages to be if you have a phobia.

And if the choice is between cheap practical effects and cheap CG, practical all the way. Given the choice of watching two hours of community theater or two hours of 15-year-old video game cut-scenes, I'll take the local production of Little Shop of Horrors, please.