[ SECRET POST #5613 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5613 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[Kinky Boots]


__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 08 secrets from Secret Submission Post #803.
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

[fscom]

03. https://i.imgur.com/LsYibiD.png

[(Anonymous)]

I think it just seems to most people like there's a lot more bad, or at least boring and banal, CGI compared to how much boring or bad practical effects there were.

People can go into arguments about why that is until the cows come home (and I'm sure that at least some of it is survivorship bias) but at the end of the day, that's pretty much the reason that the perception exists: because there's a lot of movies and TV shows where people don't find the CGI work satisfying.

[hey_hey_hey]

That's not from a video game.

[(Anonymous)]

Why would it be? The secret has nothing to do with video games. But if you were wondering, it's from The Scorpion King, an offshoot of The Mummy movies.

[hey_hey_hey]

It was a comment about how the still looks like something from a fucking PS2 game.

[comet_scout]

agreed, when done together they tend to work the best. I guess that bad CGI is more common for being, probably, cheaper and is more noticeable and uncanny. (Also, I think bad CGI is funnier and I enjoy them more than bad practical effects.)

[tabaqui]

I think the main problem with CGI (for me) is that it's gotten easier and cheaper, so it tends to be overused to the point where it doesn't feel like the characters/actors are really immersed in the world (because...they aren't!). At least with (some) practical effects, there was something there, you had that feeling of another character or being or whatever. Now, even the *sets* are mainly CGI for a lot of stuff, and the actors are just wandering around on green-screen flats and stairs and...I dunno. It kinda shows.

(Plus it seems the temptation to make most or all of the action CGI has just gotten *boring*. It's all so samey-same.)

[(Anonymous)]

I always think of how Ian McKellen was driven to tears by acting alone on set in front of a green screen for the Hobbit.

[(Anonymous)]

Same.

[tabaqui]

Sir McKellen is in a class all his own.

[(Anonymous)]

Or how apparently MCU actors don't even always know what movies they're in or who they co-starred with.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like often it's good practical effects that get unfavorably compared to bad CGI. Or good practical effects get unfavorably compared to well-rendered but extremely excessive CGI. And in both those cases, the practical effects very much win.

If there's an issue I have with CGI, it's that it's evidently too easy to over-rely on it. I love that CGI makes so many fantastical things possible, but just because having the ability to do anything is a positive, that doesn't mean your story will benefit from a More And Bigger mentality.

The fact that CGI gets used where practical effects could do the job is a negative, IMO, but the bigger pitfall is, now that unlimited CGI spectacle has become doable for production companies, the amount of CGI that's called for tends to grow into the space it's given, even crowding out more grounded moments that would better serve the overall film. CGI is like an invasive species of flower: delightful in its own right, but obnoxious and problematic when not kept rigorously in check.

[(Anonymous)]

I like that analogy, it is quite apt.

With CGI, they can "show" everything now, from hairs on an arm all the way up to massive planet-sized ships battling each other, and not have to cleverly edit and shoot so that you still get the same impression from practical effects that might be, say, a partial makeup or only the head of the creature because that's the only part made animatronic. It really does affect the story being told and the way it's told.

[(Anonymous)]

1. There's a lot *more* bad CGA, bad practical effects are at least generally used (relatively) sparingly.

2. Practical effects artists are unionized. Computer animation artists aren't. (see also: point 1, you can squeeze a shit-ton of crappy cgi out of underpaid people working killing hours, so you might as well.)

[meadowphoenix]

yes, this was going to be my comment, in that you'd probably see more mixes of both or just a better more equitable use of either if there was a relevant union for the people who work tirelessly on cgi.

[(Anonymous)]

I found the CGI in the third LOTR movie distracting and irritating. But in the first LOTR movie there was a moment with a Nazgul riding a flying monster that was so realistic I swear I saw it breathe.

*The Right Stuff* used practical effects brilliantly, I am always surprised by how well it still holds up. And I was convinced there was no CGI at all in *Master and Commander* until I watched a making-of feature, because it was all so convincing. So yeah, either can be done very well.

[(Anonymous)]

SCORPION KIIIINNNGGG!!!!

LOL that CGI was Awful, but the Rock looked so good in the first movie