[ SECRET POST #5678 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5678 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #813.
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]

04. https://i.imgur.com/AMIL5VM.png

[(Anonymous)]

Good practical effects always agebetter than CGI.

[(Anonymous)]

I am reminded of this every time I watch The Right Stuff. Such great effects.

[(Anonymous)]

Bruce!

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't seen that movie since I was a little kid, but it terrified me so much that for years afterward I refused to enter water that was above my knees. Even the deep end of swimming pools made me anxious.

[feotakahari]

That was mostly from NOT showing the “great white turd,” as Spielberg called it.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, but I don't think that's unrelated to CGI vs practical effects, though.

With practical effects, any good filmmaker is concretely aware of the problems with their effects. They know how much good effects cost and they know that ultimately there's only so much that practical effects can do, and so they have to shoot around the limitations of the effect. There's a basic sense that the staging and direction of the effect, and its use in the movie, is as important as the effect itself.

With CGI, there's a huge temptation to just assume that none of that stuff matters because CGI can just solve everything. Even otherwise very good filmmakers seem to run into this problem. CGI is such a powerful tool that filmmakers overrate its actual effectiveness. They don't think so much about how to use it, they just solve problems by throwing more CGI at it.

[(Anonymous)]

A bad animatronic just looks like a clunky effect, but bad CGI can plunge you straight into the uncanny valley. It is easier to look past the former than the latter.

[feotakahari]

Spielberg credited his editor on that front. He fell prey to the sunk cost fallacy, wanting to use more shark footage because it took so much time and effort to get the prop to cooperate. She was the one who told him when the footage sucked and he needed to take it out.

(The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing is a really fun documentary.)

[kallanda_lee]

Animatronics are best.

CGI sharks do suck.

[(Anonymous)]

But beyond the animatronics, the footage of actual sharks filmed by Rod and Valerie Taylor was also a boon to the movie.

[(Anonymous)]

The balance of practical effects and CGI in the first Lord of the Rings movie was perfect, I think.

[(Anonymous)]

True, very true. Most things are un-CGIable imo, but anything aquatic is definitely top of the list.
I watched some stupid oceanographer show/special/idk what it was tbh, and while diving in the British Channel or somewhere around there they threw like five different shots of CGI dolphins swimming around to take up screentime/idk encourage tourism/some random reason.

They were pretty well rendered tbh, but it's pretty much impossible to mimic water reflection and realistic buoyancy I find. I ended up watching a full twenty minutes of it just trying to figure out wtf they though that was a good idea.

[feotakahari]

Reminds me of The Incredibles. They tried to animate an underwater scene, and they had to cut it because they could NOT pull it off.

[(Anonymous)]

aryt

Cool, I never knew that! From what I understand, it's the reflection that's especially hard to pull off. The angle of the sun and how the rays move against both the current and objects in the water is extremely hard to duplicate. The fact everything is shaped so organically too, no hard lines or angles, makes it incredibly taxing for the computers itself to process.
It'd be amazing if they could have somehow pulled that off though, The Incredibles had great graphics considering when it was made, and a scene like that would have been great to see!