Thread: CGI vs. Practical Effects...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ok...with the recent influx of movies with CGI effects, this has been a pretty hot debate, and one I've found myself getting into more and more, over at IMDb.

So, what do you guys think about the great battle between CGI and practical effects? Do you think that CGI is ruining movies? Do you think its the wave of the future? Do you think it's undeniably fake? Do you think it's more grandiose than practical effects?

Basically...where do you stand?

CGI can be productive where practical cannot work. How do you practically make the Cloverfield Monster. Also, in film like the LOTR series, when massive armies are required to be portrayed, CGI can deliver, whereas practical effects are not feascible.

Also I think that we are reaching the point where CGI is believable and to an extent realistic. It can only be up for CGI from here.

I think it's interesting to see the respect that most everyone here has given to CGI (or "digital effects," whichever suits you. ) even if their deeper feelings differ. On a site like IMDb, which is over-run with movie "snobs" and self-defined "critics," you find that a large margin of members take the purist stance of "CGI is the Devil" (etc.)

Personally, I love CG. I believe it deserves no less respect than any other artform. Even when it's not perfect (because, really, what is?), I can accept it, as long as its a good and necessary attempt.

Take movies like The Incredible Hulk. Many people complain because the Hulk was (almost) entirely CG. So many people say things like "why can't they just use a bodybuilder, and super-impose him into the shot as the Hulk?" I was just kind of wondering how differently people here at DV might see the argument. Heh.

When I watched the Incredible Hulk I was sort of put off with him looking like a cartoon. Then again I sort of criticise things too much, just can't help it really. Then again they could have been going for that look to make it more comic book like.

How ever they couldn't use Lou to play the role in this film, it needed CGI especially with the NY scenes.

P.s I'm not saying it looked bad in this film. I think I just have a scema of what the hulk should look like compared with the 2003 film Hulk.

I think digital effects are a good thing, as long as they aren't used just to be cheaper.

Lord of the Rings was a great example of this. They used a load of prosthetics on actors (real effects) and then for the bigger things that couldn't be feasibly made they used digital effects.