Author Topic: Computer graphics vs practical effects  (Read 6941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hashbaz

  • Grand Ancient One
  • * Moderator Emeritus
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 5057
  • Location: SF Bae Area
Re: Computer graphics vs practical effects
« Reply #50 on: Thu, 02 October 2014, 12:38:29 »
There was an off-topic discussion in a thread about movies, which was the impetus for this thread.  It's in the OP.

Offline paicrai

  • Actually a Jane Austen novel
  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 470
  • Location: sun stuff
  • mindblank
Re: Computer graphics vs practical effects
« Reply #51 on: Fri, 03 October 2014, 09:32:34 »
practical if done right
THE FEMINIST ILLUMINATI

I will literally **** you raw paicrai, I hope you're legal by the time I meet you.
👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀 good **** go౦ԁ ****👌 thats ✔ some good👌👌**** right👌👌th 👌 ere👌👌👌 right✔there ✔✔if i do ƽaү so my self 💯  i say so 💯  thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷМ💯 👌👌 👌НO0ОଠOOOOOОଠଠOoooᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒ👌 👌👌 👌 💯 👌 👀 👀 👀 👌👌Good ****

Offline DWawa

  • Posts: 34
Re: Computer graphics vs practical effects
« Reply #52 on: Sun, 12 October 2014, 05:56:56 »
For a mere civilian like me, CGI is great at manipulating backgrounds, as the Hamptons party scene in "The Wolf of Wall Street,"  but it still does movement unconvincingly. Like product placement, it takes me out of the movie. And yet I loved the fakery of the bird-stealing-a-baby video and other video hoaxes.

On the other hand, puppet Yoda was not exactly an Oscar-winning practical effect.

On the other other hand, Ray Harryhausen. The fakeness of his technique makes it look somehow more believable.