The world of movies has never been the same since the introduction of computer generated imagery. Although it has meant that specific movies could be made not possible without them it also has meant that practical effects are used less. The simple reason often is that it is cheaper to create something in the computer instead of building (for example) minitures. Personally I am a big fan of practical effects. I don’t think Alien or The Thing would have been as effective if they had used CG monsters. They look different, just compare the first Star Wars (original) with Phantom Menace and you know what I mean. As a viewer a practical effect like that has a much bigger impact on you. Although practical effects are still used (for example, Pacific Rim did still use it in various shots) in general they are much rarer nowadays. So this week’s question:
Should movies start using more practical effects again?
Short answer: No
Longer answer: The joy of the current age of film making is that people have a choice. They can make something practically or they can use CGI. Each has their advantages and disadvantages, and I don’t believe that one is better than the other.
If you put great practical effects (Alien) up against rubbish CGI (Phantom Menance) then you create a false argument. When you think of CGI we should be quoting Gollum, or Iron Man, or any of the films where you don’t even notice the join.
Ultimately, I think the best film makers will use a combination of techniques to tell the story in the best way.
True, there of course is a range of the quality of both, a very good point, but generally I have the feeling that practical effects are usually more believable. But a good combination can result in awesome results, for example Pacific Rim.
I agree w/ Chris above.
That being said sometimes I do think filmmakers go straight to the CGI effect when the practical effect would work better. TLOR Trilogy is a good example of a great balance between practical and digital effects. “King Kong” is a great example of a poor use of CGI–the dinosaur chasing scene being the one I’m talking about.
Exactly, CGI often seems like the automatic choice for special effect shots and that is something I don’t like.
I’d say yes. Too many times, I spot the CGI. Many of the effects take on an animation quality and takes me right out of the scene, the movie…the whole damn thing. That’s not to say I’m totally against the use of CGI. Not hardly. When used sparingly, or rendered so expertly, it can be awe-inspiring. However, studios seem to be over using this tool and getting away with it, thinking this is what people come in to see. They’d be wrong. I know I come to see spectacle. And practical effects have delivered in the past. They can do so again, and they can be married to CGI in more realistic ways to create the art filmmakers want to bring about.
It never takes me out of the movie, although I do have to say that it makes dangers less, well, dangerous.
I would like to see films rely more on miniatures and such as opposed to CGI. That way, it would make the visual effects look more realistic and probably less expensive. I don’t mind CGI if it is used to great effect and actually does something but it can be quite distracting at times.
I cite the work in The Tree of Life as an example of how to use visual effects in ways where it can be CGI but also make it look as realistic as possible where Terrence Malick brought in Douglas Trumbull to do some of the visual effects as he used more realistic tools to help present some of those visual ideas.
Good miniature work can be so amazing.
Have to agree that it worked in Tree of Life, but if you look at something like 2001…it is even more stunning to see how models were used (or the original Star Wars)
Nice question. I prefer practical effects as well. I feel that much of CGI back even about five or six years ago looks very dated and out of quality. The Phantom Menace, despite all of its digital enhancements, didn’t impress me at all and I didn’t even find all the special effects in Avatar to be impressive. 2001 used practical effects and I think they’ve aged incredibly well. The Tree of Life did as well and for me they looked far better than CGI.
There are movies where the CGI effects are good, like District 9. 2001 is a good example indeed.
I think it’s just whatever works best for the film in terms of its budget and the effect they’re trying to achieve. Some things are pretty much impossible without CGI but sometimes the CGI can make other things look unrealistic, even with the advancements in the technology. I think knowing what’s best for the film is something that sets the best directors apart.
There are moments CGI is the only option of course, but both options should be considered by filmmakers.
I agree that practical effects have a certain charm to them. Although at times when we want as much reality as possible they look a bit shabby and forced, they still hold better in certain conditions and movies. A number of films have only been possible because of the advancements in the effects department which has solely been because of computers. So, I think both should exist in the right amount. Cheers!
Thanks for your 2 cents!
I like when you can’t tell it’s CGI, Rust & Bone (2012) for example. For me, pratical effects are more beautiful on the eye, or maybe I’m just nostalgic, who knows.
I was just watching Quentin Tarantino talking about how he prefers the good old-fashioned car chases, which have no CGI, so he went with that in Death Proof, and used a stunt woman as one of his actresses in the movie. If he couldn’t do it on camera, he wouldn’t do it. Here’s a link to that interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9jfXQZBQA0
Yeah in Rust & Bone it was stunningly used!
Great interview, thanks for sharing that one!