Art & Games > ✎ ∙ Art Crafting

CGI and how do you value whats real?

(1/3) > >>

Melooon:
I'm curious about people's opinions of reality!

When it comes to movies these days I find I'm so bored of CGI that I actually get put off when there's a big action scene that I know is entirely simulated by a team of VFX people working in some office with no real risk.

At the same time I'm a big fan of early CGI for the very same reason; I know it's simulated and I understand how radical and difficult it was to create computer images in the 80s, so it has a greater sense of reality for me.

Likewise, with websites, I see a person's hand-coded homepage as being much more "real" than one generated by a service like Squarespace, even if the information on the site is just as interesting.

So perhaps what I define as real, are things that are somehow more effort per individual, more cutting edge, higher risk, or more experimental - reality is usually connected to the idea of truth, do those things make a piece of media truer? I'm not sure about that!

What's your feeling towards the idea of reality in media? Is it important to you and if so/not why?  :dunno:

Fish:
Not the most serious issue when it comes to this topic, but I feel like when movies use CGI too much we loose out on a lot of cool behind the scenes stuff (insert marvel/disney green screen joke)

But with practical effects you get really funny bts stuff like this

Spoilers for Orphan and Orphan: First Kill

Spoiler
Very quick explanation: These movies are about an adult pretending to be a kid played by Isabelle Fuhrman who was a child for the original movie but now as an adult they would obviously need to do some stuff to actually make her seem like a small child.

They had child body doubles and also just had everyone else wearing platform boots which led to this amazing pic



[close]

chimera:
i love practical effects over anything else! i'm a pretty big tokusatsu fan and i love earlier kamen rider and super sentai seasons because of the gratuitous practical effects and "bad" CGI.

i'm not sure if i'd describe it as more real but i do think the practical effects and sloppy CGI make a piece of media more human. hardly ever when i watch newer movies with over done, "perfect", CGI effects do i look deeper into who made those effects, how those effects were made, etc etc. it's hard to care. i feel more engaged with what i watched, even well after i've finished watching.
 
i like the comparison between hand-coded sites and a generated site; whenever i see a hand-coded site that really impresses me i look more into who created it, how it was created, etc. can't say i've ever done the same for a boring "perfect" website generated through squarespace or similar services.

i think maybe it feels more real just due to the imperfect, and we can all recognize we are imperfect! that sort of connection is very important to me. :4u:

larvapuppy:
I think CGI has its place in movies when used mindfully! Practical effects are often more.. practical.. and if 90% of what's on screen is CGI then you might as well go the extra 10% and make it a 3D animated film.

MrsMoe:
I'm a MASSIVE fan of practical effects, so you can probably imagine how bored I am with the current state of visual effects. I have massive respect for CGI artists and I'll never deny that it's a beautiful art form in its own right, but practical effects are so impactful because they're real in almost every sense of the word. Real lighting, real textures, and real contact with the actors. Also, practical effects work the best for horror, and I love stop motion and puppets by extension for their creepy, uncanny aura.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page