pretty much everything he said about CGI are wrong. like saying it's called "special effects". it's called "visual effects". "special effects" are practical effects.

Wow, absolutely the opposite reaction to me.

I thought Rogue One was a travesty of film making. The characters were bland and underdeveloped, the plot made little sense and the dialogue was awful. The only redeeming aspect were the special / practical effects and art.

I would criticise Force Awakens for treading safe in replicating the plot of A New Hope to a ridiculous degree but the characters had a sense of identity, purpose and relatability. Most of the set pieces (Han Solo, Jakku, Falcon escape) were memorable.

The lightsaber battle definitely suffered from FX over-use. What made the one in Empire Strikes Back compelling is the austere focus of it as a battle of wills. At least this one was less ridiculous than the lava clusterfuck of Revenge of the Sith.

For Kylo Ren, a lot will depend on whether he remains a bland, corrupted villain or develops into a repentant anti-hero. Hopefully they won't follow the Vader/Emperor arc too closely. In any case, he's certainly going to take back seat to Snoke as primary villain.

No, they don't.

Fury Road and The Force Awakens were probably the two most hyped "hey we're doing practical effects" movies of the last year or two and both have a tonne of CGI, it's just hard to see.

Practical effects are great for some stuff, but good CGI allows for things that are simply impossible with practical effects.

Both have their place.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Why-CG-Sucks-Except-It-Doesnt

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Behind-the-Magic-The-Visual-Effects-of-The-Force-Awakens

Yes... coming from a guy who makes his living in computer graphics, please make more models and practical effects!

Honestly, I don't really give a damn about the blood. It simply doesn't matter for me.... if it's there, great, but I certainly didn't sit through the movie thinking "damn if only there was more blood".

And yeah, there was CGI that was cleverly hidden.... so what? That's the point of good CGI. But there was certainly plenty of practical effects.

Agree with your point about American puritanism... what is it with that country that it loses its shit every time they see a nipple.

As for a pale imitation of the original, the first Mad Max benefits greatly from nostalgia and conflating it with the far better Road Warrior movie. As a standalone movie, it's above average, but hardly a classic.

@gorillaman @ChaosEngine

Fast & Furious (which is part 4) was the first step in the right direction as the first in the series to start a transition, although only marginally, out of a fun-but-really-stupid category of action flick. Tokyo Drift was definitely the worst of them. (I'm just hoping the tie-in with part 7 and the return of Lucas Black will somehow make up for its existence; introducing us to Han's back story in Fast Five helped.)

Fast Five was the first good flick on its upswing toward world domination because it was much less dumb, but had a much richer story, better characters, incredible practical effects, a huge, diverse cast, and awesome international settings. This was the first time it was much more kick-ass than pure roll-your-eyes-and-sigh maximum-dumb-shitatude accompanying the action.

Fast & Furious 6 continued to prove they were onto a winning formula and continued that trend. (However, there's a fucking-stupid ~9 minute fight on an airplane WHILE it is driving at near-takeoff speeds on a runway. I did some calculations the last time I watched it and remember thinking they had to be on like a 20-mile-long runway. Come on guys, it's called editing; or at least have some phony excuse for that bullshitestry. But I digress.)

One of the most compelling parts of both parts 5 and 6 were some kick-ass (though of course impossible) practical stunt sequences that may have been the first I've seen as a fully-grown man to earn me a visceral ear-to-ear grin and cause me to unintentionally, audibly say "Holy shit!" in the movie theater.

Can't wait for part 7 and I hope they are able to just keep churning them out, despite the unfortunate loss of Paul Walker because these are some seriously ass-kicking action flicks.

Practical effects FTW.

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sad that the best visual effects are from a decade or more ago.


You may think this is true, but there is still some pretty damn amazing animatronic work being done these days. (some more)

There was no way I'd have guessed that Wink from Hellboy 2 was an animatronic when I saw the film, but then I watched the making of and holy crap, that huge creature is a man in a suit with awesome animatronics.

CG is used a lot these days, but there's still room for awesome practical effects... still room.

>> ^Kreegath:

The way they throw money at a greenscreen to avoid having to actually film stuff. I'm sure the animators are working very hard and are extremely good at what they do, but all impressiveness of a special effect is lost for me when it's computer rendered. They're over relying on green screening to such a ridiculous degree, even in areas where it's completely unnecessary, that it totally breaks my immersion.
Also, I'm pretty sure they could do this scene with practical effects if they at all cared about the art of film making. The physical restrictions of actors and effects were one of the reasons film makers had to be innventive, which did lead to interestingly shot scenes.

I'm sure they'd do it all practically if it were possible, affordable and safe. Not much of this scene is.

The way they throw money at a greenscreen to avoid having to actually film stuff. I'm sure the animators are working very hard and are extremely good at what they do, but all impressiveness of a special effect is lost for me when it's computer rendered. They're over relying on green screening to such a ridiculous degree, even in areas where it's completely unnecessary, that it totally breaks my immersion.
Also, I'm pretty sure they could do this scene with practical effects if they at all cared about the art of film making. The physical restrictions of actors and effects were one of the reasons film makers had to be innventive, which did lead to interestingly shot scenes.

I am not Monday night quarterbacking only because I do something about my culture in my own profession. I don't speak about the changes that need to be done with the exception of practical effects (I promote truth over policy, for example.)

I feel better in my job than if I was in the spotlight where I would only be marginalized. I am not a scientist, so I wouldn't be effective. I don't have the clout that De has, and so policy would not change. But I change policy where I am...

And no, it wasn't an attack. Your perspective was amazing, actually Boise, and I must truly evaluate it. And perhaps apply it. But I will argue that he is not shining the spotlight much at all...

>> ^Boise_Lib:

He hasn't run; have You?
He's doing nothing--he's using his national platform to speak out and tell the truth as he sees it; what are you doing?
Talk about Monday Quarterbacking.
I'm sorry if this seems like an attack on you, but the argument of, "What's he doing about it" is over used and usually not helpful.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^HaricotVert:
Why are there so few (if any) engineers, scientists, and mathematicians involved in politics?
Obviously because we're smart enough to know better. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Kidding aside, his underlying point that the House of Representatives does not actually represent (nor reflect) the American people is spot on. Perhaps it is more indicative of a broken election system designed to keep incumbents in their jobs...

He understands this yet does nothing (From what I know, I am generalizing here) to change it? He is as wrong as the politians he points out as wrong. Also, @Boise_Lib he hasn't run, I believe. So that makes him more of a Monday-night quarterback than anything...
See, for me the sad part is that HE IS RIGHT. But what does he plan to do about it? (And if anyone has information that he is doing something about it, please post. I would be glad to support this man anyway I could.)

I hate over-reliance on CGI. I really appreciate how they used practical effects, location shoots, etc. for the nearground and everything else they could, before touching up with the CGI.

IMO, the best (and most imaginative) practical effects / creature(s) are in John Carpenter's The Thing. Hands down. Rob Bottin really out did himself on that one.

@ Sagemind - WETA is a superior effects company. I find it amusing that Peter Jackson started out baking alien masks in his mum's kitchen oven. Which reminds me, another great prosthetic effects movie is Braindead (aka Dead Alive).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I think there is trickery with the lights. Perhaps the blur you mention is actually because of some kind of deceptive lighting?


He definitely put a lot of effort into the lighting in order to sell the illusion and camouflage any tells, but there are still some giveaways he couldn't conceal.

I won't even entertain the notion that the illusion is accomplished with CGI because it's totally doable and most likely done with practical effects.