> The most memorable shots in that film are CG. I know it used CGI in some shots, but I disagree that these were the most memorable. Close-ups of the T-Rex, th

> The most memorable shots in that film are CG. I know it used CGI in some shots, but I disagree that these were the most memorable. Close-ups of the T-Rex, the creeping raptors in the kitchen, the sick Triceratops, the expanding neck frill of the Dilophosaurus, etc. These were the most tense and impressive shots IMO, and all were practical (even though they were historically innacurate). CGI was used mostly for wide shots that needed to show movement, which wasn't practical or sometimes even possible with animatronics. > I also contest your assertion that the results are more impressive than todays CGI. That’s some rose tinted nostalgia, but there’s no way to replicate some of the advanced motion and realism like the latest Planet of the Apes or Avatar with animatronics. I don't disagree that nostalgia is a big part of it, and the fact that back then these were truly ground-breaking shots we hadn't seen before. Each film did things slightly differently, and VFX weren't as accessible as today. Still, there's something raw and, well, real about an actual physical entity that actors interact with. The lighting and physical properties are always correct, and assuming the makeup and robotics are state of the art, it really can trick our brains into believing these are real objects much more than CGI could. For example, take the sick Triceratops scene[1], and compare it to 2015's Jurassic World[2]. Sure, the CGI versions are more life-like, but they look completely fake. The lighting and shading is off, the interactions with the real world is limited and unrealistic, etc. In contrast, the scene from 1993 still looks impressive today, even though the movement is limited, and it arguably looks a bit stiff. State of the art CGI today is much better, though[3], but still slightly off in a few places. This can possibly be blamed on "bad" CGI, but I'd argue most usage in movies falls into this category. Even the creatures in this new Avatar, while incredibly detailed and life-like, look artificial, and like they don't belong in the world around them (which is, ironically, also CG). It looks like an animated, instead of a traditionally shot, film. Which doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable, it's just a different experience. For me, it crucially lacks the awe-inspiring moments that films with practical effects often have. I realize that most of these shots couldn't be possible with practical effects anyway, but I appreciate when directors make an effort in using mostly practical effects, instead of defaulting to doing everything with CGI. As another example, consider All Quiet on The Western Front[4]. According to the VFX lead: > The overall VFX mantra was to allow the footage from principal photography to serve as the primary material for compositing, as opposed to creating CG elements in VFX to augment the scenes. “I believe that adds to the visceral, immersive quality of the film,” Frank Petzold explains. “So in other words when, say, there was an explosion scene, we did not entirely rely on CG models.” Rather, the team used photographic elements as the primary foundation, implementing CG simulations to augment principal photography. The effect was naturalistic, and the integration aimed to be seamless. I think this is the right approach to take, and the film is much more immersive and enjoyable because of it. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYm7xeg27Rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYm7xeg27Rw [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CJL7rKJI18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CJL7rKJI18 [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le0iiWwdeeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le0iiWwdeeE [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8EYbVxtCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8EYbVxtCY [5]: https://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-vfx/ https://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/all-quiet-on-the-western-...