3 ms·

> I think you’re still assuming that practicals could do it all and somehow CG is solely at fault for things you don’t like. I'm really not. Of course sequence

by imiric 4y ago

> I think you’re still assuming that practicals could do it all and somehow CG is solely at fault for things you don’t like. I'm really not. Of course sequences like dinosaurs running, or films like Avatar and LOTR couldn't be done without CGI. There's a reason these films weren't possible before CGI; the technology simply didn't exist to bring the author's vision to life. > In fact, when Jurassic Park came out: the CG elements were the hero’s in the news. Of course. Animatronics were nothing new, while CG of that level and scale was practically unheard of. I would still argue that those films elevated practical effects to another level, which should be equally lauded as the CG work. > It’s ridiculous to say animation isn’t a form of film making. That's not what I'm saying. I don't look down on it, and enjoy many animated feature films. What it is, though, is different to traditional film making, which puts it in a different category of entertainment. The production doesn't involve a physical set, live actors, cameras, makeup artists, and dozens of humans dedicated to capturing live performances. Instead it involves voice actors who mostly work in isolation, an animation director who mostly works with artists, and large teams of designers, animators, editors and technicians who bring the characters to life. > It’s possibly the most pure form of film making. You craft every single detail, and make every single choice along the way. Are you implying that traditional filmmakers don't? How is that constructive? > Are you seriously going to say that Toy Story isn’t film making? Or The Lion King? The little Mermaid? Like I said, not in the traditional sense. My point is that once CGI becomes indistinguishable from reality, and most/all scenes are entirely created by computers, is it a live action movie, or an animation at that point? The line is already blurry today with movies like Avatar, but I still enjoy watching movies that make practical effects a priority, over those that liberally use it in every scene.

dagmx 4y ago
> Are you implying that traditional filmmakers don't? How is that constructive? They don’t at anywhere near the same level of choices involved in animation. That’s just the simple reality of making something that is a simulation. You choose the way light bounces even if it breaks physics. You can’t do that in real world content. You choose silhouettes and shapes that can’t exist in reality. I’m not saying they don’t make changes. But your statement implied that Animation wasn’t filmmaking. It is. One isn’t better or worse than the other. And CGI is already indistinguishable, when we give it both the budget and art direction that is required. It’s been indistinguishable for most non-biological things for a decade now. We can already make completely realistic creatures and in some regards, also humans. Humans are hardest to still do but creatures have had that milestone crossed ages ago. The hurdle is having the time and desire to do so. I think you are going out of your way to segment things, and place them on a ladder. These are all tools to make content. Saying that CG is best when augmenting practicals is just reductive. Especially when you keep bringing up Jurassic Park where the CG elements were largely the stars, and practicals filled in the rest. Practical effects, CG in VFX, full on animated features…they’re all tools for a creative. They can all suck or be amazing. This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally just a construct of marketing that people are fed as a form of virtuoso. The people who actually do the work aren’t concerned with this kind of putting one technique on a pedestal over another. They’re all just tools.
- imiric 4y ago
  I won't drag on this discussion as we both surely have better things to do :), but just one last comment: > This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally just a construct of marketing that people are fed as a form of virtuoso. It's really not. I can have preferences as to which movies I enjoy more, can't I? _For me_, practical effects are just more enjoyable and immersive to watch. When CGI reaches that level of realism—and you're right that in many ways it already has—I would still appreciate the result more if I knew that the effects were done physically, with all the challenges that poses. With the advent of machine learning, CGI is being commoditized to a level where anyone can create high quality visuals. This is great in many ways, but at the same time, it requires a completely different set of skills, with arguably much less effort, and so I'll never appreciate it as much as the product done in traditional ways. You're free to think otherwise, and that's fine as well. :)
  - dagmx 4y ago
    You’re free to an opinion but I just think the foundation of said opinion is shaky. Your latest comment also belies that you don’t particularly understand or appreciate how much work goes into making CGI. It’s not any less of an art form than practical effects. The difference is that it gives a much higher degree of flexibility, but the artistry and technical ability required isn’t diminished in any form.

by imiric 4y ago

dagmx 4y ago

> Are you implying that traditional filmmakers don't? How is that constructive? They don’t at anywhere near the same level of choices involved in animation. That’s just the simple reality of making something that is a simulation. You choose the way light bounces even if it breaks physics. You can’t do that in real world content. You choose silhouettes and shapes that can’t exist in reality. I’m not saying they don’t make changes. But your statement implied that Animation wasn’t filmmaking. It is. One isn’t better or worse than the other. And CGI is already indistinguishable, when we give it both the budget and art direction that is required. It’s been indistinguishable for most non-biological things for a decade now. We can already make completely realistic creatures and in some regards, also humans. Humans are hardest to still do but creatures have had that milestone crossed ages ago. The hurdle is having the time and desire to do so. I think you are going out of your way to segment things, and place them on a ladder. These are all tools to make content. Saying that CG is best when augmenting practicals is just reductive. Especially when you keep bringing up Jurassic Park where the CG elements were largely the stars, and practicals filled in the rest. Practical effects, CG in VFX, full on animated features…they’re all tools for a creative. They can all suck or be amazing. This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally just a construct of marketing that people are fed as a form of virtuoso. The people who actually do the work aren’t concerned with this kind of putting one technique on a pedestal over another. They’re all just tools.

imiric 4y ago
I won't drag on this discussion as we both surely have better things to do :), but just one last comment: > This whole “practical vs CGI” battle is literally just a construct of marketing that people are fed as a form of virtuoso. It's really not. I can have preferences as to which movies I enjoy more, can't I? _For me_, practical effects are just more enjoyable and immersive to watch. When CGI reaches that level of realism—and you're right that in many ways it already has—I would still appreciate the result more if I knew that the effects were done physically, with all the challenges that poses. With the advent of machine learning, CGI is being commoditized to a level where anyone can create high quality visuals. This is great in many ways, but at the same time, it requires a completely different set of skills, with arguably much less effort, and so I'll never appreciate it as much as the product done in traditional ways. You're free to think otherwise, and that's fine as well. :)
- dagmx 4y ago
  You’re free to an opinion but I just think the foundation of said opinion is shaky. Your latest comment also belies that you don’t particularly understand or appreciate how much work goes into making CGI. It’s not any less of an art form than practical effects. The difference is that it gives a much higher degree of flexibility, but the artistry and technical ability required isn’t diminished in any form.