111–119 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try this one? http://www.vfxhq.com/1997/stills/fifth/welcome.jpg It's the wide shot of NYC after they leave the spaceport.
Probably not a good example. That one seems to be very low resolution unless I'm doing something wrong.
I'm just here to share my love for this film. I'm a big movie fan. I've been watching the Fifth Element since high school, and I've only grown to appreciate it more and more as a film as I get older. It's so full of life, creativity, color, humor, and themes we can all relate to (purpose, love, loss, etc). This is peek Bruce Willis, and the movie is filled with other exceptional actors including Gary Oldman and Ian H…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true, you just don't notice the vast majority of effects. You sit down to watch a summer blockbuster, there are 1000 shots that have been altered, pretty much anything that isn't two people talking in a room. The advertising tries to tell you "we did everything practical!", it's always a lie and you believe it.
This comment doesn't respond to what I actually said. I said that heavy-handed CGI tends to read as CGI. You responded by "informing" me that more nuanced CGI is commonplace. Everybody knows that.
Let's forget for a second that "heavy handed cgi" is tautological because it wouldn't look "heavy handed" if it looked real, and forgetting that some things like energy beams have no analogue in real life so are obviously effects.
You said "digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do" and the truth is this isn't true at all, you just don't know that you're seeing digital effects and you think you're looking at photography or something practical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Valerian missed the mark; I'm sure it's got great designs (although I also believe it's mostly CGI), but the story of the movie is disjointed (which is a risk when trying to merge multiple storylines into one) and the actors are lifeless.
I've grown to like Valerian over rewatches, but unfortunately it suffers from Besson being a massive Valerian fanboy and trying to stuff everything he possibly could into it... I think he'd have done far better if he'd gotten a more limited budget, or had to produce three of them for the cost of the one he did...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment doesn't respond to what I actually said. I said that heavy-handed CGI tends to read as CGI. You responded by "informing" me that more nuanced CGI is commonplace. Everybody knows that.
That's not at all what you said in your first comment, this is a total back pedal. Let's forget for a second that "heavy handed cgi" is tautological because it wouldn't look "heavy handed" if it looked real, and forgetting that some things like energy beams have no analogue in real life so are obviously effects. You said "digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do" and the truth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've grown to like Valerian over rewatches, but unfortunately it suffers from Besson being a massive Valerian fanboy and trying to stuff everything he possibly could into it... I think he'd have done far better if he'd gotten a more limited budget, or had to produce three of them for the cost of the one he did...
Impossible job as Valérian and Laureline has 22 volumes :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do. In many cases, especially when used liberally, digital effects still clock as amazing digital effects rather than reality. It can be enjoyable but I don’t see what would move forward other than recognizing cgi isnt the best solution for everything.
This is not true, you just don't notice the vast majority of effects. You sit down to watch a summer blockbuster, there are 1000 shots that have been altered, pretty much anything that isn't two people talking in a room. The advertising tries to tell you "we did everything practical!", it's always a lie and you believe it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not at all what you said in your first comment, this is a total back pedal. Let's forget for a second that "heavy handed cgi" is tautological because it wouldn't look "heavy handed" if it looked real, and forgetting that some things like energy beams have no analogue in real life so are obviously effects. You said "digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do" and the truth…
Not sure if you're misreading what I wrote or arguing in bad faith, but either way I'm done here.
You can throw your hands up, but I think if you could explain why what I'm saying isn't true you would have done that instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true, you just don't notice the vast majority of effects. You sit down to watch a summer blockbuster, there are 1000 shots that have been altered, pretty much anything that isn't two people talking in a room. The advertising tries to tell you "we did everything practical!", it's always a lie and you believe it.
True, but that’s using “effects” in a broader sense than people seem to mean here. The discussion seems to be about the visible effects the audience experiences as effects, and whether those age well, not invisible digital cleanup, compositing, or set extension.
Marketing feeds into this and tells people movies were done all practical or made "heavy use of practical effects" and it's just lies.
This is 5 part series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo
Even before this people were saying stuff like mad max was done "almost all practical" because they saw behind the scenes stuff of flipping a few cars even though the movie is wall to wall digital effects. Sometimes the elaborate "practical effects" don't even move right and are used for reference and completely replaced.