How come audiences don't care for practical fx?

>how come audiences don't care for practical fx?
What makes you say that?

>hurr durr hollywood only does CG
Because it's cheaper and more versatile.

Practical effects are fine for static or low key action. They suck because of the limitations of the materials.
Static shots are perfectly realistic but when a stiff piece of skin doesn't flex or retract it looks like silly putty and plaster. It ruins everything.
Low light, Short fast paced cuts, obscured monsters and things that generally make a movie of poor quality (acording to retarded demo) are just fine. I want a modern werewolf kino with body horror and practical effects that isn't shit...

you are correct

Attached: practical effects.gif (640x335, 2.24M)

I couldn't agree more.
It's the same for cgi - in that you should use the appropriate effect for each scene.
And importantly the lighting should correspond to the effect being used and not just a blanket choice, for lighting or effect type.

are you saying this doesn't look good?

90% of people can't tell the fucking difference, the same 90% don't really give a fuck either way.

Directors and producers dislike practical effects because they can't do edits on the fly.

>he'd rather have muppets that open and close their mouth instead of detailed cgi characters with state of the art lip syncing
>he'd rather have mangy, spastic animatronics instead of realistic CGI animals with advanced fur rendering technology
>he'd rather have greenscreened miniatures superimposed over a painting instead of beautiful, meticulously rendered CGI landscapes
"hurrrr physical iz bettur" is a meme that needs to die
CGI is preferable in every genre except horror b-movies

yup
youtube.com/watch?v=3R8ASn25GLg

youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU

Yes, the prequel was mostly animatronics and prothetics like the original but test audiences fucking hated it so they made it all CG at the last minute. To this day I can’t fathom how fucking braindead that audience must’ve been

And that's just behind the scenes stuff, with good lighting and framing that would look even better, what a fucking waste

Attached: getegtr.webm (931x390, 2.94M)

Literally nothing you’ve said applies to most uses of CG because studios usually have bland art direction and rush their animators to the point where CG just looks average and unspecial. How anyone could say that the CG in The Thing is better than the alternative is beyond me

everything I said dies apply to physical, though
yes not all CGI-heavy movies look good
but those that do look a million times better than practical fx, and those that don't wouldn't even be possible with practical

THe problem with this comparison is people think the practical effect is gone completely. this IS that practical effect with waaay too much cgi added over it.

lighting is everything - it can make or break practical fx effectiveness

youtube.com/watch?v=JONsQiv6Rc4

just look at this fucking shit
look at this fucking ps2 game poly count
the fucking lighting
fucking roger rabbit looked more believable than this shit

Regardless of the effects the prequel would've been shit. If anything this shows the people behind it totally missed what made The Thing so good and only aped things at a surface level... ALMOST AS IF IT'S THE THING ITSELF whoa that's deep man. Fuck...

Why did the Thing reveal itself during this scene anyway when it could have flown to safety and assimilated a lot more people?

If I remember correctly she flagged the helicopter down and they were about to land

i don't know man. a lot of cgi heavy movies look like cartoons to me.

they were about ready to land because MEW had figured out someone was still the thing and flagged the helicopter down. are you stupid or did you not watch the movie?

>It looks great but at the same time it looks fake.
I thought that was part of the charm with these practical effects monstrosities? Or did you think Carpenter's The Thing looked realistic? They looked like puppets there too.

>the thing prequel
wait what? a thing prequel? that's a...thing?
how come i never heard of this?

Attached: 1511044020549.jpg (543x550, 60K)

Attached: 1496064022699.jpg (640x480, 39K)

Only straight people heard of it

One day when the technology is there it'll be an art form once again. Cgi rules for now

are you really sure the prequel is not a super-hot gay garbage movie?

>MEW
I forgot she was in this

At this point it's sometimes pretty difficult to distinguish practical and cg effects. I was excited to hear how much practical fx TFA was using but then I couldn't even fucking tell since the whole movie is so glossed over in production. I honestly couldn't tell what was cg and what wasn't in that movie.

What part was "the pilot" thing from? I don't remember it.

Apparently it was too scary for them.

/thread

Not as gay as the first movie that featured only men and sexy Kurt Russell lol

I honestly don't think that was the case (with this movie at least) so much as it was the usual Corporate self-fulfilling prophecy of "People don't want/like X" just look at the games industry and all these corporate retards shocked that people actually are buying Single player games even though people supposedly"don't want single player games anymore"

Not everyone is autistic like you. Most people don't bother remembering plot details from forgettable shit flicks like that one.

Why are Test Audiences so autistic like there's so many goddamn movies completely ruined cause Test Audience autism

Isn't that the fucking point of a horror movie?

Attached: 1563959469129.jpg (620x827, 310K)

The part where MEW went inside the ship at the end. The reason why you don't remember it? It was covered in CGI cubes and static for literally no reason. You can not see him in the film

Attached: QPDfVC9.jpg (711x301, 23K)

Me too fucking one eyed bitch

>all that work for nothing
I'm mad.

it isn't good, don't bother watching it or acknowledging it exists