Would a movie without CGI work nowadays?

Submitted by GabrielLoschrod t3_z73ehv in movies

Imagine, somewhere, there is a filmmaker who wants to make a science fiction or fantasy movie, but differently from most movies nowadays, he wants it to be old fashioned, in other words, without CGI, only Practical Effects, any kind of practical effect, Animatronics, costumes, Stop Motion, Hand Puppets, anything that is not CGI(or illegal). Would this movie stand nowadays, a time when most movies of this kind use a lot of CGI? How would people react to it? Comment down below what you think of this subject!

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

thenerdwrangler t1_iy4jc4a wrote

I work in the film industry making practical FX and props (I formally worked in digital VFX). CGI isn't as all-invasive as most people think. There's a surprisingly large amount of practical FX that appear to be CG to the general audience. There's also a big push to return to practical FX because of the appeal it has... Especially since the over-saturation of 'epic FX films' in the last few years.

There isn't really a significant cost or time difference between the two either.

In addition ... A lot of what people think is 3D rendered turns out to just be well composited 2D and Film FX

17

GabrielLoschrod OP t1_iy4k2k8 wrote

It's cool to hear(or read in this case) it from someone who really worked on movies, to wich movie did you make the effects?

2

thenerdwrangler t1_iy4kjqg wrote

I was a destruction FX artist on the first Avatar - that was pretty amazing. Lots of FX, animation and comp for smaller and Indy films/TV/music videos.

Practical FX and props is a lot more fun and nerdy.

7

PercySledge t1_iy4gsby wrote

It would absolutely work and has done. Only problem is practical effects usually cost more and take much more hours/manpower.

A quite recent ish example though just bc it comes to mind was the Dark Crystal Netflix reboot series which did very well a few years ago. However that had a lot of money behind it

7

Dottsterisk t1_iy4mj0v wrote

As someone else pointed out, they used a lot of CGI in the new Dark Crystal series.

Can you think of any modern examples with zero CGI? I’m coming up blank.

2

PercySledge t1_iy4r0be wrote

You may be right been ages since I saw it. I think it’s achievable and people honestly don’t care how effects are done as long as it’s done well. The issue is the cost and man hours

1

DrRexMorman t1_iy4h8ei wrote

>Would this movie stand nowadays, a time when most movies of this kind use a lot of CGI?

Sure.

Check out the Discovery, Lapsis, Primer, etc.

7

HEHEHO2022 t1_iy4ptit wrote

this CANNOT be a serious question

7

GabrielLoschrod OP t1_iy4pze6 wrote

This cannot be a serious affirmation about my question

−5

HEHEHO2022 t1_iy4qgwf wrote

there are plenty of films made every year tat fit the description you gave.

3

GabrielLoschrod OP t1_iy4qrst wrote

Yeah, but most of them are Dramas or comedies, most of Sci fi and Fantasy movies nowadays use CGI

−2

BAGStudios t1_iy4uyxr wrote

It’s ignorant to open a toolbox and arbitrarily ignore half of the tools. If you need the tools to get the job done in the most efficient and best-looking way, then use the tools. If the task calls for practical, make it practically. If it would be impractical to make it practically, use CGI. Or, as most things, mix them for the best results.

5

LoveEffective1349 t1_iy4wjyd wrote

budget is the key.
if you spent the money? 2001 has no cgi and it holds up incredibly well.

for instance.. the 80' Thing has no cgi and it is 10000X better than the cgi one.

5

enough-rope t1_iy4h7b4 wrote

Yes, I'd love it if they brought back Fx and Fx 2: The Deadly Art of Illusion style movies.

4

meowskywalker t1_iy4kow5 wrote

It depends on the movie. You can’t do the T-1000 without CG. You cannot. You might get close with stop motion which looks one million times worse, but even then there’s stuff that just wouldn’t work.

I don’t see the difference, personally. You can have CG that’s clearly not real or you can have props and stop motion that’s clearly not real. On Mandalorian CG Luke Skywalker looks fucking fake, but animatronic puppet Kuill also looks fucking fake. We just have to accept the fake looking things one way or the other.

3

thenerdwrangler t1_iy6q97b wrote

Aside from walking out of the flames under the bridge, walking through the prison bars and morphing out of the floor/into the chopper window. the majority of the T-1000 effects were entirely practical. All the bullet hits, being frozen, stabbing Todd in the face, exploding at the end, falling into the molten steel... All practical.

1

nadalcameron t1_iy4goev wrote

When was the last time these Genres didn't use cgi

2

GabrielLoschrod OP t1_iy4h4ct wrote

Bram Stoker's Dracula?

2

thenerdwrangler t1_iy4jql7 wrote

That film used all in-camera FX in the style of early cinema. They approached many FX companies asking if they could do it but most claimed it was impossible to do without Post-production and VFX before they found the one company that would try.

5

GabrielLoschrod OP t1_iy4ls97 wrote

And we can all agree the result was amazing

4

IAmSomnabula t1_iy4tc4m wrote

If only it would had fixed that accent! Still love the movie though.

2

GabrielLoschrod OP t1_iy4vlkz wrote

I think complaining about the accent is kind of pointless, I mean, who do we think we are? speech therapists?

−1

TheMadLurker17 t1_iy94gp1 wrote

Ummm. Fury Road mostly done with practical effects.

2

kenrnfjj t1_iy4ghza wrote

It might be too expensive

1

GabrielLoschrod OP t1_iy4gojj wrote

I did a research and according to what I read Practical Effects are cheaper but harder to do, while CGI is easier but more expensive

0

malapropter t1_iy4ha9q wrote

That's not how money works.

1

LoveEffective1349 t1_iy4vyvn wrote

yes it is. VFX are not cheap. there is a few things they can do that nothing else can...but there's a bunch of stuff that you can do cheaper and quicker "on the day"

1

neoblackdragon t1_iy5dgnq wrote

I think OP's conclusion from the research is too simplistic. It totally depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

Expense for CGI is too broad. You have to look at why it's expensive.

CGI could be the easier and cheaper route over practical or the opposite depending on what you are trying to accomplish and who is working on it.

1

apeinej t1_iy4hgg9 wrote

I guess it was done recently with Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal follow up TV series. It was nothing short of brilliant.

1

Middle_Aged_Mayhem t1_iy4k6rr wrote

Except they used exstensive CGI for that series along with practice effects.

5

apeinej t1_iy4kaci wrote

Did they? Shame on them, thought it was all practical effects.

−6

Middle_Aged_Mayhem t1_iy4kkij wrote

It's not as bad as you think. It compliments the practical effects. https://nerdist.com/article/dark-crystal-age-of-resistance-vfx-reel/

2

apeinej t1_iy4obxg wrote

Tx. I really enjoyed the entire series, and even felt the Kermit walk sometimes (they put the puppet sideways and moved in an awkward way, typical for thi practical effect). Hope they get to make the 2nd season, as it seems Netflix didn't want to make it anymore.

1

Bitter-Raisin9102 t1_iy4xigx wrote

I've never seen this show, but wtf is this mentality? If you thought it was all practical, then didn't they succeed in their job as artists? Why do you feel the need to say "shame on them"....

1

QuoteGiver t1_iy4pl01 wrote

Jason and the Argonauts is there anytime you want to see what that looks like!

It would generally get laughed at by the internet, probably.

1

LoveEffective1349 t1_iy4w4mw wrote

it's amazing. for it's time and place.

4

QuoteGiver t1_iy4x3k6 wrote

Agreed! Growing up that movie was mind-blowing. The visual effects work in movies nowadays would’ve completely melted my sense of reality back then, in the best way!

3

LoveEffective1349 t1_iy4y3ew wrote

some of it would. I for one have never appreciated the "jump to the mark, look back at the CGI malestrom behind you , dodge left and run to nextmark" green screen "action sequence"

2

RyzenRaider t1_iy5dwvr wrote

First, anyone saying that all effects must be practical is just as head scratching as saying that all effects must be CG. Both are highly limiting. There are things CG does very well, such as wire removal. There are ways to obfuscate wires, but there are plenty of older movies where you can see wires being used.

A technology that blurs the line between the two is the volume, made famous by Mandolorian. The environment is rendered in CG to large LED panels, but this provides practical visuals for the actor, and interactive lighting to ensure the actors blend into the scene correctly (as opposed to green screen). No postproduction work is needed. So is this practical because it happens on set and everyone can see it, and no post is required? Or is it CG because it was ultimately generated by a computer?

But if you're looking for films that minimize digital effects, Predestination is a recent scifi movie that fits your bill. There are some effects, but it's just for setting the location (set in New York, but shot in Australia). The sci-fi elements such as time travel are actually done with just simple cuts, rather than any flashy CG lightning, etc.

And in terms of how will it make people feel to see real effects again? Look at Top Gun Maverick. Yes, many of the shots feature CG planes, but you can see the reality of the actors flying low and fast over terrain, the rotating lighting as the plane banks, the g-forces, etc. People loved the shit out of it because it did make the film feel more immersive.

1

jacqueslepagepro t1_iy6dmgp wrote

CGI is a tool, not a style.

Sci-if before CGI tended to be a lot more “grimy and dirty” even Star Wars looks very much like the world is “used” like the droids, vehicles, tools are handed down, or bought on a secondary market (because they literally are), Only the empire is “clean” because they can afford new stuff. Most sci-fi films tend to be set in worlds where people can buy new things, they don’t have to meet shady scrap dealers to buy robots.

Also the Sci-fi we tell ourselves is usually about our present and how we imagine the logical conclusion of what “this moment” will lead to. Star Wars is a very 70s look at how car culture would logically lead to people having strong opinions on someone’s custom space ship (I’m aware that the details of the millennium falcon have been added to over the years but when the film first came out the implication was that Han Solo, built/modified it). The need to know practical mechanics are less important to an average audience now than how their computer software works, so sci-fi is naturally going to use more computer software than practical mechanics as part of the world.

Keep in mind that CGI is often used in the same way Matt painting was used before hand. The tools to get the results have changed. I don’t see cgi leaving us, it’s just part of the language of cinema.

1

r_user6969 t1_iy8frzw wrote

Ez can you cum without your balls

1