It might be too expensive

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

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

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

Bram Stoker's Dracula?

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

>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.

That's not how money works.

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

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

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.

I'm pretty sure there are movies made today without CGI.

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?

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

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

What about cgi like with benhur

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.

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

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.

Watch Old Henry

And we can all agree the result was amazing

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.

Like with what?

Yeah, but probably most of them are not Sci fi or Fantasy

> Shame on them

You people are so weird.

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.

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.

this CANNOT be a serious question

This cannot be a serious affirmation about my question

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

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

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

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

you can find sci fi and fantasy and horror ones that only use practical

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.

Can you give me an example?

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

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"

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

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.

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!

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"....

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"

Barbarian / Mad God

[deleted]

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.

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.

People loved Dark Crystal Age of Resistance

How old fashion are you talking like what time period

70s, 80s, 90s before Jurassic Park?

I would 100% watch but I was born in 74

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.

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.

Tarantino is still making films

Ez can you cum without your balls

Ummm. Fury Road mostly done with practical effects.