Practical Effects Vs. CGI?

Mainly I don't care. Whatever works so I don't get the "I'm aware" or "thinking how the hell the filmmakers did that" feeling :) I just want to be fully immersed.

CG, when done right is completely seamless since anything can be shown/altered any way the filmmakers want. Even a movie as early as Contact had an insane amount of CG unknown to anyone who hasn't seen the making of. In general coloring, background, weather, sets, crowds, seamless cuts, mixing takes in one, getting rid of artefacts etc etc. can be done very well with CG so that none of us know it's even there.

When people whine at CG, or say they can "always see when CG is involved" it is often the more extreme effects, creature effects/looks, impossible camera movements etc. Simply put (inept) filmmakers often overdo it since there are no boundaries to CG.

Practical effects means they attempt to do less, which can be a good thing, especially for non-masters like Cuaron/Cameron/Spielberg/Fincher/Zemeckis.

I don't care how the sausage is made, and will not pretend to know just from looking. IMO if the effect adds to the story being told in a constructive and unobtrusive (ie. it doesn't "steal the show") manner, then it's good film making. If the effect is used gratuitously, or primarily to show itself off...meh.

I really don't care too much, each technique have it's place. I find your Gollum reference not so good, as i really thing that character could have been done by using practical effects.

A good use of CGI, in my opinion is in Forrest Gump or Planet Terror. The things with missing limbs could not have been done so good without CGI. There are important plot elements in both movies, so the use of CGI is smart. The alternative would have been to use actors with actually missing limbs, but they might not have been that good, and also, it would have been problematic to present them with both feet.
Same goes with Avatar. It would not have had the same impact without CGI, and some scenes would have been impossible to pull out using practical effects.

On the other end, movies like Jaws, The Thing, An American Werewolf in London, Alien (1979), are famous for their usage of practical effects and they are great. A lot of work involved, and it pays out.

I really think movie makers should focus on balancing the two techniques, as there is not so much of an "versus" thing. Both can be used for desired effect.

Practical effects have more weight and tangibility to them and they serve another purpose as well, they give the actors something to react with, which probably make their scenes with the effect in question far more organic when it comes to acting or reacting I guess. There’s a place for CGI when it’s mixed well with practical effects. Jurassic Park comes to mind, there was a great mix of practical effects and CGI in that flick. The CGI wasn’t so noticeable since they danced around the CGI and used practical effects. 

Say it loud! I'm a plebian and proud! 

Practical. I can watch "the battle of hoth" or "battle in mutara nebula" any day of the week compared to todays CGI effects. Even the 1953 version of "War of the Worlds" is awesome to me. & you can even see the strings

Practical has the advantage of really being there--CGI is not real--on the other hand when CGI is done well, it is impossible to spot.
What usually ruins CGI is that it doesn't have weight. or the camera moves in a way no real camera could move (the end of Spider-man 2002).


The dinos in Jurassic Park did have weight because the animators were expert and they also could match it to the life scale mechanical version.
Over time it just got cheaper and quicker--regular animators who come from drawing cartoons cannot animate as well as an expert stop motion animator. Second, to make it even more fast and cheap-they use motion capture. Problem with motion capture is that if the character is 20 feet tall and being portrayed by a 6 foot human the weight will not be correct.
No matter how real the light and texture may be, it will still look off.
Disney Marvel movies have terrible cgi.

I love this topic!! Glad you posted it!

This topic comes up frequently and there are a million opinions of one way vs the other.

PERSONALLY having worked in the field for 29 years now, I feel there is always a perfect marriage of the two mediums as long as its done right.

Both used in the right amounts can give FX with amazing results.

The original Jurassic Park is a prime example of practical and CG working together in fantastic portions.

I love that there are SO many practical FX fans still out there.... thanks for keeping the candle lit!!

Overall I prefer practical effects because for the most part they look better and whatever they're filming is right there in front of the camera, CGI can be a useful tool if done right and the animators and effects people have enough skill to seemingly blend it in with the live action and make it look believable, some companies do it better than others like Industrial Lights and Magic and Weta.