Choose: Practical Effects or CGI?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Do you prefer practical, live action effects in your films or pasted over CGI?

[SodiumChloride]

Do you prefer practical, live action effects in your films or pasted over CGI?

Doesn't matter as long as it's well done.

CGI gets too much hate. Too many people have rose tinted glasses when it comes to practical effects.

[Osoroshii]

Depends on how well it's handled. I've seen some CGI that looks amazing and really believable, and some that looks cartoony as shit and ruins the feel of the movie (SyFy is notorious for using terribad CG in their movies). Likewise, there are some practical effects that are so well done and realistic that they will make your jaw drop and, and others that look like something assembled by a hyperactive monkey fueled by crack and a garbage bin full of random parts.

[Shinzai]

Well done practical effects win for me. John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's Videodrome, alongside things like Labyrinth and Legend just have a feeling that's timeless. There's something disturbing and believable about effectively done practical effects that's hard to deny.

On the flip side, I really appreciate well done CGI. Some of the best landscapes and skies in movies are created with CGI painting or manipulation, where as hand-drawn backgrounds and landscapes always seem too noticeable in older films.

In the end, it comes down to how competent the team handling the effects are. A good combination of practical effects via hand crafted creatures/weapons/clothing/etc, combined with CGI to help animate parts of the objects or give unnatural effects to the designs are what I like to see the most.

[Kraenen]

Usually practical effects for me. They just feel more real, and the CGI is only passable if it's really meticulous (but then something else suffers like shadows) or really obvious (a 3-D cartoon). Gollum/Smeagle was nicely done, but in the back of my mind I was still aware it was CGI, which always presents the risk of taking you out of the movie.

[BloodyAngel12]

Practical effects for most things, The Fly was much better because of them.

CGI for things like Avatar.

[Kaitenx]

I think the combination of both works best. See LoTR!

[Immitis]

Do you prefer practical, live action effects in your films or pasted over CGI?

in my opinion the best are the films that mix both.

both have downsides but when mixed together they tend to make up for the others faults which ends up with a much more realistic effect than either could do on its own

[Feral Camel]

Depends on the situation. My favorite film is Aliens, its now a 28 year old film but I think it still looks great. Same with The Thing, a competent director can make it work.

A CGI cityscape can look fantastic these day, CGI blood splatter shits me though.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

CGI I prefer it. It's one of the things, I don't understand how thye see it looks fake or something.

[Kraenen]

CGI I prefer it. It's one of the things, I don't understand how thye see it looks fake or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZlOn9V_MmE to illustrate some bad CGI

[SodiumChloride]

Usually practical effects for me. They just feel more real, and the CGI is only passable if it's really meticulous (but then something else suffers like shadows) or really obvious (a 3-D cartoon). Gollum/Smeagle was nicely done, but in the back of my mind I was still aware it was CGI, which always presents the risk of taking you out of the movie.

The same can be said for practical effects.

Fake looking rubber masks and prosthetics. Poorly animated stop motion (in addition to the inevitable jerkiness). Badly aligned optically composited shots (in addition to the ever present matte lines). Etc.

[kendro1200]

Do you prefer practical, live action effects in your films or pasted over CGI?

I like a combo of both with heavy emphasis on the practical/live.

Jurassic Park, Alien(s), Predator and Prometheus are my go to's for practical special effects done right. These movies stand the test of time with their effects because they were done well and the rendering that made them will never age.
The LotR trilogy from the early 2000s is a good example of mixing both, but we can see their age showing, even now.
The Hobbit trilogy is an example of leaning too heavily on CGI. I can already see where things are CGI and it takes me out from enjoying the experience. The Hobbit films will not hold up as well as the LotR ten years later. All six of those films will not hold up in ~30 years like Alien(s) has.
Avatar was a great CGI film, and I think they poured enough time into it that it'll hold and still be enjoyable ten or twenty years down the line.

One thing I'd like to note about LotR and the Hobbit films. When I first saw those movies in my adolescence, I didn't know any of the camera/cinematography tricks they used for certain things, like hobbit and dwarf sizes. When I saw behind the scenes footage for how they did it and particularly difficult shots and the ways they worked around to get the shots they needed, I became overly aware of how many close-up face shots are in those films. Now close up face shots bother me and I think about how tall John Rys-Davies actually is when a conversation is going on and cameras keep shooting back between people's faces while they're talking. Not like moving to different upper body parts, nope, just zoom-ins on people's faces. On the other hand, seeing how the dinosaurs were put together and how they did some of those really great shots in Jurassic Park didn't ruin a thing. Same thing with Alien(s).
The point being, yes it's hard work to do things right, but it pays off in the long run. If a magic trick can still be magical even after you know how it is done, then it is a magic trick worth keeping. A magic trick that loses its luster after one knows how it's done is simply a sleight of hand and should be discarded.

[Auxis]

Depends. James Cameron's Avatar looked incredible, but at the same time a lot of old practical puppets n makeup movies are amazing.
Like, I haven't seen the old War of the World, but the newer one doesn't feel menacing at all. I guess it also comes down to too much use of CGI.

And it sort of applies to anime and cartoons too. In this case, I'd honestly prefer that the animation stays 2D (2D is practical to the show) through it all. Digimon season 1's WarGreymon and MetalGarurumon digivolutions were a huge culprit of this IMO, the animation just looks ridiculous (And I'm not just saying that because this is 2014 and that CGI is ancient) and out of place.

I'll choose "Practical" in both cases.

[Kraenen]

The same can be said for practical effects.

Fake looking rubber masks and prosthetics. Poorly animated stop motion (in addition to the inevitable jerkiness). Badly aligned optically composited shots (in addition to the ever present matte lines). Etc.

Agreed, but in the end if both are terrible, even if it's fake looking it still feels more real compared to CGI - I know at least the mask itself is real, whereas the CGI is just a drawing of something.

[SodiumChloride]

Agreed, but in the end if both are terrible, even if it's fake looking it still feels more real compared to CGI - I know at least the mask itself is real, whereas the CGI is just a drawing of something.

But it's not suppose to be a mask ... It's suppose to convince you of what it's portraying.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZlOn9V_MmE to illustrate some bad CGI

That last is just stupid(As in they must be on a different planet to think those are bad CGI effects).

[Lightwysh]

Both IMO, practical when it makes sense and cgi to enhance it.

[Torgent]

Usually practical effects for me. They just feel more real, and the CGI is only passable if it's really meticulous (but then something else suffers like shadows) or really obvious (a 3-D cartoon). Gollum/Smeagle was nicely done, but in the back of my mind I was still aware it was CGI, which always presents the risk of taking you out of the movie.

If Gollum was ruined for you because you knew it was CGI, then every movie ever would be ruined for you because you will always know that it's CGI. Enjoy the movie experience for what it is, and not because it isn't real life.

[gonterf]

Ultimately, well done CGI should be indistinguishable from physical effects, but is capable of doing more at lower cost. Our technology may not be at that point, yet, but in the end CGI's ultimate victory is inevitable.