Practical Effects

So, Paeter has talked a lot about how he prefers practical effects rather than total CGI effects. So I saw these two videos recently, and it seems that effort is being made to do practical effects but in the end are much more underused than they should be.

Paeter, these videos may make you sad. Watch at your own risk.

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/164351-video-proof-adi-created-practical-creatures-for-the-thing

and

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/169063-watch-sam-raimis-original-green-goblin-fx-test

><>

That alternate green goblin is terrifying!

I thought both videos were cool! And I thought the CGI in The Thing was pretty good, especially since it was often blended with practical effects, rather than doing all the heavy lifting.

That screen test with the Green Goblin looked a lot more like he did in the comics than what they actually ended up using. (sorry about commenting on somthing so old but I think the Green Goblin is one of the coolest villains ever!)

After getting The Thing on blu-ray I gained some sympathy and appreciation for the filmmakers. They wanted to do MUCH more of the effects practically, but the nature of the business today demands lightning fast turnaround times compared to when John Carpenter's movie was made. (Carpenter had over a year of pre-production, the new film had three months.)

So it appears that CG often dominates movie effects not because all movie makers really think it looks better, but because it is a lot faster.

(Sigh) We used to eat succulent slow-roasted feasts and now we're stuck with quick and easy McDonald's.

Somewhere (maybe here) I've seen someone's sig line as "You can have it cheap, fast and easy. Pick two."