I agree! Having guys in mo cap suits to be covered with CGI characters is better than nothing there at all. Having sets and tangible objects gives a basis of realism, whereas nothing at all feels hollow. Even Dune 2 had practical effects, Paul riding the sand worm was “real” with enhancements. CGI can do great things, but environments and sets should still be made IMO where possible
I love this perspective, and agree that if its all 100% blue and green screens then it isn't conducive for actors and sets (anymore) to use them without a good need/purpose. But then again, I think that the scale of movies like Dune are entirely reliant on VFX and good CGI to meet the audiences standards. Basically, just because it was filmed on set practically has no influence on whether what you see on screen in the final movie is actually practical at all anymore. But nobody notices that stuff because it still feels real. Physical sets on the ground are a great thing tho, and I agree that the Lord of the Rings does very very well, but there are still things that were done practically just because of the restraints of the time that pull me out of the movie for just a few seconds. I think marvel movies have entirely polluted the worlds perspective of what is and isn't good CGI and practical. Comparing old star wars prequels is unfair given that was literal pioneering in the sense that was the first time anyone had really used a digital Sony cine cam, or greenscreens and more. Without George and Ewan and Hayden struggling through acting against bluescreens, we wouldn't even be having these debates about VFX and practical. Excluding stupid companies like disney that try to fit 10 movies productions into three years time to crank cash, rushed vfx and bad management, we still see other great examples how important loads of CGI and VFX are in our modern movies. I agree that if it can be done entirely in practical then its even better in terms of realism and the grungy feel of real physics, actors and light at work. But they base most effects with something practical to give the actors on set to react to as well as a good base to help mix in the VFX more believably, but I believe Dune, Blade Runner 2049, 1917, Red Notice, Top-Gun, etc are all an excellent example of using practical set pieces is only like 10-25% of the work visually. I think its imperative to start with physical sets because it both informs how to setup theVFX so it blends better than if it were all CGI with no references. But the shots close up on Paul on the worm are based on real effects with loads of CGI added around him and over the physical prop, but every shot that is further than a medium shot is pretty all VFX, maybe over a base plate of sand landscapes. The backgrounds are replaced, the dust amplified, the worm added, a full CGI version of Paul also overlaid behind the medium and close up footage to add collisions and impact to digital effects. The massive buildings on the Harkonnen arena scenes are likely all VFX/CGI based with the practical footage plates with the actors comped into the small visible sections where the Baron sits, and wherever Feyd-Rautha is fighting in the arena. Their crowds are probably all VFX based whether footage or not. The ships on every shot are all CGI, except where there is physical contact with actors or non-flying, but the rest of the ship is usually still eliminated and covered with full CGI stuff. Even that small kangaroo mouse variant called the Muad-dib is 100% CGI. In Blade Runner 2049, viewers think they liked all the city shots of LA, because Weta made a huge warehouse into a bigature LA miniature set. Well guess what, they replaced all of the miniature set pieces with full 3D model based CGI of the entire city in post. Tough, its still looked great and believable. 1917 used loads of VFX and CGI to both blend and make practical sets feel authentic to the cinematography style and keep our attention on the movies plot instead of all the magic that was being done. I don't think they could have pulled off the seamless flow of 1917, the way they filmed it, without relying heavily on VFX and CGI in certain scenes. 1917 is a great example of a more practically based movie that really brought the audience something great because of its practical nature, but again, its practical nature would not be so seamless if not leaned upon the 91% of the movie shots that relied upon VFX from the work of 600 artists. There is a scene in Red Notice where the Rock is getting out of a car, and in the VFX breakdown of the movie, they replaced the entire background of the city with an almost the same 3D model of the city, and replaced the car as well, and the only thing real anymore was the rock and the tracked movement from the camera. SO, even without greenscreens, we are still replacing like 90% of some shots with VFX work and people don't even notice, all the time, just because we needed to, or because someone was pixel peeping way to much. Knowing VFX artists, its frustrating to see how much people blindly accept that because it was practical, means that what they saw was practical. Top-Gun Maverick is a huge example. People loved it. And they believed it was all real cuz they were told that. But all the Jets are replaced with full CG jets. The Navy pilots were comped out of the planes, because no actors including Tom were allowed to actually fly the Jets, and most of the jets weren't even the f-18's, but prop jets that were replaced with 100% CGI jets that just feel more real because they are tracking the movements of the real jets(which is why starting practical is better still) but even the interior cockpits and the outside landscapes rushing under the jets are all replaced with full CGI shots and environments. Anything with the Darkstar taking off is just a normal f-18 jet replaced with a full CGI Darkstar replica, and the atmosphere shots are obviously all CGI except the footage of Tom himself in the cockpit. My point, obviously, is that today especially for safety and budget reasons, even when based in practical effects, its does NOT mean that ANYTHING you see in the final movie is practical unless its proven afterward. Even the explosion in Oppenheimer, the big practical one, was augmented in VFX, which disappointed me so much because if they had committed to augmenting just a bit more, it would have very likely look far more accurate to the real footage of the Trinity test than their "REAL" footage.
Look at Dune. No practical anything, still grounded and amazing. CGI, like practical effects, IS craftmanship! There are people than can do it and people that can't - it's that simple.
I agree that CGI, when used well, can put together some amazing sequences. The issue lies in over-reliance of it which is becoming more and more prevalent in modern films (Ant Man, Black Widow, etc) Even when executed well, it’s almost always better to incorporate things that make the film more tangible for the people on set because it translates to what’s on screen.
No, the issue lies in the director/DP shooting the film not knowing how CGI works and making the life of animators hard. Another example of great CGI: Planet of the Apes. Has thousands of VFX shots and no people dressed up as a monkey on set, yet they sell it flawlessly
CG as a tool is as good as you use it. It's disheartening still seeing this take being perpetrated after decades of CGI showing how incredible it can be if used well. Practical Effects can look just as bad, and people are really just looking at the very best of practical effects (LOTR, SW) and going "look, CGI could never look this good", but just look at some Power Rangers clips where they fight some dude in a wallmart godzilla costume, and you can try keeping up the "practical is always better" take. Even in high budget productions like Star Wars, everyone's is just in costumes - what people actually mean when they say "practical is better" is that it looks real, whereas CGI if done badly looks fake and artificial. With practical, at worst it just looks bad, but it still looks real. People are much less accepting of a digital character than a muppet, and studios have taken this and swept all the hard work of artists under the rug, parading the big "NO CGI EVERYTHING FILMED PRACTICAL" lie to please moviegoers who then go praise Top Gun for its practical effects - never realizing how much of it is CG and the studios just refuse to give VFX artists the credit they deserve. Dang that turned into a ted talk lol.. good video but i really want this take to die. EDIT: This video really highlights the point i'm tryna make ruclips.net/video/7ttG90raCNo/видео.htmlsi=zj9iDUlACW4uY08z
bruh. This video is a wild ride. The title and the first couple of minutes are so unneccessary clickbaity and and dum. All this only to find out at the end that you did have something to say, i agree with. Lemme summarise this: CGI is and never was the issue. Bad decisions behind the scenes are. CGI is just a tool for artist and bad artists (or badly treated artists) cannot produce good art. This has been the same for centuries and CGI has nothing to do with it directly. The bad CGI is just another symptom people like to talk about becuase its so easy to tell when done badly. In other words: you got a point but your framing is bad. The whole title is pure garbage. "PE will always be better..."? No. Its literally not possible to do everything practical, yet your title makes it sound like it is. Good luck trying to film Quantumania practicaly. The issue with it wasnt that they used CGI, the issue was that they didnt use it properly, and thats the problem. When viewed like that, the way actors interact with the set is literally the only valid argument against CGI. If you changed your title to something like "Why CGI can not always replace Sets/Practical effects" then i would agree.
Bro... You need to be a little more critical in your research... I mean your thumbnail.... ruclips.net/video/4ttRWPXJSmM/видео.htmlsi=SX7N5AM8FH365E--&t=160
What a load of rubbish. Do you think the prosthetics in films like Planet of the Apes were more believable than the CGI in the latest ones? Or how do you portray a Dragon on screen like in Game of Thrones with a puppet? Next, what do the sets have to do with practical effects and how can they affect the actors in any way? How they do in plays then? Next,you take Marvel films as an example, which we all know have bad CGI, why not use DC ones like MoS or BvS? Or films like Pirates of the Caribbean, as the character of Davy Jones. Do you know the real problem with CGi? The stupidity with which many judge it, when many times they don't even know when it's CGI and when it's not.
You’re misinterpreting my argument. Nowhere in the video did I say CGI is inherently bad or that practical effects are always superior. My point was that practical effects often create a stronger tactile presence, which enhances performances and audience immersion in ways that CGI sometimes struggles to replicate. Your example of Planet of the Apes actually reinforces my argument-yes, the CGI in the newer films is phenomenal, but that’s because it’s built on top of motion capture performances. Andy Serkis and the team weren’t acting in a void; they had real, tangible interactions that grounded the CGI in something physical. The best CGI often incorporates practical elements rather than replacing them outright. As for your point about Game of Thrones, no one is expecting a full-sized animatronic dragon, but consider how the show used real fire, detailed props, and actor stand-ins to sell the interaction. It’s about blending techniques rather than relying entirely on CGI, which can sometimes result in weightless or artificial-looking scenes. Regarding your Marvel vs. DC comparison, my critique wasn’t about Marvel alone-it was about bad CGI in general. Even DC has its missteps (Justice League’s infamous mustache removal, for example). The issue is when CGI is rushed, overused, or improperly lit, leading to an uncanny, disconnected look. Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean is a great example of CGI done right because it was meticulously crafted with real lighting reference and mocap integration. Lastly, I agree that people sometimes misjudge what is and isn’t CGI, but that actually proves my point-the best CGI is the kind that blends seamlessly with practical effects, not the kind that replaces them outright. The problem isn’t CGI itself but how it’s used, and that’s what I was highlighting in my video.
Some of the best practical effects and cgi that still hold up is the original jurassic park films, I don’t think they will ever be considered outdated
wow your channel deserve more , keep it up brother🎉❤
Much appreciated
I agree! Having guys in mo cap suits to be covered with CGI characters is better than nothing there at all. Having sets and tangible objects gives a basis of realism, whereas nothing at all feels hollow. Even Dune 2 had practical effects, Paul riding the sand worm was “real” with enhancements. CGI can do great things, but environments and sets should still be made IMO where possible
Exactly my point bro 🤝
I love this perspective, and agree that if its all 100% blue and green screens then it isn't conducive for actors and sets (anymore) to use them without a good need/purpose. But then again, I think that the scale of movies like Dune are entirely reliant on VFX and good CGI to meet the audiences standards. Basically, just because it was filmed on set practically has no influence on whether what you see on screen in the final movie is actually practical at all anymore. But nobody notices that stuff because it still feels real. Physical sets on the ground are a great thing tho, and I agree that the Lord of the Rings does very very well, but there are still things that were done practically just because of the restraints of the time that pull me out of the movie for just a few seconds.
I think marvel movies have entirely polluted the worlds perspective of what is and isn't good CGI and practical. Comparing old star wars prequels is unfair given that was literal pioneering in the sense that was the first time anyone had really used a digital Sony cine cam, or greenscreens and more. Without George and Ewan and Hayden struggling through acting against bluescreens, we wouldn't even be having these debates about VFX and practical. Excluding stupid companies like disney that try to fit 10 movies productions into three years time to crank cash, rushed vfx and bad management, we still see other great examples how important loads of CGI and VFX are in our modern movies.
I agree that if it can be done entirely in practical then its even better in terms of realism and the grungy feel of real physics, actors and light at work. But they base most effects with something practical to give the actors on set to react to as well as a good base to help mix in the VFX more believably, but I believe Dune, Blade Runner 2049, 1917, Red Notice, Top-Gun, etc are all an excellent example of using practical set pieces is only like 10-25% of the work visually.
I think its imperative to start with physical sets because it both informs how to setup theVFX so it blends better than if it were all CGI with no references. But the shots close up on Paul on the worm are based on real effects with loads of CGI added around him and over the physical prop, but every shot that is further than a medium shot is pretty all VFX, maybe over a base plate of sand landscapes. The backgrounds are replaced, the dust amplified, the worm added, a full CGI version of Paul also overlaid behind the medium and close up footage to add collisions and impact to digital effects. The massive buildings on the Harkonnen arena scenes are likely all VFX/CGI based with the practical footage plates with the actors comped into the small visible sections where the Baron sits, and wherever Feyd-Rautha is fighting in the arena. Their crowds are probably all VFX based whether footage or not. The ships on every shot are all CGI, except where there is physical contact with actors or non-flying, but the rest of the ship is usually still eliminated and covered with full CGI stuff. Even that small kangaroo mouse variant called the Muad-dib is 100% CGI.
In Blade Runner 2049, viewers think they liked all the city shots of LA, because Weta made a huge warehouse into a bigature LA miniature set. Well guess what, they replaced all of the miniature set pieces with full 3D model based CGI of the entire city in post. Tough, its still looked great and believable.
1917 used loads of VFX and CGI to both blend and make practical sets feel authentic to the cinematography style and keep our attention on the movies plot instead of all the magic that was being done. I don't think they could have pulled off the seamless flow of 1917, the way they filmed it, without relying heavily on VFX and CGI in certain scenes. 1917 is a great example of a more practically based movie that really brought the audience something great because of its practical nature, but again, its practical nature would not be so seamless if not leaned upon the 91% of the movie shots that relied upon VFX from the work of 600 artists.
There is a scene in Red Notice where the Rock is getting out of a car, and in the VFX breakdown of the movie, they replaced the entire background of the city with an almost the same 3D model of the city, and replaced the car as well, and the only thing real anymore was the rock and the tracked movement from the camera. SO, even without greenscreens, we are still replacing like 90% of some shots with VFX work and people don't even notice, all the time, just because we needed to, or because someone was pixel peeping way to much.
Knowing VFX artists, its frustrating to see how much people blindly accept that because it was practical, means that what they saw was practical. Top-Gun Maverick is a huge example. People loved it. And they believed it was all real cuz they were told that. But all the Jets are replaced with full CG jets. The Navy pilots were comped out of the planes, because no actors including Tom were allowed to actually fly the Jets, and most of the jets weren't even the f-18's, but prop jets that were replaced with 100% CGI jets that just feel more real because they are tracking the movements of the real jets(which is why starting practical is better still) but even the interior cockpits and the outside landscapes rushing under the jets are all replaced with full CGI shots and environments. Anything with the Darkstar taking off is just a normal f-18 jet replaced with a full CGI Darkstar replica, and the atmosphere shots are obviously all CGI except the footage of Tom himself in the cockpit.
My point, obviously, is that today especially for safety and budget reasons, even when based in practical effects, its does NOT mean that ANYTHING you see in the final movie is practical unless its proven afterward. Even the explosion in Oppenheimer, the big practical one, was augmented in VFX, which disappointed me so much because if they had committed to augmenting just a bit more, it would have very likely look far more accurate to the real footage of the Trinity test than their "REAL" footage.
That was a very well worded, thought provoking comment.
this a good ass vid
Look at Dune. No practical anything, still grounded and amazing. CGI, like practical effects, IS craftmanship! There are people than can do it and people that can't - it's that simple.
I agree that CGI, when used well, can put together some amazing sequences. The issue lies in over-reliance of it which is becoming more and more prevalent in modern films (Ant Man, Black Widow, etc) Even when executed well, it’s almost always better to incorporate things that make the film more tangible for the people on set because it translates to what’s on screen.
No, the issue lies in the director/DP shooting the film not knowing how CGI works and making the life of animators hard. Another example of great CGI: Planet of the Apes. Has thousands of VFX shots and no people dressed up as a monkey on set, yet they sell it flawlessly
great video, i would maybe turn down the music volume a little in the end
@galmor6177 will do. I’m still working on nailing down the audio mixing.
CG as a tool is as good as you use it. It's disheartening still seeing this take being perpetrated after decades of CGI showing how incredible it can be if used well. Practical Effects can look just as bad, and people are really just looking at the very best of practical effects (LOTR, SW) and going "look, CGI could never look this good", but just look at some Power Rangers clips where they fight some dude in a wallmart godzilla costume, and you can try keeping up the "practical is always better" take.
Even in high budget productions like Star Wars, everyone's is just in costumes - what people actually mean when they say "practical is better" is that it looks real, whereas CGI if done badly looks fake and artificial. With practical, at worst it just looks bad, but it still looks real.
People are much less accepting of a digital character than a muppet, and studios have taken this and swept all the hard work of artists under the rug, parading the big "NO CGI EVERYTHING FILMED PRACTICAL" lie to please moviegoers who then go praise Top Gun for its practical effects - never realizing how much of it is CG and the studios just refuse to give VFX artists the credit they deserve. Dang that turned into a ted talk lol.. good video but i really want this take to die.
EDIT: This video really highlights the point i'm tryna make ruclips.net/video/7ttG90raCNo/видео.htmlsi=zj9iDUlACW4uY08z
bruh. This video is a wild ride.
The title and the first couple of minutes are so unneccessary clickbaity and and dum. All this only to find out at the end that you did have something to say, i agree with.
Lemme summarise this: CGI is and never was the issue. Bad decisions behind the scenes are. CGI is just a tool for artist and bad artists (or badly treated artists) cannot produce good art.
This has been the same for centuries and CGI has nothing to do with it directly. The bad CGI is just another symptom people like to talk about becuase its so easy to tell when done badly.
In other words: you got a point but your framing is bad.
The whole title is pure garbage. "PE will always be better..."? No. Its literally not possible to do everything practical, yet your title makes it sound like it is. Good luck trying to film Quantumania practicaly.
The issue with it wasnt that they used CGI, the issue was that they didnt use it properly, and thats the problem.
When viewed like that, the way actors interact with the set is literally the only valid argument against CGI.
If you changed your title to something like "Why CGI can not always replace Sets/Practical effects" then i would agree.
Bro... You need to be a little more critical in your research... I mean your thumbnail....
ruclips.net/video/4ttRWPXJSmM/видео.htmlsi=SX7N5AM8FH365E--&t=160
Alright lemme reference a better example in the thumbnail. My points in the video still stand though.
What a load of rubbish. Do you think the prosthetics in films like Planet of the Apes were more believable than the CGI in the latest ones? Or how do you portray a Dragon on screen like in Game of Thrones with a puppet?
Next, what do the sets have to do with practical effects and how can they affect the actors in any way? How they do in plays then?
Next,you take Marvel films as an example, which we all know have bad CGI, why not use DC ones like MoS or BvS? Or films like Pirates of the Caribbean, as the character of Davy Jones.
Do you know the real problem with CGi? The stupidity with which many judge it, when many times they don't even know when it's CGI and when it's not.
You’re misinterpreting my argument. Nowhere in the video did I say CGI is inherently bad or that practical effects are always superior. My point was that practical effects often create a stronger tactile presence, which enhances performances and audience immersion in ways that CGI sometimes struggles to replicate.
Your example of Planet of the Apes actually reinforces my argument-yes, the CGI in the newer films is phenomenal, but that’s because it’s built on top of motion capture performances. Andy Serkis and the team weren’t acting in a void; they had real, tangible interactions that grounded the CGI in something physical. The best CGI often incorporates practical elements rather than replacing them outright.
As for your point about Game of Thrones, no one is expecting a full-sized animatronic dragon, but consider how the show used real fire, detailed props, and actor stand-ins to sell the interaction. It’s about blending techniques rather than relying entirely on CGI, which can sometimes result in weightless or artificial-looking scenes.
Regarding your Marvel vs. DC comparison, my critique wasn’t about Marvel alone-it was about bad CGI in general. Even DC has its missteps (Justice League’s infamous mustache removal, for example). The issue is when CGI is rushed, overused, or improperly lit, leading to an uncanny, disconnected look. Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean is a great example of CGI done right because it was meticulously crafted with real lighting reference and mocap integration.
Lastly, I agree that people sometimes misjudge what is and isn’t CGI, but that actually proves my point-the best CGI is the kind that blends seamlessly with practical effects, not the kind that replaces them outright. The problem isn’t CGI itself but how it’s used, and that’s what I was highlighting in my video.