thenerdwrangler
thenerdwrangler t1_iy6q97b wrote
Reply to comment by meowskywalker in Would a movie without CGI work nowadays? by GabrielLoschrod
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.
thenerdwrangler t1_iy4kjqg wrote
Reply to comment by GabrielLoschrod in Would a movie without CGI work nowadays? by GabrielLoschrod
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.
thenerdwrangler t1_iy4jql7 wrote
Reply to comment by GabrielLoschrod in Would a movie without CGI work nowadays? by GabrielLoschrod
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.
thenerdwrangler t1_iy4jc4a wrote
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
thenerdwrangler t1_j26z5ck wrote
Reply to Which actor or actress could play any (or almost any) role in any movie? by h2oskid3
Paul Whitehouse.