I watched two movies last Friday. One was Five Nights at Freddy's 2. The other was Lawrence of Arabia. (I contain multitudes.) Even though these are very different movies, I had a similar thought watching both. The things that were real in the frame looked really good, and they would have looked worse if they were fake. For Lawrence, this is obviously everything they shot, because nothing could be faked digitally when David Lean made that film. The film gave us some of the greatest cinematography of all time. There's just no way to manufacture the scope and light of those gorgeous desert sequences (a fact Greig Fraser probably knows well). The experience of watching the film is buoyed by the thought that everything you're seeing is really happening. There are really a hundred men on horseback; they are actually climbing on a train.For FNAF 2, a film with a much lower budget and smaller scope, I just really appreciated the tactile nature of those animatronics, which were physically in the room with actors, catching light and occupying space. They were made by the Jim Henson puppet studio. I felt such relief that the filmmaking team was still committed to those practical effects. It could have very easily gone the other way.We've talked about bad modern CGI already. But why is it so bad so often?So it seems timely this morning that I caught Lukas da Kid's video on the subject of CGI vs. practical effects. Check it out. -...
Published By: NoFilmSchool - Yesterday