undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCyberDildonics1mo ago0 comments

This is not true, you just don't notice the vast majority of effects. You sit down to watch a summer blockbuster, there are 1000 shots that have been altered, pretty much anything that isn't two people talking in a room.

The advertising tries to tell you "we did everything practical!", it's always a lie and you believe it.

0 comments

ghusbands27d ago

True, but that’s using “effects” in a broader sense than people seem to mean here. The discussion seems to be about the visible effects the audience experiences as effects, and whether those age well, not invisible digital cleanup, compositing, or set extension.

CyberDildonicsOP27d ago

It's not true either way. Very little is actually practical, it's just that when something looks good people think it is practical because they want to believe that.

Marketing feeds into this and tells people movies were done all practical or made "heavy use of practical effects" and it's just lies.

This is 5 part series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo

Even before this people were saying stuff like mad max was done "almost all practical" because they saw behind the scenes stuff of flipping a few cars even though the movie is wall to wall digital effects. Sometimes the elaborate "practical effects" don't even move right and are used for reference and completely replaced.

peacebeard1mo ago

This comment doesn't respond to what I actually said. I said that heavy-handed CGI tends to read as CGI. You responded by "informing" me that more nuanced CGI is commonplace. Everybody knows that.

CyberDildonicsOP1mo ago

That's not at all what you said in your first comment, this is a total back pedal.

Let's forget for a second that "heavy handed cgi" is tautological because it wouldn't look "heavy handed" if it looked real, and forgetting that some things like energy beams have no analogue in real life so are obviously effects.

You said "digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do" and the truth is this isn't true at all, you just don't know that you're seeing digital effects and you think you're looking at photography or something practical.

peacebeard28d ago

Not sure if you're misreading what I wrote or arguing in bad faith, but either way I'm done here.

CyberDildonicsOP27d ago

What you said is very clear, no one is misreading it, it just isn't true and you tried to change what you said in your reply.

You can throw your hands up, but I think if you could explain why what I'm saying isn't true you would have done that instead.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

ghusbands27d ago

CyberDildonicsOP27d ago

It's not true either way. Very little is actually practical, it's just that when something looks good people think it is practical because they want to believe that.

Marketing feeds into this and tells people movies were done all practical or made "heavy use of practical effects" and it's just lies.

This is 5 part series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo

peacebeard1mo ago

This comment doesn't respond to what I actually said. I said that heavy-handed CGI tends to read as CGI. You responded by "informing" me that more nuanced CGI is commonplace. Everybody knows that.

CyberDildonicsOP1mo ago

That's not at all what you said in your first comment, this is a total back pedal.

peacebeard28d ago

Not sure if you're misreading what I wrote or arguing in bad faith, but either way I'm done here.

CyberDildonicsOP27d ago

What you said is very clear, no one is misreading it, it just isn't true and you tried to change what you said in your reply.

You can throw your hands up, but I think if you could explain why what I'm saying isn't true you would have done that instead.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse