FX Debate

Since the emergence of CGI, some practical special effects fans and artists have protested the use of the new method, claiming that it is not only killing their trade, but also that it does not compare in quality to practical effects. The same is true with some CGI fans and artists. Both sides of the same coin are arguing over which method is better, but effective use of both is key to a great movie. CGI certainly makes things easier when it comes to bringing the script to life. With CGI, cool creatures and special effects can be thrown in to make a great movie, but it has its limitations. The method is only as good as the artist behind it, so that has to be taken into consideration. Also, mimicking the lights in the room can be a challenge, where puppets and practical effects have a physical form and can be lit accordingly. Sadly though, practical effects can also be flawed. While they may look good from one angle, they may not from another. Together, practical effects and CGI can be a powerful combination and can be used to create a spectacular film.

Good to know, I guess. I feel as though I already knew that, but I suppose part of me did assume that CGI was killing practical effects. I learned that practical effects are still used in modern films. I agree that both CGI and practical effects are extremely useful in creating a believable movie. How much of what we see is practical anymore? How widely is it being used and where? Practical effects artists are still in demand and effective films utilize both types of special effects.