Practical Effects VS Special Effects in Films

Recently at the Star Wars: The Force Awakens Comic Con panel a video of some behind the scenes footage of the new film was revealed. The clip gave no hint at any plot points or details of the new or returning characters and instead focused on showing the film’s use of practical effects and real locations while filming. This was generally greeted by Star Wars fans with much excitement, myself included. However after looking through some of the YouTube comments, as is the way of things, the ones that stood out to me were the negative ones. There were a few people who posed the general question of “what is everyone’s deal with practical effects when you can use CGI”, or that “practical effects look outdated and the only reason people want it is for nostalgia”. That got me thinking a little about what it is at least to me that is appealing about practical effects. I started just by thinking about Star Wars but then my thoughts trailed off into the use of the practical effects versus CGI in general and so I thought I would give my opinion.

Taking Star Wars as the starting example you can’t deny that the use of practical effects isn’t enjoyable for fans on some level in a nostalgic way, especially with a film series such as Star Wars. The original films popularity and legacy have resulted in a certain familiarity with their use of practical effects for many of the most memorable characters and scenes. These effects are all over the original films including C3PO, R2D2, Yoda, the Ewoks, Jabba the hut (pre-digital update) and most of his henchmen; not to mention large sections of the Death Star and Hoth battles. Now at the time many of these effects were ground-breaking and contributed in part to movies success but it was 30+ years ago now. Surely this all looks a little dated these days? Well some of it does but I believe that most of it has held up pretty well.

One example you can look at from Star Wars is Yoda. In the original films he is simply the work of puppetry. Even in the first version of the Phantom Menace he is still operated as a puppet before Attack of the Clones made the switch to a CGI Yoda (basically it seemed so he could participate in that ridiculous and unnecessary light saber fight). Since then George Lucas has updated the Phantom Menace so that he also appears in CGI form in Episode 1 and I just don’t think it’s necessary. No matter how good most CGI is (and I say most because there are some exceptions which I will come to) you know that what you’re watching is CG; it’s not really there.

Yes puppet Yoda may look a bit naff in some regards but there’s a substance and a physicality there which makes him seem real. This allows you to sympathise to a much greater extent with the puppet Yoda than with the CGI Yoda. I know that people will argue that it’s a younger version of the character when he was more agile so you need effects to be able to show it and all that chat; I get that and it’s really a separate argument which I won’t go into so I will just stick with the effects themselves.

Another relevant example is Jurassic world. Now I have to admit I haven’t seen Jurassic World yet (I know right) so what I’m about to say here is taken just from clips I have seen online or through the trailers. Now I understand that CGI in trailers often isn’t the final rendering that will appear in the film but that shouldn’t detract from my point. From what I have seen of the film so far the effects do not look significantly better than they did in the original 1993 film which is over 20 years old. Take the raptors for instance, a classic from the franchise.

To me they just seem so much less threatening to watch when you know they are solely CGI. This again comes down to a simple physicality factor. In the original Jurassic Park animatronics and practical effects were used a lot for any shots of the head and legs of the raptors. This was favoured over the straight use of digital effects and considering a film that is famous for its ground-breaking effects its digital produced shots are actually very low. They were used as a last resort. Now I will accept that the actual CGI shots of the raptors in the original Jurassic park will not stand up that well with those in Jurassic World but the point is that there’s actually very few of them. The emphasis is on the practical shots and those are the ones that are the most effective.  The same goes with T-Rex.

I would challenge anyone to argue that the T-Rex breakout scene in the original Jurassic Park does not look better or more real than any scene in Jurassic world. That scene’s combination of digital effects and practical effects make the dinosaur feel so much more alive and hence threatening to the characters on screen. Whether it’s the eye looking in through the car window, the jaw smashing through the car roof or the T-Rex standing in front of Dr. Grant and having a face off; those are some of the most memorable moments in that sequence and they are done with practical effects. I have heard that there is some use of practical effects in Jurassic World but I imagine they are vastly outnumbered by the digital effects compared to the balance in the original.

The final main comparison I will make is between Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and the recent Hobbit trilogy. While being a big fan of the original trilogy I wasn’t as satisfied Jackson’s follow up. Now again this was due to several things, most nothing to do with effects which I won’t go into, but one of the things that did frustrate me about the Hobbit films was there over use of CGI. In the original Lord of the Rings trilogy the vast majority of the Orcs and Urak Hai that interacted with the characters or exchanged dialogue were real people. In the Hobbit trilogy I’m pretty sure all the Orcs are CG and I really don’t see why. To me it just feels almost like you’re watching a video game at times especially in the larger battle scenes. Okay the Pale Orc is a badass looking guy fair enough but does he really need to be CGI? If you compare that to the similar villains in the original trilogy such as Lurtz from the Fellowship of the Ring or that pig guy in Return of the King (he doesn’t even have a name but I remember him) the fact that you know that is someone doing that again generates a greater interest and a threat to the characters in my mind. On top of that in my eyes they never even looked bad? They hardly look dated or so out of touch that Jackson immediately thought “okay this time it is essential that all the Orcs are CG!”. When all the bad guys are just digital creations (Okay there’s probably some motion capture but still) it’s hard to care that much in my opinion.

Again to make a direct comparison if you take the battle of Helms Deep and compare it to the Battle of the Five Armies what comes out on top visually? This is putting outside other problems such as characters or plot in these instances and just looking at them as a visual piece. Helms Deep had a great combination of practical effects, real people playing the Urak Hai, miniatures and as well as good CGI when it was needed. You then compare that to the almost entirely CGI Battle of the Five Armies and I personally find it very uninteresting to watch Legolas just endlessly hack away CGI Orcs or run like Mario up some falling rocks.

Some other notable examples worth mentioning are in horror films. If you take a film such as Alien in which the Alien is all practical animatronics it generates genuine fear due to its physicality and the film actually benefits from the limitations that this creates. The Alien’s movements are slow and at times clunky but it feels very real. Jaws was famous for its problems with the mechanical shark that ended up changing the film dramatically with the shark’s presence dropped significantly. What resulted is a far more effective film. The absence of the shark means that when you finally see it is frightening, especially when it seen just under the water. This again is down to the physicality of it. The limitations of the effects in these instances help creature genuine tension and fear.

Now there are some aspects of the effects in Alien that don’t look great. The famous chest burst scene; while still alarming as it plays out the baby alien that emerges doesn’t hold up great I will admit. It’s knowing when these effects are needed that is the key, rather than relying on it.

That’s my general thoughts on it. I’m not slamming CGI altogether. There are times when CGI is used brilliantly. Andy Serkis’ work in the new Planet of the Apes film is one that jumps to mind and is truly remarkable to watch. In fact Andy Serkis’ work in general including Gollum is a remarkable and brilliant mix of motion capture and digital effects. That’s what I prefer to see when these effects are used, someone pushing the boundaries of it. I’m not a Luddite. I don’t think Mark Ruffalo should get into a Hulk fancy dress costume and put on some green face paint for the next Avengers film. I just think these effects should be used sparingly and that wherever possible practical effects and real people should be favoured because to me they work better and always engage me more. Plus there is a certain charm to practical effects that you just don’t really replicate digitally. So yes I was excited that the Comic Con video showed that the new Star Wars film will have practical effects; but then again I have been talking about the old Star Wars, the old Jurassic park, the old lord of the rings…so hey, maybe I am just being nostalgic.

Additional examples:

• Christopher Nolan – Isn’t a fan of uneccesary CGI. He allowed no green screen while shooting interstellar and that spinning corridor fight scene in Inception was filmed in an actual spinning corridor that they made that the actors were running around in. For the hospital bomb scene in the Dark Night they actually blew up that building and levelled it with explosives. The Bat Mobile and the Bat Pod were actually made as working machines which people could drive.
• I am Legend/The Descent – Two decent films with similar looking monsters (not exactly the same I know). I am Legend went for the CGI option, the descent went for the practical option. In my opinion the descent’s monsters are much more frightening as a result. The more you see of the CGI I am Legend monsters the less scary they become. Alledgidly they were planned as being done physically before a last minute change to digital effects. Didn’t work I’m afraid.
• ET – good example of a practical effect which hasn’t aged partucarly well but still has the charm to pull it off.
• Edge of Tomorrow – If you watch the B-roll on youtube for this film it is pretty amazing how much of what you see on screen was actually going happening on the set while filming. Check it out.