Practical Effects and CGI - Insert REEEEing here

[thepianogeniusfromshine]

The way I see it, cg and practical effects are both good for different things

 

[Sure Thing Idiot]

I use Jurassic Park as an example of great effects with minimal cgi, of course in a time when it wasn't as prevalent or perfected as it is now. There's nothing wrong with cgi when it's useful but I strongly prefer the use of practical effects, puppetry and animatronics because it often has a long shelf life and feels like real human effort and time were put into it. Someone I know is an animator and even simply the art of animation now relies heavily on rendering and perfecting human errors, they've talked about, in comparison to the artistic feel that went into the lion king cells or old animation and even if it seems flawed or the lines might be shaky here and there, it was real time sacrificed for the art. Jurassic Park effects still stand up 25 years later and look real for a reason. The raptors in the kitchen? That scene hasnt aged a day. Jurassic world had zero feel like, entertaining or not, I don't even sort of believe those kids are in some spherical vehicle or those are real dinosaurs.

Also, cg of even the highest quality ages. The matrix, jumanji, great movies but look at the cgi now as opposed to something like the fifth element. That's the unfortunate thing about cgi is no matter how good it is now, it's gonna get better, more precise, leaving it's past endeavors looking unrealistic or weak. Return of the jedi is 35 years old and the jabba puppet, whether or not you like star wars, still has charisma because it's piloted by people. I think there's something to be said about the beauty of human flaw that cg can't quite get right and never will. I'm leaning more on the side of practical mechanics but something like labyrinth with the hands making faces scene would be worth nothing if it was done in cg.
I seriously wish developers would get back into those basics.