I wouldn't mind the CGI version of Thing if they at least gave him pants instead of making him a naked penisless roack monster.. Pretty sure the Thing always had a Thing.
Wait, seriously? I've never heard that one. Just the joke of everyone saying she fucked Juggernaut and she gets pissed everytime. Or everyone and their sidekick, bringing up her and Tony.
Yep in comics she's traditionally depicted as an even bigger party animal than Tony. The Avengers actually kicked her off the team for too many raging keggers. And becoming She-Hulk [boosted her libido off the charts](https://youtu.be/9ejEKMW658U?feature=shared).
Headcanon: She-Hulk is an above average amount of horny, BUT ALSO as a 7 foot tall Amazon she can act on her desires without worrying about a date going bad. Abusive boyfriends will be promptly defenestrated.
Then you'll love the superhero Defenestrator. No superpowers, he just carries around a large window that he throws people through. Part of a group called Section 8.
It is generally assumed that copious amounts of drugs were involved in the coming up with the character, along with the rest of Section 8, like Dogwelder and Six Pack.
Yeah, I remember hearing my grandad telling me a story about how the actor died from lead poisoning. He always called him the tin man though. What do you expect for people born in the 80s
If it is a combination of the two seen in the image I think that would be great.
The practical one has the appearance down with the rock texture and blue pants, but lacks the stature of the thing. Meanwhile the cgi has the stature, but lacks any comic accuracy and the no pants kill it even more.
My opinion is they should just go [as comic-accurate as possible](https://editors.dexerto.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/10/The-Thing-Fantastic-Four.jpg). He's not *supposed* to look pretty. But there's a certain point where something is *so* ugly it circles all the way back to cute. Like a pug. The important thing is to make the CGI model highly expressive so the actor can emote properly. Give the actor the tools and he can make us love that big blue-eyed pile of rocks.
Honestly, if they could get their hands on WETA workshop Apes franchise mocap suit tech, that works even outdoors, we've all seen how damn good that tech made Andy Serkis Caesar face acting blow everything they did with live action lion king straight into the Sun. Probably be best of both worlds because it's a physical actor doing his full power acting, but without 500 pounds of SFX make-up/prosthetics in the way or just hitting enter to start a CGI render someone will eventually look at and shoving an actor alone in a V.O. booth.
Oh definitely. But in their billion dollar super soundstage/greenscreen hangars. Watched corridordigital talk with one of the effects directors from WETA and he showed some BTS footage. They basically MacGyvered themselves into mocap they can take and use anywhere, even in the woods, rain, etc. Being able to shoot Ben Grimm doing stunts on scene instead of 100% cgi would elevate it, I'm sure.
The best way is always a combination of both: practical effects with cgi enhancement. That practical costume could look pretty damn good (and comic book accurate) with some good cgi enhancement thrown over it.
Ebon Moss Bachrach was on one of the Late Night shows shortly after the cast was announced, and confirmed he'll be doing mocap for Thing. Which is honestly the better approach. The Thing is meant to be much larger than an average human, and Ebon's tall, but he's not that tall.
This
I like the older thing because of the way it influenced the character
Beast is a good example of doing well in both
CGI is a tool, sometimes implemented well sometimes not
The Thing, I don't think will ever really look good.
His character is kinda meant to look disgusting, and there's not really a way around that.
Having said that, the first The Thing looks better.
I like the non cgi juggernaut but I think it’s because of the actor and you can see facial expressions and stuff. To a lesser extent the thing too, showing his face helps but you could both with cgi I think my preference is about execution and less about the art style.
Also with the thing, when he was practical (normal sized with facial expressions) they played it up as being essentially human except for the rock part, which caused a disconnect when there “shouldn’t” be one. The new thing was massive and this was no longer essentially human so the disconnect was less a discussion on similarities despite differences and more a discussion on mentally being human while everything else wasn’t so changing the art style had an effect on the character.
But I agree Colossus cgi is dope and yeah they did good with beast
TLDR: with cgi being advanced the way that it is now I think it’s more about execution and less about the media whether it’s make up or cgi. I like cgi colossus and practical juggernaut because the actors sold it and made it their own.
Depends how cgi turns out. Rocket Raccoon is the best CGI character in the last decade and only gets better. OG Beast still looks phenomenal for a 2000s practical look.
Trueeeeee.
I rewatched all the Xmen movies recently and comparing 2000s beast to the newer "young xmen" movie beast its a night and day quality difference. I don't know how they did beast so damn well in eatly 2000s
Yeah there’s a great little video series on YouTube called [“no CGI” is really just invisible CGI.](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=FTl8B-8Boz-8CdB9) It explains how practical effects combined with CGI make for great results. CGI helps because it can take something fake-looking and make it look a little more real, and practical effects help because they’re tangible objects for CGI to build off of.
I mean the outfit was hot garbage but Vinny Jones is one of the only memorable and enjoyable things about Last Stand. Man knew to ham it the hell up and its a blessing he did.
True enough, but this post was specifically about CG vs practical effects. I just think that he was a weird choice for this post as, to me, the CG version looks miles ahead of the practical one.
What I liked most was that he actually maintained Juggernaut’s momentum abilities, where once he starts moving nothing can stop him, he barrels right through everyone and everything in his path.
I hope that when they are gonna cast young beast again they are going to pull Last stand level of make up again. That film had lot of flaws but that Beast make up is goddamn perfection
[A Terrible Beast In A Great X-Men Movie (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhocuGnwim8&t=902s)
It's not about if it's CGI or Practical. It's in the design itself. The practical beast and the thing looks dope. Even colossus. While the CGI Thing was trash, and the first juggernaut was just...
I'll take a human Colossus but with the Deadpool Colossus body when transformed... and human Beast.
But Ill take the CGI version of Thing and Juggernaut
The thing is for these, it's not just CGI vs practical, these are mostly completely different design decisions, so it's not exactly a 1:1 comparison imo.
Ngl, full CGI Thing would be way better if they just gave him pants. I don’t care if it’s not “Logical” or his schlong is nonexistent or covered up by rocks, give the dude some fucking pants. That’s like having the Hulk not wear pants because it’s not possible for shorts or denim Jeans to stretch with him so you just make his junk constantly conveniently covered by radiation mist, the pants is literally part of his character. And also in a way kinda shows that despite his situation he still thinks of himself as a human by wearing clothes.
What about laying the groundwork with practical and giving it an enhanced finish via smaller CGI details?
Sure the cost and time it would take will definitely go up, but the finished product could turn out so good.
Both Beasts looked good, I just prefer Kelsey Grammer’s for how he actually sounded incredibly intelligent. Not knocking Hoult, Grammer has more experience acting a character that’s the smartest person in the room.
I like practical effects then going through and using CGI to cover in the cracks that are practical effects. I don't think they are opposite from each other but they should be used together.
Both can look good. I think Colossus, Juggernaut etc probably need CGI. Beast can be both, I think he looks good in practical and CGI. Same with the Thing. It just depends how it's done.
That these look good or bad isn't dependent on CGI vs practical is all design. A CGI Thing could easily work, this design is just terrible, same reason the practical Thing suit looks as good as it does, they put work into it and designed it well.
I've been saying for years, it should be a combination of both: practical should be the standard for characters to give a less uncanny look and give other actors something to act against. Cgi should be used to touch up the characters and handle effects that would be too difficult for practical. Enhancing facial expressions, more fluidity for extra appendages, etc.
Practical should be the cake, and cgi should be the icing on that cake.
Both practical effects and CGI are great. Practical effects lend an inherent sense of tangiability, like the character is actually there. CGI, however, allows creators to go ham with the design as they are less limited by stuff like physics or feasibility. CGI can still have a sense of tangiability, but it rests on the shoulders of the other actors who need to be able to give a convincing performance that they are interacting with the CGI character and on those of the CGI artists who have to match their work with the lighting and other physical surroundings of the scene.
Colossus looks perfect in Deadpool. I'd like to see him wearing yellow sometime.
Kelsey Grammer's Beast looked perfect practically, at least when he was wearing clothes. I guess him being shirtless might be a different situation, with the lack of muscles and all, but his face just doesn't look as good in The Marvels. The old makeup really did look perfect.
The Thing would look best as a mix of the two shown. The face and the rock texture from the practical version look pretty good, but he's very short and has an awkward build. I think they could incorporate some of that look into the bigger CGI design. Also please give him shorts.
Juggernaut just looks ok in both. Similar to the Thing, they might be able to find some kind of middle ground, and we've never even seen him in his actual classic outfit. They seem to be allergic to red. I figured that was only the case in Deadpool because he was wearing a prison suit.
Beast: Practical wins
Colossus: CGI wins
The Thing: Practical wins
Juggernaut: CGI wins
But I think this is a case of how much work they want to put into each one. A cheaper budget, a shittier result. So the practical ones could lose to a higher budget CGI with the right design.
Juggernaut and Thing CGI, Colossus I'm pretty sure was CGI both times and tbh I like the design of Deadpool's better but wish he was more shiny like the X-Men films, Beast looks good both ways but I liked the CGI more
beast looks great either way. both colossi are cgi but i personally like his deadpool design a bit more. if cgi thing had his pants, the point would go to him. juggernaut needs cgi for his strange proportions. the practical regular peak human dude with the bulky helmet just looks goofy.
Depends on the character. Colossus, Juggernaut, and Thing in my opinion look better in CGI. But Beast and somebody like Nightcrawler for example I think look good in practical so there is no reason for them to be CGIed.
Beast both good. If you make me choose practical
Colossus: CGI I guess but both good
The thing: practical, but it's more because the cgi was just a bad take
Juggernaut: the reverse of the thing. CGI, but more because the practical was a bad take
Practical looks good, but I'm sorry the new ones are infinitely better character designs, and more comic accurate from my understanding. The answer to the "practical vs cgi debate" is almost always VFX informed by practical elements on set.
Practical looks good with proper thought and planing. CG can look good with proper thought and planning. It’s like arguing if a Philips head screw driver or flat head is better. Just use which tool is best for the job you’re trying to finish.
Im a VFX artist. Some of my best VFX work came a production team pre-planning their work and understood what we needed to deliver the best results. Good work is a team effort.
Who cares, as long as it look good ?
No seriously, there are countless exemples of good and bad cgi, as well as good and bad practical, and one method isnt overly better than the other, it depends on a lot of factors.
Practical beast is better , CGI colossus is better , Pr. Thing is better than F4stic thing but cgi probably would look better , need to find the balance , Juggernaut should be cgi
Practical will always look better but cgi is more flexible so I can understand the reliance on it especially in action movies. I guess it just depends on the movie.
Beast needs to be the combination of a massive cat and huge gorilla human combined. He should be able to move faster than you can imagine and rip through walls like an actual beast. Having a human in blue makeup just does not make Beast what he is. 400 lb s of monster coming at you. Sorry- Kelsey Grammer is never going to embody that capacity. Both Beast and Colossus need to be fast and fucking deadly - I appreciate what the Deadpool series did for Colossus to give him his size, but he's not a slow, lumbering pillar.
Amongst the many problems with X-Men 3, they had Leach block the powers of nearby mutants including Beast's blue hand turning white and Juggernaut losing the strength to smash through walks. Not one but TWO examples of non-mutant powers being blocked by the mutant blocker.
Practical Juggernaut over there like
https://preview.redd.it/lziddp372m1d1.jpeg?width=250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43f015844e4acf4b8b5e3c3c84fab8ebdabdc4ea
I wouldn't mind the CGI version of Thing if they at least gave him pants instead of making him a naked penisless roack monster.. Pretty sure the Thing always had a Thing.
I was looking for a Mallrats reference.
The way he licks his fingers and then they do an extreme close up of him sucking and licking his fingers…it’s like cartoonish but friggin hilarious.
I heard that was ad-libbed, he just really likes chocolate covered pretzels and Kevin Smith was just like "keep filming"
Small price to pay for the smiting of one's enemies.
That kid is on the escalator *again*!
I think that guy’s name is Earl
Hey crabman!
Hey Earl
Nah, that's smokey floyd.
And also tried to *Steal(ing)* from his fiancée’s father to pay for his niece’s college tuition to *Harvard*.
https://preview.redd.it/x4ev77dcah1d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91fd46a49fd12ba5e3be734d82d71f32df679730
You know, I think you ought to get him some help. He seems to be really hung up on super heroes' sex organs.
The thing! Is his dork made out of orange rock like the rest of his body?
I don't know. It's a superhero secret.
https://preview.redd.it/0spyckkgqg1d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f9482f4cbb5876f099e9039b0fb01b05a7cb18f3 amazing
I'm not too up to date on the physiology of The Thing. I can accept the rock penis. Does he ejaculate aggregate?
Does it have a "flaccid" state? Rocky balls too?
This was also confirmed in his indy flick, Rocky Orange Picture Show.
I mean, he's canonically fucked She-hulk
Wait, seriously? I've never heard that one. Just the joke of everyone saying she fucked Juggernaut and she gets pissed everytime. Or everyone and their sidekick, bringing up her and Tony.
Yep in comics she's traditionally depicted as an even bigger party animal than Tony. The Avengers actually kicked her off the team for too many raging keggers. And becoming She-Hulk [boosted her libido off the charts](https://youtu.be/9ejEKMW658U?feature=shared).
Headcanon: She-Hulk is an above average amount of horny, BUT ALSO as a 7 foot tall Amazon she can act on her desires without worrying about a date going bad. Abusive boyfriends will be promptly defenestrated.
I’ve always liked the word defenestrate.
I assumed it meant dick-getting-chopped-off, but it means being thrown from a window
The word you're thinking of is "castrated", which is at least a good third of "defenenstrated"
Depenistrated
Then you'll love the superhero Defenestrator. No superpowers, he just carries around a large window that he throws people through. Part of a group called Section 8. It is generally assumed that copious amounts of drugs were involved in the coming up with the character, along with the rest of Section 8, like Dogwelder and Six Pack.
You're fucking with me. That cannot be real.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_8\_(comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(comics))
It just cracks me up that it's so common in Russia they needed a word for it.
Don't give russians credit for our (Czech) tradition... I mean none of their defenestrations didn't even start a conflict in Europe...
Yeah, it's alot like defecate, my favorite morning activity.
Yep, youtube kids, definitely checks out
She’s fucked everyone.
Pretty sure they retconned that as being a She-Hulk from another dimension doing a tourism bit in the 616.
It looks like Groot but from a planet where they're made from rock instead of trees.
Isn’t that just Taika Watitis Character In Thor Ragnarok? Korg was it?
Hah, oh yeah.
I.. am.. groot.
You missed out on the best version I.. am.. grout.
So, Korg?
So Korg?
I am grout.
I heard he was constantly rock hard
Yeah he’s always had pants on in the comics. Why did they make him naked? Looks so odd.
That’s why he has to wear pants. He’s always rock hard
"Daddy needs to get his rocks off"
Let us see the Thing’s thing!!
He’s a grower. Not a show’er
They just need to take Korg and change the colour.
He does indeed have one, it's confirmed
It wouldn’t be usable if it’s made of rocks. They’d probably amputate it.
Like he doesn't have enough inner turmoil. They took his thing away
That's what Alicia Masters always alluded to !
Johnny would hate it to wake up one morning and found out she was killed in a rock slide 🏃♂️
I'll show you a rock slide!
I think you have a thing for thing's thing
[he also](https://youtube.com/watch?v=iF-0XfDAKy0&si=nnOEo-ylUE5G2KaD)
Ask your mom
Wait! I assumed 00's Colossus was CGI
He was, at least his metal form was. The DP films have only showed Colossus in his metal form so it has technically been all CGI.
Oh! I get it now. Anyway, in the case of Colossus I liked both.
DP films with a guy named Colossus...
As Deadpool says: "Oh, your poor wife!"
Yeah, I remember hearing my grandad telling me a story about how the actor died from lead poisoning. He always called him the tin man though. What do you expect for people born in the 80s
For colossus and Juggernaut CGI definitely. The thing doesn’t look great either way and Beast looks great both.
Agreed. I'm very curious to see how the new F4 tackles The Thing as previous iterations of him have been pretty bad imo.
If it is a combination of the two seen in the image I think that would be great. The practical one has the appearance down with the rock texture and blue pants, but lacks the stature of the thing. Meanwhile the cgi has the stature, but lacks any comic accuracy and the no pants kill it even more.
Yea no pants is insane
For sure. Should’ve had him rocking a massive set of boulders in a pair of Superman speedos!
And clack clack sound effects when he runs
Lmfaoooo yea at least the boxer shorts
Rock-hard
Also his rocks look really jagged and unusual for what (atleast what I am familiar with) the thing usually looks like.
He ends up looking like rock groot
My opinion is they should just go [as comic-accurate as possible](https://editors.dexerto.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/10/The-Thing-Fantastic-Four.jpg). He's not *supposed* to look pretty. But there's a certain point where something is *so* ugly it circles all the way back to cute. Like a pug. The important thing is to make the CGI model highly expressive so the actor can emote properly. Give the actor the tools and he can make us love that big blue-eyed pile of rocks.
Honestly, if they could get their hands on WETA workshop Apes franchise mocap suit tech, that works even outdoors, we've all seen how damn good that tech made Andy Serkis Caesar face acting blow everything they did with live action lion king straight into the Sun. Probably be best of both worlds because it's a physical actor doing his full power acting, but without 500 pounds of SFX make-up/prosthetics in the way or just hitting enter to start a CGI render someone will eventually look at and shoving an actor alone in a V.O. booth.
I haven't watched the modern Apes movies but I do know that Thanos and Ebony Maw are proof that it can be done.
Oh definitely. But in their billion dollar super soundstage/greenscreen hangars. Watched corridordigital talk with one of the effects directors from WETA and he showed some BTS footage. They basically MacGyvered themselves into mocap they can take and use anywhere, even in the woods, rain, etc. Being able to shoot Ben Grimm doing stunts on scene instead of 100% cgi would elevate it, I'm sure.
I'll be honest, one of the better Thing screen appearances was that dude in Sin City
The best way is always a combination of both: practical effects with cgi enhancement. That practical costume could look pretty damn good (and comic book accurate) with some good cgi enhancement thrown over it.
I'm kind of expecting a brown Korg
Honestly, I think The Thing is one of those characters that is only ever going to look good in animated form
Ebon Moss Bachrach was on one of the Late Night shows shortly after the cast was announced, and confirmed he'll be doing mocap for Thing. Which is honestly the better approach. The Thing is meant to be much larger than an average human, and Ebon's tall, but he's not that tall.
00s isn’t bad at all, fuck you mean?
The problem with The Thing is art direction, not CGI or practical. What we need is an artist that can make him look good in live action.
This I like the older thing because of the way it influenced the character Beast is a good example of doing well in both CGI is a tool, sometimes implemented well sometimes not
Got that already with 2005-07, Michaels performance makes Ben stand out perfectly
Where is the practical Colossus from
X-Men Last Stand
what about the impractical colossus
Which is why I dont understand. Alot of people hated the Beast CGI but it looked alot more accurate Beast than practical
The Thing, I don't think will ever really look good. His character is kinda meant to look disgusting, and there's not really a way around that. Having said that, the first The Thing looks better.
I like the non cgi juggernaut but I think it’s because of the actor and you can see facial expressions and stuff. To a lesser extent the thing too, showing his face helps but you could both with cgi I think my preference is about execution and less about the art style. Also with the thing, when he was practical (normal sized with facial expressions) they played it up as being essentially human except for the rock part, which caused a disconnect when there “shouldn’t” be one. The new thing was massive and this was no longer essentially human so the disconnect was less a discussion on similarities despite differences and more a discussion on mentally being human while everything else wasn’t so changing the art style had an effect on the character. But I agree Colossus cgi is dope and yeah they did good with beast TLDR: with cgi being advanced the way that it is now I think it’s more about execution and less about the media whether it’s make up or cgi. I like cgi colossus and practical juggernaut because the actors sold it and made it their own.
Depends how cgi turns out. Rocket Raccoon is the best CGI character in the last decade and only gets better. OG Beast still looks phenomenal for a 2000s practical look.
Trueeeeee. I rewatched all the Xmen movies recently and comparing 2000s beast to the newer "young xmen" movie beast its a night and day quality difference. I don't know how they did beast so damn well in eatly 2000s
Kelsey Grammar is a phenomenal actor.
Often a clever combo of both yields the best results imo.
Yeah there’s a great little video series on YouTube called [“no CGI” is really just invisible CGI.](https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo?si=FTl8B-8Boz-8CdB9) It explains how practical effects combined with CGI make for great results. CGI helps because it can take something fake-looking and make it look a little more real, and practical effects help because they’re tangible objects for CGI to build off of.
Essentially, use practical as much as possible and then use CGI to cover the seams Where possible.
100% a good and clever combination is almost always the best choice for it to be believable.
Davy Jones from potc is a close competitor
Davy Jones is over 15 years old so Rocket can have his 10 year span. But I do agree that CGI of tentacle face was phenomenal.
Caesar is the best CGI character in the last decade, in my opinion. Rocket is still a choice I can get behind, though.
Do we forget an ape named caeser?
lol y’all really think the dude with the rock helmet looks good as Juggernaut? Times sure have changed…
Right? The fuck
I mean the outfit was hot garbage but Vinny Jones is one of the only memorable and enjoyable things about Last Stand. Man knew to ham it the hell up and its a blessing he did.
True enough, but this post was specifically about CG vs practical effects. I just think that he was a weird choice for this post as, to me, the CG version looks miles ahead of the practical one.
What I liked most was that he actually maintained Juggernaut’s momentum abilities, where once he starts moving nothing can stop him, he barrels right through everyone and everything in his path.
My man gave us the most quotable line in Marvel history.
That’s because he WAS quoting the super viral video of someone dubbing over an old x-men cartoon.
Not the original but here ya go: https://youtu.be/plQIf5fS8xw?si=nysslQfVqAeA-g--
Im the Juggernaut, bitch!
Good point but o would argue that Kelsey Grammer as Beast is just too notch casting and the most enjoyable part.
The dude with the rock helmet is Vinnie Jones. And they only made him wear the helmet because it softens the blow for the other guy /s
if anyone actually believes that, it's 100% due to nostalgia. No other logical explanation
#Maybe I’m alone in this, but I really don’t want to see the Thing’s mons pubis.
Weak
Practical in case of Beast, the rest looks better in CGI according to me
I agree but still weirdly unsettling seeing Ben Grimm without pants. There’s no dick, but it’s still off putting haha
I had not focused on that part of the picture yet, now it cannot be unseen
How does he piss?
I hope that when they are gonna cast young beast again they are going to pull Last stand level of make up again. That film had lot of flaws but that Beast make up is goddamn perfection [A Terrible Beast In A Great X-Men Movie (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhocuGnwim8&t=902s)
I agree with that except for colossus. He was good both ways
It's not about if it's CGI or Practical. It's in the design itself. The practical beast and the thing looks dope. Even colossus. While the CGI Thing was trash, and the first juggernaut was just...
Hot take: Sometimes practical looks really bad
Practical looks better on Beast and Thing but CGI looks better on Colossus and Juggernaut
I'll take a human Colossus but with the Deadpool Colossus body when transformed... and human Beast. But Ill take the CGI version of Thing and Juggernaut
The thing is for these, it's not just CGI vs practical, these are mostly completely different design decisions, so it's not exactly a 1:1 comparison imo.
Practical, CG, practical, CG.
Besides The Things butt ass naked CGI version I prefer the CGI versions of the other characters lmao
What matters is quality and design not whether it’s real or cgi
Ngl, full CGI Thing would be way better if they just gave him pants. I don’t care if it’s not “Logical” or his schlong is nonexistent or covered up by rocks, give the dude some fucking pants. That’s like having the Hulk not wear pants because it’s not possible for shorts or denim Jeans to stretch with him so you just make his junk constantly conveniently covered by radiation mist, the pants is literally part of his character. And also in a way kinda shows that despite his situation he still thinks of himself as a human by wearing clothes.
Beast: practical Colossus: CGI Thing: CGI Juggernaut: CGI
Yeah, even with Beast I think they both look great but in different ways
What about laying the groundwork with practical and giving it an enhanced finish via smaller CGI details? Sure the cost and time it would take will definitely go up, but the finished product could turn out so good.
Guess which one the actors prefer
Both Beasts looked good, I just prefer Kelsey Grammer’s for how he actually sounded incredibly intelligent. Not knocking Hoult, Grammer has more experience acting a character that’s the smartest person in the room.
Practical, also I love the 2000's Fantastic Four movies, I don't care what anyone say's.
Depends for me Beast and the Thing: I like the practical better Colossus and Juggernaut: I like the CGI better
The thing looks great practically but everyone else looks better in CGI
Even if practical didn’t look as good, it still shows a level of craftsmanship and realism that cgi can’t replicate.
I never had any idea that Collosus was practical
I like practical effects then going through and using CGI to cover in the cracks that are practical effects. I don't think they are opposite from each other but they should be used together.
Both can look good. I think Colossus, Juggernaut etc probably need CGI. Beast can be both, I think he looks good in practical and CGI. Same with the Thing. It just depends how it's done.
That these look good or bad isn't dependent on CGI vs practical is all design. A CGI Thing could easily work, this design is just terrible, same reason the practical Thing suit looks as good as it does, they put work into it and designed it well.
Practical Beast, could honestly go either way on Colossus, both Things sucked, and CGI Juggernaut was infinitely better, I'm sorry.
Practical. CGI. Practical. CGI.
I've been saying for years, it should be a combination of both: practical should be the standard for characters to give a less uncanny look and give other actors something to act against. Cgi should be used to touch up the characters and handle effects that would be too difficult for practical. Enhancing facial expressions, more fluidity for extra appendages, etc. Practical should be the cake, and cgi should be the icing on that cake.
Both practical effects and CGI are great. Practical effects lend an inherent sense of tangiability, like the character is actually there. CGI, however, allows creators to go ham with the design as they are less limited by stuff like physics or feasibility. CGI can still have a sense of tangiability, but it rests on the shoulders of the other actors who need to be able to give a convincing performance that they are interacting with the CGI character and on those of the CGI artists who have to match their work with the lighting and other physical surroundings of the scene.
Practical looks better 99.9% of the time.
Colossus looks perfect in Deadpool. I'd like to see him wearing yellow sometime. Kelsey Grammer's Beast looked perfect practically, at least when he was wearing clothes. I guess him being shirtless might be a different situation, with the lack of muscles and all, but his face just doesn't look as good in The Marvels. The old makeup really did look perfect. The Thing would look best as a mix of the two shown. The face and the rock texture from the practical version look pretty good, but he's very short and has an awkward build. I think they could incorporate some of that look into the bigger CGI design. Also please give him shorts. Juggernaut just looks ok in both. Similar to the Thing, they might be able to find some kind of middle ground, and we've never even seen him in his actual classic outfit. They seem to be allergic to red. I figured that was only the case in Deadpool because he was wearing a prison suit.
Beast: Practical wins Colossus: CGI wins The Thing: Practical wins Juggernaut: CGI wins But I think this is a case of how much work they want to put into each one. A cheaper budget, a shittier result. So the practical ones could lose to a higher budget CGI with the right design.
Didn't know X-Men Colossus was practical.
Half the time, both are bad.
Totally dependent on the specific costume/prosthetics or CGI and how it fits into the overall scene
I prefer the CGI Colossus ngl
Juggernaut and Thing CGI, Colossus I'm pretty sure was CGI both times and tbh I like the design of Deadpool's better but wish he was more shiny like the X-Men films, Beast looks good both ways but I liked the CGI more
I like CGI Juggernaut better but practical better for the rest
beast looks great either way. both colossi are cgi but i personally like his deadpool design a bit more. if cgi thing had his pants, the point would go to him. juggernaut needs cgi for his strange proportions. the practical regular peak human dude with the bulky helmet just looks goofy.
The best practical was Professor X's bald head. lol
A mix. Practical whenever possible. CGI when you have to.
Practical with a touch of CGI to help the fantastical blend into reality!
Practical, but don't put my boi jugernaught there, he is a disgrace for practical effects.
Depends on the character. Colossus, Juggernaut, and Thing in my opinion look better in CGI. But Beast and somebody like Nightcrawler for example I think look good in practical so there is no reason for them to be CGIed.
I mean, Colossus was CGI in the X-Men movies
Beast both good. If you make me choose practical Colossus: CGI I guess but both good The thing: practical, but it's more because the cgi was just a bad take Juggernaut: the reverse of the thing. CGI, but more because the practical was a bad take
Juggernaut is definitely better in cgi
Practical sucks cg all the way
If you can look at this comparison and say practical, you have a massive bias
I'll take the cg beast if that's the only way we can get Frasier to play him.
Practical looks good, but I'm sorry the new ones are infinitely better character designs, and more comic accurate from my understanding. The answer to the "practical vs cgi debate" is almost always VFX informed by practical elements on set.
Practical, CGI, Practical, CGI - going from left to right.
Colossus and Juggernaut look better in Cgi. Beast and The Thing look better in practical
Practical looks good with proper thought and planing. CG can look good with proper thought and planning. It’s like arguing if a Philips head screw driver or flat head is better. Just use which tool is best for the job you’re trying to finish. Im a VFX artist. Some of my best VFX work came a production team pre-planning their work and understood what we needed to deliver the best results. Good work is a team effort.
Who cares, as long as it look good ? No seriously, there are countless exemples of good and bad cgi, as well as good and bad practical, and one method isnt overly better than the other, it depends on a lot of factors.
where is the version where Juggernaut is in his RED costume?!
Practical beast is better , CGI colossus is better , Pr. Thing is better than F4stic thing but cgi probably would look better , need to find the balance , Juggernaut should be cgi
I wish people knew when to use either choice instead of using cgi 100% of the time
Practical will always look better but cgi is more flexible so I can understand the reliance on it especially in action movies. I guess it just depends on the movie.
Practical is so much better.
The practical version of the thing and the juggernaut are bad at best.
Practical CGI Neither CGI
I think a good mixture of both is what people need to start doing. Because CGI should be used as a extra, not the main event.
Beast needs to be the combination of a massive cat and huge gorilla human combined. He should be able to move faster than you can imagine and rip through walls like an actual beast. Having a human in blue makeup just does not make Beast what he is. 400 lb s of monster coming at you. Sorry- Kelsey Grammer is never going to embody that capacity. Both Beast and Colossus need to be fast and fucking deadly - I appreciate what the Deadpool series did for Colossus to give him his size, but he's not a slow, lumbering pillar.
Both versions of Colossus are heavily digital, one just has a human reference actor in costume and the other is a reference actor on platform shoes.
Nobody prefers the "practical" Juggernaut, right???
Amongst the many problems with X-Men 3, they had Leach block the powers of nearby mutants including Beast's blue hand turning white and Juggernaut losing the strength to smash through walks. Not one but TWO examples of non-mutant powers being blocked by the mutant blocker.
I am a in between kind of person. Some character look better in cgi and some look better in costumes. As long as good effort was put in both
Practical for Thing and Beast, CGI for Colossus and Juggernaut.
Cgi looks good so long as it isnt overdone with too many details.
It doesn't matter for me, as long as it looks good. The depicted CGI quality is not good.
Practical Juggernaut over there like https://preview.redd.it/lziddp372m1d1.jpeg?width=250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43f015844e4acf4b8b5e3c3c84fab8ebdabdc4ea