Quote from: SiL on May 07, 2018, 08:42:51 PM
I know, but practical effects need to be handled properly and they weren't in that film. The way they were lit and filmed and directed did a poor job of showcasing the work and didn't come across believably.
Agreed, as I mentioned I think an effects house like ILM could successfully make the project ADI intended (besides their technical role, they have the financial clout to also hire professional film crew, director, writer).
But I don't know if practical effects really is on its death bed. While practical effects may likely never dominate computer effects moving forward and has scaled down over the years, some directors prefer practical effects for certain scenes...... that director quote seen occasionally on DVD extras.
Test audiences seem to warm up to CGI, turning their nose up at practical effects. That's what happen with The Thing 2011, the test audience thought the practical effects (ADI's) looked unrealistic, so they covered them up with CGI.
I realize your point still applies here - weak director, but they did have an experienced professional film crew - cinematography, production, art direction, etc. - some of them with award winners in their filmography, plus a 40 million dollar budget as opposed to Harbinger's half million(?) dollar kickstarter budget, and the practical effects were still unconvincing. So this is where I question if the problem lies more with ADI's skills and less with the practical effects industry.