Poll: ?
Poll Options
View poll results: ?
puppets are still more realistic and organic than CGI, and have alot more character
4 18%
CGI is like magic, it enables the filmmaker to truly create his vision
8 36%
I am not partial to either choice, and think that both have their place in film making.
9 41%
TITANIC TITANIUM TYRANT
1 5%
Voters: 22.
#1
So I just got into an argument with a friend right now, about the use of CGI and puppets in films.

My friend claims that CGI is much better than animatronics and puppets, because it provides the filmmaker with limitless possibilites.

I, however, claim that for years, physical limits have driven film makers to creative solutions for their visions.

Our start of the argument: Star Wars and Yoda.

I claim that Yoda should've stayed a puppet, and my friend says that the digitalisation of Yoda allowed for the best fight scene in the prequels (yoda versus doku in number 2)

what are your thoughts?
#2
I dont like the look of CGI yoda, but your friend is right. How can you make a fight that badass with a puppet?

Also, when I watched revenge of the sith last weekend, I noticed how much it pisses me off the way yoda talks

EDIT: On the other hand, you cant stick your wiener in a CGI snake costume and put on a show for 7 year old kids at the park. So I guess each has its disadvantages
Last edited by tubatom868686 at May 29, 2010,
#4
Quote by tubatom868686
I dont like the look of CGI yoda, but your friend is right. How can you make a fight that badass with a puppet?

Also, when I watched revenge of the sith last weekend, I noticed how much it pisses me off the way yoda talks

aye, but who impresses you most, the climctic, epic CGI battle of yoda, or the Puppet of yoda in the swamps of Dagobah, playing with the flashlight?
#5
You both have solid points, but CGI is the way forward.

If directors can come up with creative solutions from limited possibilities.

Can you imagine what they can do with limited possibilities.
Fuck it.
#6
Quote by StewieSwan
This is like debating between sculptures and paitings.

no it isn't, this is debating between two popular tools in film making. if you're gonna make a simile, then say it's like comparing paint brushes to crayons.
#7
Yoda was better as a puppet, but I still prefer CGI.
Quote by Pleasure2kill
The truth is, Muslims never apologized for their faith having something to do with the attacks on 9/11.
#8
Puppets.

Just watch the re-release of the Star Wars trilogy...it looks horrible because they added CGI....Puppets will always be more organic because there is actually something in front of the camera.
#9
Quote by CoreysMonster
no it isn't, this is debating between two popular tools in film making. if you're gonna make a simile, then say it's like comparing paint brushes to crayons.



Yes it is. They both can be used to depict the same thing. A person, for example. The sculpture has more depth and realism to it, but the painting can make better use of color and background. They both have their place and neither one is better than the other.
PM me for newts
#10
Both to be honest.

Both have their place in the industry and different roles between them.

Both of these techniques range from the incredibly lifelike to the impossible and I couldn't choose one over the other.
Sure CGI is getting every more detailed, easier and cheaper to create but puppets and puppeteering will never die as a method of film production.

Epiphone Les Paul Standard w/ SD Alnico Pro II's
Fender Aerodyne Telecaster & Stratocaster
Marshall JCM 800 4104 combo


E-Married to Funny_Page
#11
The Yoda puppet was always poor and when surrounded by CGI in Episode 1 it bordered on the ridiculous. For the most part the transition to CGI for the character was pretty successful, as at least now it can manage multiple expressions. And bounce around.

It's pretty much an analogy for all of cinema. It worked at the time, but it isn't the way forward. Which is a shame; the T-rex puppet was more effective than any CGI creature I've ever seen.
#12
Quote by StewieSwan
Yes it is. They both can be used to depict the same thing. A person, for example. The sculpture has more depth and realism to it, but the painting can make better use of color and background. They both have their place and neither one is better than the other.

no, because both tools are used in the same dimension:

a CGI image and a puppet are both brought to the 2D screen
A sculpture is meant to be visible in 3 Dimensions.

actually, this is just splitting hairs, I know what you're getting at.
Of course neither is better, but one can be more popular, which is all this thread is asking for.
#13
I honestly think they both look pretty bad.

We're not really even pushing the limits on either, but of course budget becomes a problem.
______________________________________________________________________
Last edited by Gyroscope : Tomorrow at 01:00 PM.
#14
I think CGI is more versatile. It's easier to make some models (realistically) using CGI than to make puppets.
Especially for things like Clash of the Titans or Godzilla, with large monsters. Even if you could build a huge prop for the scenes where they interact with humans, it would be difficult to animate them in a lifelike manner.

I appreciate both, though. I'm just saying that CGI is probably more convenient for hollywood. It's a bit like analog tape vs. digital recording, y'know?
#15
Quote by red157
The Yoda puppet was always poor and when surrounded by CGI in Episode 1 it bordered on the ridiculous. For the most part the transition to CGI for the character was pretty successful, as at least now it can manage multiple expressions. And bounce around.

It's pretty much an analogy for all of cinema. It worked at the time, but it isn't the way forward. Which is a shame; the T-rex puppet was more effective than any CGI creature I've ever seen.

if anything, the T-Rex CGI in jurassic park is still the best CGI I've ever seen.
#16
CGI. I always find puppets to look pretty cheesy. There are times when animatronics do trump CGI though. For example, Jaws (the shark)
#18
Quote by Lt. Shinysides
CGI. I always find puppets to look pretty cheesy. There are times when animatronics do trump CGI though. For example, Jaws (the shark)


Quote by magicninja_
I love the old classics. Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, Neverending Story. When Jim henson died puppeteering went to with him.

and all of those.
#19
Quote by CoreysMonster
if anything, the T-Rex CGI in jurassic park is still the best CGI I've ever seen.

I was disappointed when I watched the first film recently as despite still being impressive, its age tells. Though I see your point, there isn't much better around today.

Seeing how weak most effects still are makes me question how far CGI can actually go, as for me, I've never seen a moving CG creation I'd describe as photo-realistic.
#20
I think if there needs to be interaction with the *whateverthing*, it should be a puppet or prop, because actors interacting with CGIs just look dumb and fake...
#21
Quote by red157
I was disappointed when I watched the first film recently as despite still being impressive, its age tells. Though I see your point, there isn't much better around today.

Seeing how weak most effects still are makes me question how far CGI can actually go, as for me, I've never seen a moving CG creation I'd describe as photo-realistic.

actually, I'd say you've seen very much CGI that you don't even notice as such, especially in ads like car commercials an such.

In alot of ads, most people cannot tell the difference between real and CGI, and the people that can are usually CGI specialists themselves, that know what to look for.
#22
Quote by CoreysMonster
actually, I'd say you've seen very much CGI that you don't even notice as such, especially in ads like car commercials an such.

In alot of ads, most people cannot tell the difference between real and CGI, and the people that can are usually CGI specialists themselves, that know what to look for.

See I think I would, especially if it was placed in the foreground.

Maybe we should play a game of CGI or no-CGI.
#23
Personally, I'm not impressed by CGI anymore, too many directors simply rely on things being pretty to make money. I don't doubt that it can be used to further a picture, but it simply isn't currently.

I don't mean this as an absolute or anything, but the last CGI movie that really struck me as using the grounds well was probably A Scanner Darkly - it's what comes immediately to mind, anyway, I'm sure someone else will mention something that I'm forgetting.