Separate names with a comma.
Watch the show and join the conversation, Guest!
Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by JP, Nov 28, 2007.
Yoda couldn't just pick a side.
But to be perfectly honest, I think CGI technology has come to a point where it's almost more cost-effective and easier from a technical point of view. However, the audience is very very aware they're looking at a computer generated product, and it doesn't seem as "real" as the puppet.
Of course, Episode V Yoda didn't really hold a candle to Episode III Yoda, so I don't know what to tell you.
Still on the fence. There's something to be said for traditional methods of filmmaking involving puppets rather than CGI.
Why would you post that horrid video?
Actors seem to give a better performance when they know what they're looking at, and where exactly it'll be standing. Half the time with CG characters, live-action actors end up looking at their foreheads, necks, or just past them.
Not to mention the fact that a puppet is just... there! You're watching the movie, and you know there's something there. It has presence. It casts a proper shadow. The lights hit it right everytime. It actually moves nearby objects, rather than objects getting dragged by a rope from off-camera, or the object itself temporarily turning into CGI.
Long live the Jim Henson Creature Shop!
It really depends on the scene you are trying to take up and the fluidity of the character wanted...
best thing to do is go all jurassic park and do both
Way true. Puppets provide the realism and reference for close-up or medium shots, but once you step back and try to paint a much larger picture, CGI gives directors almost unlimited creative power.
Every time I watch Little Shop Of Horrors I'm amazed at how authentic Audrey 2 looks. The movement of his tentacles, lips and tongue are flawless. He also has some fantastic textures that are not only very plant like, but yet to be matched by anything I've seen from a computer.
check out Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for some wonderful use of Puppets.
Also - I will never pick against Alf.
None is better than the other in the right situation. I mean, with CGI there are stuff you can do which you can't do with puppets. But if you can do something with puppets, that's the way to go
Puppets. They're obviously more "there" than CGI, which simply makes it more real.
Yoda's a perfect example of this. The two different versions just feel so visually different from one another. It ruined the continuity for me. But that goes for most of the CG used in the later Star Wars films.
Be they Puppets or Muppets they always get my vote!!!
BTW that video was great t:
this is a rubbish example...
look at who framed roger rabbit which was practically the same as using cgi.
Are you trying to say those characters didn't translate there because you could they weren't obviously 'there'
YOda's cgi wasn't a problem, it was what they did with him in ep 2 at the end. Up to that point, no one had a problem with him being cgi.
Yes Puppets look more realistic, and you can even fit them with mechanical joints and rivets so they can move, example most of the dinosaurs in Jurassic park, CG was fairly new at that point so they had to make the best out of the puppets.
But on the other hand with CG, in a few more years the artists can figure out ways to make them look and animate a little more lifelike, the only thing CG has over Puppets is, they have a large amount of freedom to make the Character do what ever he pleases, as the CG character does not exist in the real world, so if the team want the CG character to run off walls, fly, do some crazy ninja ****, the artists can animate it to do that.
with puppets, for the most part they are stationary.
I side with both in a way, But CG will soon take over, fivin a few more years time, actors could well possibly be put out of jobs.
Making a CG movie alone will cost less in the future, as you don't have to pay actors ridiculous amounts of money, and you have full creative control.
CGI Artists are getting better with their programs, look at the wrinkles and imperfections on his skin, look at the hair on his head, and beard, the chain mail collar looks flawless.
there getting better and better, and this is by far the most realistic CGI human I've ever seen.
Moving to misc. film
There are obviously stories we have loved as kids that if brought to the big screen could only be done utilizing CG characters. You can't have quick camera cuts and characters just standing around doing the same movements over and over all the time. They've gotten pretty advanced where they can imitate most of the facial movements and tics people have, but they still recycle them. One issue with CG characters is that some animators tend to have them moving around or doing **** ALL the time, when in reality if they're just sitting there doing nothing, that's all they should be doing, like only blinking or subtly shifting their body or whatever. They always have them doing exaggerated stuff when they're not the focus of attention, which they need to stop.
Derka derka derka, Mohammad Jihad.
it always depends on the situation, but as a CG enthusiast i can't vote for puppets simply because you can do more with a CG character than you can with any puppet.