Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates.
Starting January 9th, site maintenance is ongoing until further notice, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Due to recent news involving X, formerly Twitter and its owner, the staff of SuperHeroHype have decided it would be best to no longer allow links on the board. Starting January 31st, users will no longer be able to post direct links to X on this site, however screenshots will still be allowed as long as they follow Hype rules and guidelines. We apologize for any inconvenience.
:heart:Why would you post that horrid video?![]()
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.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
Puppets ftw.
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.
this is a rubbish example...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.![]()
best thing to do is go all jurassic park and do both