Poll: Movies: CGI or puppets?

[Queen Michael]

Puppets. Always looks real (as in "not computer-simulated") and keeps them from showing off through ostentatious and gratuitous movements from the characters. Keep in mind that Labyrinth and the Old Trilogy (need I tell you what movies I refer to? Surely not) used puppets, and were much better for it.

 

[Canadian Briton]

puppets can look really good in given circumstances. (eg jurassic park) But only when done well.

 

[Caligulove]

Who says there can't be a mixture of the two??

I find that to be perfection, where its grounded in reality and avoid the uncanny valley. Motion Capture, even the effects in Avatar were 100% CGI.

With that in mind, I'm gonna put my vote for Models/Puppets. Since they clearly still need to be in the mix. Complete CGI just looks too unreal. Take the Star Wars prequels, for example. On all the big-scale Green-screen scenes when our heroes are swinging and slashing or 'fighting' with all the CGI droids or other aliens... you can notice that they're not there, and the actor KNOWS they're not there- but they 'fight' because they remember their script and have to, say, 'swing' at this moment and 'duck' here to miss the 'monster claw' or something.

Doesn't feel natural or human.

 

[HeySeansOnline]

CGI is too clean, and easily abused, Avatar, The Star Wars Prequels, Transformers 1 and 2, impressive imagery ( my hats off to the team from the Transformers movies ) but It felt too fake. Granted small scale items and costumes are just as fake, but they feel real. CGI just hasn't hit that point yet. I prsonally feel we should make a move to animation.

 

[Semitendon]

It's already been stated that CGI has some definite benefits. But, since the OP specifically mentioned puppets, I assume that the subject is creatures and characters, rather than outright special effects. In that case, I believe that puppets are the hands down winner, with a rare few exceptions.

Jabba the Hut, the Alien Queen, and the Sarlacc are great examples, since the characters have been created by the use of puppets, and CGI.

In each case, the puppet version always looked more realistic than it's CGI counterpart. Also, because it's a puppet, the director must carefully choose the film shots that show the puppet, leading to a much more thought out film.

Alternatively, CGI just splashes onto the screen with little thought to anything other than the creatures overwhelming presence. The creature loses out in this representation, because it no longer has personality.

In example, the Sarlacc scene in Return of the Jedi. When the puppet Sarlacc reaches out to grab Lando and attempts to pull him in, the audience senses the dangerousness and fiendishness of the Sarlacc. Alternatively, when the CGI version simply pops it's head up and grabs a falling soldier, the audience see's more of the monster's body, but has little impression of it's personality other than " that's a bad thing".

The only time CGI characters win over puppets is when the character is too large or complex to be made into a realistic puppet. Transformers, the Incredible Hulk, and most of the creatures in Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter, would be too difficult to shoot as puppets. Also, notice that Transformers and the Incredible Hulk are both characters that require immense on-screen presence. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter often require the creatures to engage in activities that would be impossible for a puppet to be used for.

So, occasionally CGI must be used, but only when it's impossible to use puppets. Which is how it should be, since puppets are the superior type.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Eh, either one's fine by me, really.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Either/Both... I don't really care as long as the people creating them actually know their trade. When either kicks your suspension of disbelief in the head it's because of poor craftsmanship somewhere down the line. Neither looks 'more real' than the other if the people involved are competent.

 

[CK76]

Computer generated effects are hard to label as much because they're constantly evolving nature. The biggest issue I have is when the envelope is pushed beyond what technology can handle. With the exception of Gollum I don't think I've seen a CG character blend with live action people. Full Cg works (Pixar) it's fine in same way traditional animation works, it all blends.

It is hard to say but CG is not quite there in terms where I don't think "that's a CG element next to real person". Maybe by 2020s.

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

I think a good balance between the too is good..
A really well made scene on a spaceship with a CGI background out all of the windows. I think CGI should never be used where the characters are, only as a secondary effect to places which need it to create the look wanted.

 

[phoenix_tetsu]

It depends... the main problem is that CGI is rarely used to do something interesting
It's all explosions, collapsing buildings, robots, monsters or a mixture of the aformentioned...

Or even worst, hairlines for bald actors or erasing pot bellies for other actors

 

[Necrofudge]

Well first we must ask ourselves: what is scarier? a sock puppet of a monster, or an animated monster? Personally I fear the sock puppet more because it uses cheesiness as a ruse to make people let their guard down.

On the other hand, the CGI may allow a director's idea to be portrayed more clearly. It wouldn't be held back by limitations like gravity or cost.

 

[Veylon]

I'll take the puppets any day. More to the point, the backgrounds are usually better when they're real. It goes for props, too. Look at all that junk in the original Star Wars. Everything is beaten up and rusted. It has a story to tell.

CGI has it's uses, especially when it comes to spaceships, lasers, and Toy Story, but then those things look plastic and shiny even when real so it's okay.

 

[MikailCaboose]

CGI when it's good. However, The Dark Crystal is still one of my favorite movies, and that's all puppets and animatronics so...both? Where's that answer, huh?

 

[Blue Musician]

CGI can add a lot more to some movies, but if makeup and puppets are used correctly they can add somethings that CGI won't really do (example: Pan's Labyrinth).

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I'll take the puppets any day. More to the point, the backgrounds are usually better when they're real. It goes for props, too. Look at all that junk in the original Star Wars. Everything is beaten up and rusted. It has a story to tell.

CGI has it's uses, especially when it comes to spaceships, lasers, and Toy Story, but then those things look plastic and shiny even when real so it's okay.

You know, it's piss easy to make things all beat up and rusty in CGI. When it's not it's either because the CGI artists are fucking useless or because the director is a tool.

 

[Harlemura]

I don't think Avatar would've had the same effect if all the Na'vi were on strings.

I've always prefered CGI. My brain can always adapt around something animated being realistic. If it's anything else, I'll always have that niggling feeling that I know there's either someone pulling some strings somewhere or it's just a guy in a suit.
Chewbacca being one of the few exceptions.

Could be I've just seen CGI implemented more even since I was little, so my brain excepted animated stuff could seem real.
I watched Space Jam way too much as a kid.

 

[Njaard]

I'm not gonna vote; I find a combination of the two to be most effective.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It depends. If they can get puppets to work, then yes. If it looks like shit, then use CGI, but don't go overboard. As in, don't CGI your hairline, Kevin Costner.