puppets or CGI?
you see in all these modern sci-fi films. CGI (Computer Generated Image) aliens, but does it really have the same effect? think of the alien in "Signs" and the aliens in "The thing". There is about 12 years between the two, but what looks better? the thing of cause. So what do you prefer?
CGI good points: no limits easyer to make bad points: looks crap hard to act with expensive puppets good points: looks real much easyer to act with has a higher "scare factor" bad points: very hard to make expensive. |
Since I want to go into film as an artist for a career. In my own opinion I love the old fashioned method but on the other hand CGI does help convey certain effects in film that puppeteering can't do. CGI is good if done correctly like LOTR and creating digital matt paintings for the blue screen element. Puppets are awesome when building minitures and certain creature designs. Inwhich after words the artist would add a little bit of CGI to polish the the puppets and the minitures up to make it look convinceing. And what I mean convinceing is a film that uses both methods. Only through useing puppets and CGI you could pull stuff off better than useing just 1 method.
So my answer is that I am going to go with both methods just because thats what seems to work in great films. And that is useing both methods. But when it comes to doing specific type of movies like Sci Fi horror. sticking to methods of only puppets and minitures is the best road. Alien was successful because of its relation to how the Texas Chainsaw Massicur was filmed. Alien was based off of that styal of film makeing. Which is peer film makeing Where the scare factor was real and convinceing. A real horror movie is effective when you don't see the monster and you see only hints and small pieces of it. That makes the audience don't know whats after the characters in the dark. I think its more artistic to not show the monster as oppose to showing a full scale monster after someone. But what it comes down to is that it all depends on the kind of movie your makeing. Sometimes showing the monster is apropiete for the movie because of the nature of the film. But in some cases its better not to show it and only show hints and pieces of it. In reality the two methods are balanced out. Paramiteabe... :fuzblink: |
I think in the case of LOTR, Gollum was just fantastic. The character was CGI, but it just was such a convincing performance by Serkis, and how WETA brought him to life. Most of the CGI, and Matte Paintings that were used and compostited in LOTR along with everything else they used is probably the most convincing CGI Ive seen in a long time.
|
there are exceptions. Gollum was done incredibly well. But CGI seems to have deteriated over the years. Compaire the bugs from starship troopers with the alien from signs, or the reapers from blade 2. CGI seems to have gotten worse over the years instead of better!
|
It seems like I'm comparing everything to LOTR these dyas!:p I was going to say both methods work great together, but PA allready stated that...so I agree with him. Take Treebeard for instance. He was an actual puppet, but also was polished with CGI. The final result is awesome.
Oh, and I agree that CGI is looking crummy these days. Especially sequels like Men in Black and such. Did you know that just because the first Men in Black was popular, the team used less money on their SFX for the second one? The studio was counting on hype! How annoying. -oddguy :fuzcool: |
Well its not that the CGI is getting crummy its just a matter of the budget of the film which makes the CGI crummy. I mean we still have the capabilities to create films with great CGI effects. It just all depends on the budget of the film.
|
Star Wars has a huge budget, and some of their SFX is...well, not top of the line...and totally what I wouldn't expect from ILM. I think it's because they depend so much on blue screen. If you watch the special features on Star Wars EP1 & EP2, they use blue screen waaaay too much. In LOTR, it was a lot more believable because blue screen was used in addition to amazing locations, sets, models etc. Also, with all those special effects taking over your movie and having to meet a deadline, it might be hard to get quality in your work. I don't try to be a Star wars diss, but I was dissapointed by these new films. The acting was another thing that killed the new movies...it was terrible. Even Ewan McGregor, who is amazing in everything else I see him in, was horrible. And I don't think Jake Lloyd should ever be on the big screen again after EP1.
-oddguy |
CGI done well is a good thing. CGI done bad is awful. It's really an awful feeling to be watching someoen and be distracted by the fact its fake, instead of knowings its fake but being able to legitimately place it among real parts. LOTR has some brilliant special effects. Thats how it should be.
Same with puppets. You can have extremely cheesy puppets used that make you want to cry, or you can have good ol' realism. The first 3 Alien films are perfect examples of well done costumes/puppets/whatever. Mainly because of the glossy coat on the outside of the creatures, which brings out the collor, and the gellaton or whatever used for the slime. There was a difference in slime material used between 1/2 & 3, but I don't remember the specifics. |
:
|
Well we won't know anything until the third film is out. Hayden Christensin was horrible acting wise but for looks it worked because he in a way looked like little Jake Loyd grown up. That was the only aspect which was good.
Now that I saw one of the sets for 3 with Hayden standing in it. He now has long hair and he looks more like Luke Skywalker. He looks much better than how he did in 2 I can guarantee you this at least. We will just have to see for the rest. |
the puppets for alien 1,2 & 3 were great but in 4 the cgi aliens were also great mixed in with puppets
|
I have made short films using both CGI and "puppets".
Strangely, they were all about aliens. The CGI I used did not look crap, however. It was very convincing. However, we did do a pretty good job on it, so it easily could've gone all crappy. The puppets I used for the other film, was actually an entire costume. The film was shot through the perspective of a home video in a caravan site. Toward the end, a frisbee gets thrown into the bushes, and the person with the camera goes to get it. Through the bushes and in a clearing the other side, an alien craft and four white aliens are standing outside, looking right into the lens of the camera. As the guy gets up he notices them, says "oh shit", then runs in a blair witch type moment. The costumes we made for that film were really high quality, and again, worked well. But as I said before, it could easily have gone bad. For instance, watch the movie "communion", and you will soon see how puppets can be crap. |
:
:
In the end, I still own the new Star Wars on DVD and still am going to see EP3. I'm still a Star Wars fan. -oddguy :fuzsmile: |
I have to disagree again with you guys on Hayden for one reason. His acting was bad in Episode 2, as much as I like George Lucas, his directing of the actors in the first two films has sucked. The reason I know this is not just Hayden being a bad actor is his performance in that recent movie, not life as a house but his most recent one where he played that one guy who made up "real" news stories. His performance was top notch, and showed that he wasnt a crappy actor.
Hopefully this time around in Episode 3 Lucas gives a bit better direction to the actors, and you'll see that its just mainly to due with directing, unlike Keanu Reeves. :p |
:
It is extremely off topic, and I've had enough of it. I don't want to have to read through ****ing massive paragraphs about some actor called "Hayden" just to get to posts about CGI vs Puppets/props. |
Sorry, Death. I suppose we could make a acting thread or something. Whaddya say Al and PA?
-oddguy :fuzgrin: EDIT: PA and Al...we can continue our conversation about Star Wars and acting here. |
:
Anyways I think theres always going to be instances where puppets or CGI could be better. For example, in the Empire Strikes Back, Yoda was perfect as a puppet, the technology was less advanced, and Yoda wasnt needed for any major action, or lots of movement. In episode 2 I think ILM did a pretty good job with capturing the essense of yoda in CGI, while still making it feel similar to the puppet from ESB. |
Jurrassic Park is another great example of puppets done right. Also, SFX were used for the far away shots with running and jumping. Puppets were used for closeups.
-oddguy :fuzcool: |
:
|
What about adding an element of stop motion phatography in the mix of CGI and puppeteering? This was done in Alien 3 with the way the bambi burster came out and walked off. It was a puppet that had a little stop motion element combined with minor CGI effects. Dennis Fincher the director of Alien 3 expiermented with this film plus giveing us a new look of the creature upon request of Giger. Which I have to say was a breakthrough. Alien 3 was probabally the first film ever to use a minor CGI effect on the creatures in a time when the technology was scarse and new.
|
:
I was quite impressed with the level of detail the put into it. Especially on the outside bodyshell. |
I think one of my favorite things about how they filmed large important locations of LOTR was with their biggatures. Just all the fine detail that was then put up to the screen, and added people and actors, objects, etc, looked very convincing, and had a new sense of Realism in my opinion.
|
:
|
:
But the Aliens APC was really decent. It had this massive wheels, and absorbed all the bumps. They really should've got more recognition for the props they used in that movie. |
it was a sort of airshow/tankshow i went to with my uncle.
|
After Seeing ROTK again, I just notice how spectacular the CGI still is in all of the LOTR films. :fuzsmile: Not to mention how great the story is, and acting, etc.
|
:
|
:
|
Yeah like the show Sliders. It was a fun show but my god the CGI was so fake!
|
I love both puppets and CG, i think that they have to be carefully chosen for just the right moment and atmosphere of a movie or else they look terrible.
For example look at Aliens (Alien 2), at the end the alien queen was all puppet and was very convincing and realistic especially when she curled her lips and growled. But then at some of the Alien CG, it didn't fit in with the stumbling and curling puppet alien that i thought was much better, thus the CG wasn't very impressive. I think that CG/puppets should only be used for certain creatures/characters. |
I hate to tell you SS but CGI was never around during the time when Alains was filmed. James Cameron shot the film useing Miniatures, puppets, and special effects with smoke and mirrors and lighting. Every shot you see with the queen is a giant puppet much like what Jabba the Hutt was in "Return of the Jedi."
Eather that or there was a small modol of the queen they filmed in a miniature and they just use some cool hand tricks. But there was no CGI at all. If you seen CGI effects in Aleins it means you saw a special edition where nowadays they go back into the original film and twek it up with some CGI. But everything you see with the Alien curling his lip is all puppet work. You don't have believe me but thats what it is. Alien 3 was the first to introduce a minor CGI effect and I am saying very minor CGI. Aliens was filmed during the 80's where CGI was never herd of at the time. And then Alien 3 was filmed in 1990 where CGI was starting to make its appearence for the first time in film. It wasn't much but it helped. |
that is another reason why Aliens rules. :p
|
I like my film FX like I like my coffee: Mixed. Both of them have pros and cons but adding both is a very good touch. I thought Alien:Ressurrection(sp.) made the right call when it used aliens and puppets. And CGI quality is pretty good at times, look at the matrix movies. Once again, a good example of a movie using CGI and puppets/props to achieve the maximum effect.
|
I like movies that use CGI where it would look best, and puppets/props where it would look best.
As some of you may well be aware, I make model starships as props for clients in the movie and tv industry. I've been pondering over the uses of these models recently, and I've been wondering whether they are as popular for actual use in the filming as they were 5 years ago. Most of my clients seem to be more interested in the models to act as guides for the 3D modellers. I beleive this is the case, because while 3D modellers might be quite talented when it comes to making things look real, often they are not very creative, and their works lack the "spark" that's needed to get original looks. For instance, the movie Starship Troopers, made a great job of the model starships it used. Every single ship in that movie was a model. But when it came to those bug things, they used CGI, and made a good job of it too. Just another example of how the mixture of the two can do very well for itself. The same goes for Oddworld. Most of their characters started out life as sculptures and drawings. The talented drawers and modellers made the characters, and then the 3D modellers translated that work into the computer world. |
Thats how it all of works out. Watching TV and watching movies is like looking at art that can move. But the basis of film and television is art. It all starts out in its raw form in art. You will never see a movie or a TV show without story boards and Illustraitions. Like 3D modeling in which you mention Death the guide for the director from the Illustraitors is mainly the Story board. Those story boards evolve into moveing scenes called anamatics and then turned into the scene which the animators do. Thats the basis of a film turning still artwork and makeing that art come alive and move.
That 3D modeling and minatures add to the effect of the realisem. They also act as guides to show things how they would move and look 3 demensionally. Because a story board doesnt tell much. In a typical art studio you may have a thousand story boards all posted up on sheets of foam core that depict the scenes in the most quick and simpleist form which is a gesture or line drawing. The director would go through and select the shot he likes and sometimes the artist sits there and is shocked because your trying to think ok he wants that shot but theres hundreds of thousands of characters in that shot. You have to think how you are going to transition that story board into a completed Illustration to hand over to the modelers. And the modelers have to interpret the Illustrations from artists so they can make 3D models from and minatures and then hand that over to the animators to make that come alive. Its a very demanding type of job being artists and modelers and animators. You are constantly in the hot seat and on demand in short amount of times. Not only you have to have talent but you need to have a lot of craft and you need to your talent as fast as possible and still withhold your great talent. It can at times be tedious and intimidateing. All areas are important and the area that I want to do which is the Illustraitor is the first step in makeing a movie. |
Just a few pics of my work area, some ships that are still half built, and my work materials/tools.
http://www.myimgs.com/data/starships/Ships1.jpg This picture shows the half built Cargo Ship project. Next to it is a Gunboat for a race I designed myself. Next to that is a battleship miniature (fully painted). To the right of that is a very small winged frigate. And to the extreme right is a fully painted cruiser miniature. http://www.myimgs.com/data/starships/Ships2.jpg An above view, showing from left to right: Unfinished Cargo Ship, Gunboat, painted Battleship miniature, Frigate, painted Cruiser. http://www.myimgs.com/data/starships/Ships3.jpg To the left in white (still unpainted) is the newest project. The center ship is the gunboat again. And on the right is the Battleship miniature again. http://www.myimgs.com/data/starships/Ships4.jpg My work materials, consisting of polystyrene card (hard plastic) of various thickness and texture. (What all my ships start off as) This is then cut to the required shapes and glued to the model using liquid polystyrene cement. |
Just going to bump this topic back up to the top to save it from dying.
*bump* |
Out of cerosity Death do you do your model work based off of your own Illustrations? You should see my work studio. Like a typical artist we are messy hehe:lol: But that is part of the job.
I have Air Brush equipment mounted next to my drawing tabel with the air brush ready to go just simply plug the compressor in. There is pieces of Illustraition board that are cut at different sizes laid out on the table. Plus all my art supplies and bins and small drawers are sitting on my table aswell that I wish I had a shelf for. with paper towels and varnish sprays and paints. Plus a folding Essel and my portfolio. And of course my fine brushes. Now I need to invest into a Mac computer and a shelf so I could develop some digital art work aswell and to keep my supplies off my table. I consider myself a professional freelance artist. Honestly I am looking forward to the next month because I will be getting a bigger space for my studio and my equipment. It will definatly be nice for me. The bigger the space the better for me. Ive also decided I am starting my own small freelance business. Anyway enough bragging about my work area back to topic. |
You kids are lucky! My art supplies consist of colored pencils and oil paints. Ta-Da! Well, I have made some clay sculptures of my creatures though, but that's it.
-oddguy :fuzcool: |
:
I'd really like a proper workshop. A shelf full of model kits so I have lots of spare parts, a nice big, open desk area, a set of rulers and set squares, and a display case for all the finished models. Oh and lots of storage space for the paints, glues, varnish and so on. And yes, those models are made from my own illustrations. The first stage starts off in the sketch pad, then it moves up to accurate freehand drawing where the dimensions are decided, then it goes onto graph paper, and from there I make scale drawings of each part. The parts are then cut off from the sheet of plastic, trimmed, sanded, filed, and then glued on the model. Once the model is completed, I start to think about what kind of finish I want to give it in terms of textured plastic, and from there it moves on to a plastic coating that covers up any blemishes on the plastic work. Then the model gets put in a vacuform moulding machine, where an exact replica is made. The replica gets tested with one or two different paint schemes until I am happy with the look, then the replica gets sold and shipped to the customer. |