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.

I agree Jake Lloyd really was horrible, but Ewan McGregor in Episode 2 he did a very good job with his acting, in fact I would have to say that he and Christpher Lee probably gave the best performances.

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.

Ewan did do better in EP2...I was thinking of EP1. Oh...and I don't know any way Christpher Lee could even try to act bad in a movie. It's his voice...I just love the voice!:D

I agree. He wasn't a very good actor, but he did this thing with his eyes that was good. If only he would've taken his acting up a few nothches.:fuzemb:

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

This is where this conversation ends. I want to see it finished. NOW.

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.

Fair Enough.

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:

I completely agree. The CGI on JP was stunning.

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've actually been for a ride in the APC vehicle prop. really small inside though.

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.

lucky you. the last APC i got to ride in was really uncomfortable, and i couldnt get a seat. And we had a crap driver.

Was this the tank museum? Because I went there recently, and I think I know how you feel. I got shaken to bits.

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.

Also, Stargate SG-1 has some REALLY good CGI. They apparantly throw alot of money at the computer graphics team for it.

Yeah, I have to agree on that. Its nice to see a tv show that does have convincing cgi, compared to a few shows Ive seen where it just looks plain cheesy. :fuzemb:

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.