Puppets vs. Pixels: an explanation for the overkill...

If you've met even ONE OT gusher (or PT basher...although the two are most commonly one in the same) you'd know that one of the main complaints of the old Star Wars crew about the new Episodes is their "digital mentality." It seems that in George Lucas' mind today, as opposed to the methods used in the Original Trilogy, the rule goes kind of something like this: if it can be done with a computer, then DO IT with a computer.

It's not that this is a problem really, it's just that often times, the characters that are completely computer generated are very obviously CG. They don't at all appear to be real, no matter how good they look...they just don't seem to "take up space" in the real world scene. They LOOK animated.

Puppets, on the other hand, DO take up space in their scenes. When you see a rubber puppet in a movie, you KNOW that's real, you can FEEL it in the scene. It's THERE...it's REAL. And in that the OT fans are right. A puppet does appear to be more REAL in a scene than a cg character...yet somehow, I just couldn't bring myself to seem to like PUPPETS better than PIXELS. I know they look more like they actually exist, I know they seem to add a fulness of interaction to a scene, but I just don't like them...

Being the self-phsycho-analyst that I am, I sunk down into my subconscience while watching ESB and AOTC back to back and decided to unravel to mystery behind this conundrum...and I came up with this:

The reason PUPPETS aren't better than CG CHARACTERS is because, while they do look more REAL, they look way too plain! The puppets don't have even a thimble full of the CG characters' descriptive expression or movement. We know there aren't ALIENS really in the scene, so I think that there is just a certain point where the CG characters look "real enough" and any shortcomings they have in the REALISM department are overshadowed by the fact that on a CG character, as opposed to a puppet, I can tell what they guy is thinking, rather than having to rely on context clues from the human characters' responding dialogue.

The point of this thread is to see what you gusy think? Puppets or pixels? Also, it might be a kind of cool little social-cinema experiment for you to list your favorite Episode with your fake character preference.

Personally...

Pixels...and Attack of the Clones

 

I think CG is improving to the point where the effects DO look substantial in several parts of AOTC. By the time we get to Ep3, I think it'll look even better.

At the moment, it's a balance between something actually being there and an effect, but that balance is going in favour of CG work.

 

Good thread ScottAlmighty

It really is a fine line between which to use for what circumstance.
Let's take the Clone Trooper example.

In my opinion it would have been fine to use CG Clones in the far shots, but why did they have to use CG in the close shots? Look at a closeup of Yoda when he is on the gunship and look at the clone's boots behind him. They look almost "illustrated". I dont understand why they could not have built a dozen real clone trooper costumes to use for close-up shots.

CG Yoda is another issue. They had to go all CG with him because they could not have gotten a puppet to fight like that. And in this case they could also not use a puppet yoda for all the other shots because we would see a clear difference when comparing the two.

 

Clone troopers...okay, I can't argue with that...other than that maybe George wanted his animators to have free range on the shots for the battle, so he didn't want to film any stuff for it...but no...cause he did have a script...and he did film stuff with the other live actors for the sequence...okay, I'll say that one is overkill...

 

I'm down with Pixels.

Anyone who's scene IMAX AOTC should know why.

It wasn't the CGI or the other special effects that looked messed up.

It was the actors' make-up. You could see it on every live actor there.

Ironic, no?

 

The Weenie saw IMAX AOTC. You could actually see pixels. The "round" corners on ships looked like a Sega Genesis game. For some of the backgrounds you could really see dithering. It was funny. The IMAX was great. The only downfall was that it might have been TOO good. But thats a side note.



The Weenie loves, LOVES, LOVES puppet Sy Snootles. The best SW alien character. Puppets or humans w/makeup beat out "Didjys" any day.

While characters like Dex and the clonetroopers look intensely animated, (they wouldve fit great in Roger Rabbit) others like Watto and Yoda are dern near perfect. (EDIT: make that PERFECT)Those are the only examples of good cg characters to date. However, the cg in the background, and for animals (like the gooberfish, and the arena monsters) are great. Its when you apply it to main characters, and people like the "Wah-hah!" guy and the "Jedi poodoo!" guy in the Coruscant chase that it really detracts from the movie.

With CG, you can indeed see much more emotion. But, In the Weenie's opinion, what good is seeing a character's emotion, when you never believe that character is there in the first place?


Its really putting the emphasis in the wrong place.

 

The reason PUPPETS aren't better than CG CHARACTERS is because, while they do look more REAL, they look way too plain! The puppets don't have even a thimble full of the CG characters' descriptive expression or movement.

The same can be said of human actors vs. CG characters. Human expressions aren't really all that animated either, and we accept this because it's natural. Puppets of ESB Yoda's caliber seem to have as much expression as any of the human actors in the film, and why should he have more? What would be the point?

In contrast to ESB and also ROTJ, AOTC's rotoscoped CG elements look about as natural as Disney's equally overanimated output released since... well, whenever Disney started I guess.

 

The ESB Yoda conveyed as much emotion as AOTC Yoda, and Watto.

 

My two cents


The reason I like puppets more than pixels is the suspension of disbelief factor.

Personally, with a puppet, being a physical being, I can accept it easier as a live object. When I look at most CGI creations all I am thinking is "wow, cool CGI" and that instantly takes me out of the movie. For me AotC mostly did a decent job of erasing that CGI feel. In some scenes I forgot that Yoda was CGI and the Cloneys looked and felt real in most scenes.

But. . .

The day that I look at CGI and not realize that it is CGI, I will become a CGI believer.

 

We must pray that that day actually comes.

 

I think the day is nearing. I myself was dumbstruck when I found out that all clonetroopers were CGI. Yoda at some points was almost up there, so was Gollum in TTT.

 

A always believe more in a puppet that any CG creation.

 

The overkill of rubber masks and models with matte lines in the OT is disgusting. Blech. Thank goodness ILM cleaned a bunch of it up for the better edition.

 

What I find ironic is that the most poorly done 'rubber mask' alien is actually in AotC. He's the green headed guy who blasts a battle droid and then puts on a big dumb smile. He's probably the worst background character in the series, and that scene really annoys me.

(I bet 5 seconds from now there are going to be 50 posts about what that guy's name and species and backstory is and how he's a bunch of people's favorite Jedi. Just wait.)

 

His name is Kit Fisto and I think he's cool.

 

Hey metalgoldknight,
Dont forget the Nemoidians. They stimulated confused laughter on opening night of ep1, they were so bad. And what about the greatly inferior ree yees. "Now we need that clone army." The problem the "cg bashers" have with cg, is that EVERYTHING else is sacrificed for it. The Nemoidians are a prime example of that, but still they are 1000 times better than any Kaminoan, or Dex.

 

CG when done right looks at least as good as a state of the art puppet, and in many cases it looks considerably better.

The problem is, people need to learn (or perhaps re-learn) how to suspend their disbelief and start enjoying movies again. It's sad that with behind the scenes documentaries being so popular, a lot of the magic and mystery has gone out of cinema, and while education can be enlightening, in this case it has produced knowledgable cynics.

I can understand whooping and hollering about truly subpar effects (oddly enough, the effects critics are dead quiet when it comes to Spiderman), but to be able to criticize the effects in the prequels, you have to be a downright picky bastard to the point that your criticisms become absurd.

 

What LFL seems to be missing amidst it's mad dash to completely obliterate live-action filmmaking is that there really is no need for ONE single type of FX to be used in any movie. Though I'm not sure how ILM and the various other SW-related effects houses really feel, but Lucas seems to be dead-set on turning EVERYTHING from creature-creation to sets to mattes to tools to vehicles to whatever (maybe the actors next?) over to the "digital revolution." Honestly, I'm just not sure why.

Yes, of course, it's entirely possible to construct an entire film using nothing but CGI FX. It's also entirely possible to construct a birthday cake entirely from frosting, but don't you get a much better result by using some CAKE?

Okay, silly metaphor, I know. What I'm trying to say is, you should use whatever effect will produce the best possible result in each case. Right now, with rare exception (read: Gollum,) CGI still DOES NOT WORK for integrated, main-cast characters. Heck, it's still problematic when it comes to "otherworldly" monsters! Check out the AOTC arena scene for the best available illustration of this: The big three-horn beast looks the best (he has the most "basic" design and the least moving parts), the reptilian crustacean looks so-so (great in longshots, gellatinous up close) and the big kitty-cat looks the worst (convincing CGI hair? Not yet.)

The problem isn't just confined to SW, by any means. The otherwise not-quite-as-awful-as-it-could-have-been "Resident Evil" flick ends laughably thanks to a jaw-droppingly bad-looking CGI monster (more traditional zombie FX dominate the rest of the film.) 1998's "Godzilla" remake sports one of the most complex of CGI characters, yet this much-hyped creation fails to connect with it's audience even a BIT as much as it's predecessor, which has been going strong as a world-renowned cinematic icon for 25 films and counting. LOTR has it's share of giant CGI monsters, but in almost all cases the are either part of a larger "real" scene (the digital Oliphaunts in the live Haradrim army, the primarily live-action Wraiths on digital Fell Beasts) or "excused" from outright realism by their nature (the made-of-magic-fire Balrog.) The "Jurassic Park" films, which supposedly "birthed" the age of digital creatures, still use practical-effect dinos for most of the closeups because it "sells" the scare better.

What bugs me about the PT CGI enough to label it as overkill is that SO MUCH of it seems to be being done for little reason other than "are we there yet?" experimentalism. Car chase aside, most of the wide shots of Coruscant exteriors are traditionally-framed, stills or slow-zooms, etc. These are full-CGI as opposed to models... why? ALL of the Clonetroopers are digital, resulting in an impressive-looking but (imo) utterly lacking in humanity or dramatic weight final war scene. Putting a few-dozen extras in plastic armor so that we at least feel like PEOPLE are involved somehow was not an option... why?

From where I'm standing, the "future" of FX lies not in an abandonment of all other technologies in favor of CGI, but rather in the use of the very best of ALL technologies. Imagine the potential of CGI/practical effect HYBRID creations (which has been recently advocated heavily by live-effect guru Tom Savini!) Think of it... the detail and "realism" of men-in-suit/puppet characters, but with CGI "help" to take care of those pesky issues of costume-wrinkling, "stray pieces" or limited facial expression! Imagine "digital squibs" allowing for the most elaborate bullet-hit FX ever.

What's TRULY sad here is that the near-absolute garauntee of boxoffice success for the SW trilogy essentially makes available to these films the opportunity to use the BEST puppets, the BEST makeup, the BEST models, the BEST creature-suits and the BEST sets along with the BEST CGI... yet the filmmakers seem intent on exploring primarily ONE of these options no matter what....

:::dons flame-retardant suit:::

Meanwhile, a dude without shoes has been running around New Zealand with forced-persp

 

I hate to have to follow up such a great post like the one above, but I must comment that "suspension of disbelief" is earned, not given. If Star Wars films had always been live-action / animation efforts on the level of the Angela Lansbury / Dick Van Dyke films for Disney, maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. Roger Rabbit earns its suspension of disbelief in the first five minutes of film... once the scene cuts, the audience accepts the "fact" that cartoon actors inhabit the same realm as the human actors. The same can be said about Tron, the prototypical CGI animation / live-action film (which also happens to be one of my favorite movies).

In The Photoshop Moment and All On The Computer however, there are many instances in which the CGI elements are apparent to the concious level, and many more which are apparent to the subconcious. This explains why some imagery suddenly doesn't feel right, and why the "spell" of the movie is broken. Humans spend every waking day of their life looking at "real" images... naturally "unreal" images will be able to be perceived as artificial.

It doesn't help that such images are added in post, and that these images aren't actually "photographed" by the same equipment that films the actors.

The best application of CGI is digital compositing, which is obviously superior to optical effects that introduce matte lines and degrade the film grain itself. Rotoscoped cartoon characters are quite obviously an entirely different subject altogether, and should be clearly distinguished as such anytime one attempts a serious discussion about CGI. That said, it would be ######## AWESOME GEORGE to see Pete's Dragon make a cameo in Episode III.

 

While I accept the argument that suspension of disbelief must be somehow "earned", what's a director supposed to do when a stubborn movie goer defiantly crosses his arms and challenges, "I dare you to make me like your movie!"? That's how some people are approaching Star Wars, putting Lucas and his films in an unfortunate no-win situation.

On a related note, I remember watching The Empire Strikes Back many years ago and hearing my friend scoff at the obvious Star Destroyer model used in the opening shot. He wasn't too keen on the taun tauns, either. In other words, there are cynics in our midst who will always delight in poking holes in the illusion of film.

What bugs me about the PT CGI enough to label it as overkill is that SO MUCH of it seems to be being done for little reason other than "are we there yet?" experimentalism.

I don't understand why people think this kind of experimentation is new for Lucas. 20 years ago he was pushing model, puppet, and optical compositing technology to its breaking point and, in several obvious cases, well beyond. After doing so much to advance the techniques of practical effects, the next logical step is to stretch the bounds of digital technology.

It seems that in the 20 years between the originals and the prequels, some folks forgot what kind of filmmaker Lucas really is.

 

I like the pixels. But I also like the puppets. Sometimes I like one better than the other. Sometimes the other way around.

I think that they should use models for space battles again. The Pixel stuff is nice, but the space battles all look a little cartoonesque to me. It's like watching animation (because it IS watching animation). Black line matting isn't too tough on a space backgground, especially now. The fight at the end of ROTJ is fantastic (although there are a couple of minor glitches). Where as i've never seen anyone rave about the space battle in TPM.

They could have made some real Clonetroopers.

The Picnic

 

While I accept the argument that suspension of disbelief must be somehow "earned", what's a director supposed to do when a stubborn movie goer defiantly crosses his arms and challenges, "I dare you to make me like your movie!"? That's how some people are approaching Star Wars, putting Lucas and his films in an unfortunate no-win situation.

Well that sounds like a separate argument altogether, unrelated to special effects. If such people truly exist, I would like to meet them and ask about their motivations. To this day, I have yet to find such a person.

On a related note, I remember watching The Empire Strikes Back many years ago and hearing my friend scoff at the obvious Star Destroyer model used in the opening shot. He wasn't too keen on the taun tauns, either. In other words, there are cynics in our midst who will always delight in poking holes in the illusion of film.

The funny thing about models is that real objects themselves often look like models, especially when seen from far away (such as from a plane). From a distance, even a real aircraft carrier can "look like a model." I once read a book written by an astronaut who recalled how everything in space had an unnatural clarity (due to the vacuum), which made objects appear to resemble scale models. Hey hey, whadda ya know! It's actually this book right here!

In a small defense of Taun-Tauns and Rancors, at least their screen time is kept mercifully short, and the camera does not dwell on images (I feel the Taun Tauns look better than the Shaak or the Rontos in ANH:SE).

Who are these "cynics in our midst?" Sounds like a Sigourney Weaver flick.

 

I was watching Men in Black II on DVD yesterday and it suffers from similar problems as AOTC. While the creatures that are computer-generated are all done very well they somehow all feel out of place. They all have this "shiny" look about them that yells "I'm animated". Note that MIB 2 was also done by ILM. In Bayy Sonnenfeld's commentary he said that ILM charged 90,000 Dollars for any scene with a wormguy. One can assume that similar work and similar expenses were necessary for every Clonetrooper shot in AOTC. Why? Why spend many thousands of Dollars on a single shot of a clonetrooper if you could just film an extra in a little uniform for 3 Dollars 49 cents? And contrary to what people say - you can tell that the troopers in the close shots are animated, they don't look "solid" and also have that shiny look about them.

Use CGI when needed. But to present the entire Clone battle in pure CGI for 10-15 minutes with not a single real-life element used is NOT filmmaking. It's called cartoon.

 

It seems the main problem is, CGI looks bad to people who want to think it looks bad.

Bottom line: Special effects, whether practical or digital, have always had a surreal quality to them. Such is the nature of special effects.

(Oh, and Tokyo, while your effort to dismiss my friend's criticism is admiral, I feel the need to point out that his comment was not intended to be the least bit complimentary. To continue the story, after his observation that it looked like a model, I informed him that it was a model, to which he responded, "I know. But they could have at least tried to make it not look like a model.")

 

Nope. It looks bad without anyone wanting it to.

Be real, Durwood. No one thinks that way.