ST Practical or CGI?

Even when the illusion breaks, a puppet is still grounded in reality. CGI has nothing to fall back on.

 

Puppets can look more "real" because, let's face it, they are. They have mass, smell and you can touch them. However, I think a CGI character, if done in exceptionally high quality, can look more "believable". Yes, the Yoda puppet from TESB looks more real but, IMO, the CGI Yoda from ROTS looks one hundred times more believable and alive. A lot of times, especially when he's just standing still, the puppet Yoda had a tendency to look "lifeless" and slightly dead behind the eyes. I don't think the Yoda as seen in ROTS ever suffered from that problem, although the AOTC one did, particularly at the beginning of the movie (when they are talking in Palpatine's office). No such problems in ROTS, though. The close-up of his eyes opening when Bail Organa disturbs his meditation (when he's talking to Qui-Gon) looks exceptional.

If a fully CG character has the right amount of time and effort put into its creation (and a lot of money) I think it can potentially trump a puppet any day of the week. I don’t believe in all this "the human element is missing" hogwash. As I said, if the right level of care is taken in its creation this shouldn't be a problem. Look at Davey Jones and Caesar and tell me "the human element" is missing from their characters. Its not. Its very much there. In abundance. Performance-capture technology is clearly the next level. It’s getting better and better. It makes sure that the "human element" will always be present, regardless of the species of the character.

 

CGI creatures may be more articulate, but their movement always feels off. Puppets have less things moving around, but their movement is real, because they're operated by real human muscle.

When I see a CGI creature, it never feels like it's actually present with the actors. They still have a lot to improve on that aspect. Until then, puppets win in the presence department.

 

I'm more eager to see what they can do with puppetry than CGI, we see CGI movie fests all the time. And I think puppetry does look more appealing. Even the weird-looking TPM puppet looked more "there" to me than CGI Yoda.

 

I would like to see the puppet Sy Snootles make a return with the Max Rebo band.

They could hold a big press conference announcing their Reunion Tour!

 

No, I'm not kidding. As I said, it's a matter of perspective. I'm not saying CGI doesn't have value or potential. As much as I dislike Jar Jar as a character, the CGI work done on his character is remarkable. I'm simply saying, in this case, I think puppet Yoda is more believable then CGI Yoda.

 

Davey Jones is still the best example of the heights CG characters can achieve. But I think it all still depends on what the goal is. Are you going for completely photo real in the environment? Are you going for a more whimsical approach?
Star Wars always straddled the line between the two. It's a more difficult area to define. As a result, we have some CG characters that just don't quite reach the level of the best CG characters out there.

 

That's fine... As I said before, I don't need my little green Jedi to look 'real' (because I know Yoda doesn't actually exist)... I just need them to be believable, which is infinitely more fundamental IMHO. 'Real' and 'Believable' - two completely different things... The latter being the one that explains the popularity of everything from King Kong, The Wizard of Oz to Star Wars and Toy Story.

I also don't buy into this 'occupies real space' thing as well (although I respect your opinion) because it then becomes very problematic when defending/championing other special effects/techniques... the natural conclusion being that it MUST be 'better' to hang a model over a paper mâché planet because they actually occupy a 'real' space relative and concurrent to each other... Whereas, for example, the star destroyer over Tatooine involves the composting of a model with a flat matte painting, both of which don't actually exist in the same 'real' space... Ergo 1930's Flash Gordon special effects MUST look more 'real' than any composited shot in Star Wars. Or that Howard the Duck MUST be more 'real' than TESB Yoda because the actor portraying Howard is physically occupying the space within the costume, whereas as puppet Yoda it basically Henson's arm.
I personally have a problem with that school of thought.

 

I just find puppets more "believable" than CGI. So if you have a problem with that, sorry. Let's just respect each other's opinions because this topic is going nowhere.

 

And that applies both ways yes?

 

Obviously a guy in the suit will likely make the walking around more believable. Stuff like ships is different. I don't think too many people would dispute that CGI is good at stuff like ships and backgrounds (though I think painted bgs are cool too).

 

If they don't film E7 in space using actual working ships, and with actual living aliens, I'm going to be really upset.

 

No, but Lucas wanted to continue to push the technology. He didn't want to construct a helmet for one or two shots. To him that was a waste. The same way he didn't built an air speeder or a full starship set that didn't require a lot of interaction. But went he did need it, he went ahead and had it built.

I never said that everyone was the same. Just that it isn't impossible for someone to enjoy Jar Jar, Jabba, Yoda, Grievous and the like.

Except that stopped being applicable a long time ago. People knew how before CGI came along.

Yeah, because the Death Star was there. Because the Rancor was there. Because the Sarlacc was there. Because the Executor was there.

Jackson said that it didn't bother him to be fighting nothing in AOTC, because as a child growing up, he didn't have many friends to play with and so he relied on his imagination and would interact with nothing. McDiarmaid compared it to theater where some shows, there isn't anyone else there and very little in the way of sets. So whatever works best is what work. Myself, I'd be comfortable with either since I used to be somewhat like Jackson. I did have friends, but I also did stuff by myself in the same manner. So if I were an actor, I'd be right at home.

Again, I point out the following...











So, I guess all that was miniatures?

 

LOL.

I believe motion control and model ships were still used for TPM space battle but by ROTS - that was all CGI. And you can tell.

ROTJ space battle, IMO, is still the best.

 

Wait. How can someone supply evidence to support a subjective quality like believability? Get serious.
Not only that, but you misconstrued my point as "cgi = unbelievable" when it really is more complex than that. It's not even a question of whether they like the film or not. Btw before I get started, you want to add Jabba to the list? Where was he when it was cgi versus practical? LolJust skip the ceremony a pit Lambchop against Smaug. Anything to help your point right?

Cgi heavy movies being popular dont really help your case. A lot of those films brought something to the market that audiences wanted, be it a good property or a general good film. They simply dont give a crap. You're grasping at straws for 2 reasons. Cgi is everywhere. What tentpole doesn't use it, and don't say it because of demand. A lot of business goes into choosing it over practical. 2 How many of those tent poles do you get the complaint about bad cg? Even after all those films that did well, how come you still gotta pull 10 year old Gollum out of the cracks of doom? Go to you tube and search for the nostalgia critics piece on cgi. In it he breaks down everything you've posed from why gollum works so well to why people go for obviously cgi films. He also brings up why cgi has more difficulty being believable. Don't reply until you've seen it. And for the record, I found his video after I entered this conversation, so im not parroting his points.

In seeing it you will see that things like lighting inconsistencies and poor tracking can make those effects harder to be believable. So no, its not that cgi can't be believable. Its that its handicapped from the onset. Overusing it simply makes us numb to it and increases the odds of bad effects. Its a good video. Theres also another good one with comicbookgirl19 and Alec Gillis. He, who understands more about it than this forum, explain the details and politics concerning cg usage in film, and refutes not only the notion that cg is in demand, but even the idea that its cheaper.

 

ROTJ is full of really, really bad compositing in my opinion. You can tell that they were churning out shot after shot under great pressure. However, that doesn't take away from the artistry on display or the fact they were pushing the technology to its limit. One needs to maintain a bit of objectivity in these situations...

 

Here are those links






Can't say I agree with everything, but they articulate in a lot of detail, people's issues with the mindset behind practical vs cgi.

Yes, because I totally said they never need to pretend, ever.

 

What's the difference in perspective lol? Good eyesight vs poor? In no way is the puppet more realistic or believable.

 

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore??? So now you seem to be admitting that your argument is just mere subjective opinion, but it's 'much more complex' than the audience like/dislike of a film??? Well I'm glad you cleared that up...

Again - who exactly is arguing that CGI, or any type of effect, should be 'overused'. I thought we were discussing the merits of one form over the other, and what constitutes 'best'. Can you point me to the published works of comicbookgirl19 and Alec Gillis and I will read them? I'm assuming they are published works from academics as opposed to the ramblings of vacuous, narcissistic morons?

 

It is to me. That's what I'm saying. I think the puppet is more believable and realistic then CGI. That is my opinion.

 

I would actually have preferred Lucas to update the ROTJ space battle with CGI to be honest. There is a massive problem with all the explosions that doesn't seem to actually interact with the physical models. ROTJ is the battle when you actually didn't have much opportunity to see the model warships actually being blown up, and uses many composited shots to simulate an exploding warship.

The ROTS battle, because it is able to show parts of the ship being destroyed in chunks by all the blasters and explosions, feels more real to me.

 

This thread has gone so far beyond the topic, it kind of needs to be re-titled. It's become "Practical and in-camera effects or CGI". I am guilty, myself. I was arguing real sets vs. CGI/miniature sets, instead of puppets earlier.

 

Exactly. Both are fake.

It's just that with CG you can simply do a lot more to create the illusion to reality. If we want to go with Yoda the puppet can match the expression or movement or anything really.

What does that even mean?

A puppet is only grounded in the reality of it being a puppet ie all that it cannot possibly do. The CGI is grounded in the reality of it being CG and all that it can do.

Yes you can. Looking that good it seems unlikely they coulld do that with the limitations of models.

Exactly. I can only assume that anyone who brings up this point has never, ever looked into the making of the OT and the statements over and over again about how difficult it was to do things because they had to pretend because nothing was there.

Just because some prop may have been there it's not really alive. You can't really interact with it like it was something real. You are waiting for half a dozen things to go right to create the illusion that it has a semblance of reality.

Sorry no. Your assertion is simply not true. I can put up pic after pic after pic of the sets they built.

You are misrepresenting the process. That could happen and did happen in some cases but to represent that as the norm is false. Large sets were built and to make them larger still they were extended with models. For huge sets that they added later often for quick shots no sets were built since it was done in additional photography.

No not CGI digital. Sets were expanded with miniatures. You know those practical effects people say they love.

Apparently not. The truth is that what often happened was this: They shot the scenes on the set during principal shooting then when they did reshoots months later little bits of dialogue were added or scene changed. When they did this they didn't rebuild a whole set but did the screen work with a recreation of the set added in. This was the real set built but they shot it and saved it digitally. So often this "fake" set of yours was actually a real one.

Sometimes the set was created all digitally with mattes, CG, etc. Really an updated version of exactly the kind of thing they did on the OT.

Yes my brain is really good at picking up fakes things like the puppets of the OT. So fake. The models used for the OT ships in space. So fake. The sets of the Death Star and the Rebels and everything. So fake. The sets of the PT are almost as fake looking but because they are so grand I forgive their fakeness a bit more than the fakeness of the OT which look fake and small.