ST Practical or CGI?

That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that the CG has more expression and motion and in every objective way is akin to a live performer than a puppet.

If you like the fakeness of the puppet better then that is fine.

The issue is the reality of the CG should be acknowledged.

 

Why can't you get that the entire debate is SUBJECTIVE? What is believability? What is realistic? What is BETTER? You're just trying to control the debate by holding my opinion to higher strictures than your own. And I see right through it. Arguing with you is beginning to seem like a waste of time. And I agree with one thing, I don't think this debate even has a clear point anymore.

Is it really that hard to understand? "Best" is relative to what you're trying to do. And I've said explicitly that for close up effects dealing with actors and with anything that can be done without CGI practical should be used. Should I pull up the peer reviewed documents validating my subjetive opinion despite the fact that such a thing breeches the capabilities of scientific inquiry?

I'll get on that -_-.

Alec Gillis worked in the industry. I only brought him up because he has some good and informed points about the problems with CGI. cg19 is a bit more bombastic, so feel free to ignore her.

That's all I can say. If you can't accept that, then we're done here.

 

The puppet has more solidity and weight, is forced to move the way a physical object does instead of like infinitely stretchy skin sliding over a frame, interacts naturally with the light and dust and material of its surroundings, and generally behaves 100% like a physical object by virtue of being a physical object. CGI Yoda has more versatility, but all of its physicality has to be carefully programmed in. It can get close to appearing real, but a hunk of foam rubber and latex starts out real. The puppet is actually present in the scene, and reads as such; the CGI has telltales that reveal that it isn't really there—very small telltales, perhaps, but noticeable to me, at least.

That is why the puppet seems more "real" to me than the CGI character. Even if it doesn't move as fluidly as the CGI version, I am always convinced that it is actually there, whereas imperfect light matching or skin stretching the way no physical object could tends to give away the game with a CGI character.

 

That's why he's on my ignore list.

 

The problem with the puppet Yoda in TPM was not that it was a puppet, but that it was just poorly designed in the first place. They worried too much about making it look younger than they worried about getting the facial structure correct. Also, what was up with the shiny skin of the puppet Yoda in TPM?

 

He didn't look like the same character either, even down to the hair.

 

I have a theory about why the Yoda puppet looked so terrible in TPM. The design was based on the puppet used from Empire and Jedi, so it should look just as good in TPM, right? But it doesn't. My theory is that on the Dagobah set, Yoda is lit differently, since it's a swamp planet Yoda is usually softly lit, but in TPM, Yoda is bathed in bright lights since he is sitting in the Jedi Counsel, and in certain scenes you have daylight pouring through the windows (in the final celebration scene the Yoda puppet is actually in an outside sunny environment, isn't he?), and I think those harsher, brighter set lights just make the Yoda puppet look inferior. At least that's my theory.

 

Not at all designed the same way...

Facial structure is COMPLETELY changed, and the skin in the ESB Yoda looked mottled and dull... the skin in TPM Yoda was not mottled at all, and was glossy. Look at the chin and mouth of the two... they are completely different. As was said, TPM Yoda looks like a completely different character.

 

Neither EP1 Yoda or CGI Yoda match the original puppet.

 

LOL TPM Yoda looks stoned.

 

Jere7my makes a good point in that there are small, telltale signs that something is CGI. IMO, it all has to do with how the animated characters interact with their physical environment and vice versa. The way Obi-Wan looks at Jar-Jar in TPM when they first meet is a good example of this and it's also why shots that are entirely animated (like clones fighting droids in certain scenes) look more believable than, say, Obi-Wan interacting with Dex. Also, I was unimpressed with how well ILM blended CGI and real characters at times...Obi-Wan climbing the stairs in the Ep. 3 Dooku fight and not even flinching with super battle droids shooting at him or some of the Jedi in the Ep. 2 arena swinging at thin air demonstrate that problem.

They are subtle and not a big deal in terms of plot or story, but they're also annoying. In today's day and age CGI is a given in every movie like this, but I am happy to see JJ go back to more "real" creatures and sets.

 

Neither was supposed to "match" the puppet, as Lucas clearly said he wanted a younger looking Yoda. The issue is, the TPM puppet didn't even have the right facial structure. At least the CGI Yoda had that part correct.

 

Yoda was 900 years old. 20 years isn't going to make a difference.

CGI Yoda's facial structure is quite different. Smaller nose, rounder skull, and smaller eyes.

 

They were never going to get it exact, but at least the FACE itself is much more correct in form. That square jaw and much more prominent chin of the TPM puppet was a joke!

If you really can't clearly see the closer to accurate structure of the CGI to ESB than TPM to ESB, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

I already told you what was different, and I didn't say TPM Yoda was more accurate than CGI Yoda.

 

I guess I don't get where you're going with that then... as my point from the beginning was the design failure of the Puppet Yoda in TPM being the problem...not the simple fact that it was a puppet.

CGI Yoda was designed "better" and thus is the better of the two. If Puppet Yoda was designed AT LEAST as well as CGI Yoda was, I'd take the Puppet over the CGI in Yoda's case.

 

For me, I just hope the film looks outta this world, and if CGI is the way, or models, puppets, so be it

 

As was pointed out earlier, the conversation here has sometimes moved beyond talking about just puppets to other examples of practical effects... vs. CGI. Thread title updated to reflect the larger conversation topic.

 

Because 880 years is gonna make a HUGE difference from being 900

 

Not saying I disagree with you... I was just pointing out Lucas' words.

 

The other reason for the fake Yoda in TPM is because they sculpted it from silicone instead of the good old foam latex. So when the hard key lighting hit that puppet it looked off because it was different material. Plus, he just looked cross eyed part of the time. Like Felix the cross-eyed Lion from Safari.

 

No I don't think that's correct. All I've done is to highlight the more fallacious points in your argument by turning the mirror. Why are you trying to be so reasonable now by saying 'it's all subjective'? Of course it is... that's the point entirely... but that's not what you were really arguing. You were arguing that puppets were demonstrably better than CGI and you seemed to be implying that this is something audiences didn't want.

Again... you seem to have a tendency to conflate and confuse the argument. I have seen no one in this thread claim that CGI is perfect or that all effects in a movie should be done by CGI. It seems that most sensible people think it should be a combination. So why try and argue from such a dogmatic standpoint? Why reference someone who 'has some good and informed points about the problems with CGI'? One can understand the challenges, limitations and issues with using puppets, models, 'analogue' compositing by simply watching the OT making of docs or reading Rinzler's or others reference material. That doesn't invalidate those techniques though does it? So I'm not sure what you are trying to establish.

 

You want to know why I had to remind you that this was subjective? You had the wherewithal to call my points supposition using supposition. When I pose an argument to my point you seem to demand objective evidence without once needing it for your supposed highlights of my supposedly fallacious arguments. And you even laughably ask for scholarly papers from a man that works in the industry and deals with the effects we're speaking of on a day to day basis, when I clearly brought him up to highlight the weakness of CGI from an effect's man point of view; not as a friken citation. And this man does a great job articulating why practical effects should be a serious option both financially and for the quality of the film.

And yes I think practical effects are better in most situations. Their bed of weakness is ironically in the possibility of the practical application of them--that is, are they possible to achieve believably? And this idea that I said people didn't like CGI isn't even close to what I was saying. I said that people know when things are off. And later I said that I'm convinced that there's a lot more chances for CGI to be off than other effects. That's is clearly not even remotely talking about what people "like or dislike" but rather a statement on the fidelity of effects and the human's ability to catch it. I even refuted the cgi is popular argument. which once again argues to the point of "CGI sucks and makes no money" which I never made., but you cut that part out of your previous post. But waddyagonnado?

Perhaps this paragraph is a symptom of when you argue to point, but I'll give it a whirl.

I never said people said CGI was perfect. Here I put my stance on the subject -- not even as an argument-- so this silly exchange we're having can get some legs.

I thought he would provide insight on the business and along with Nostalgia Critic, who is an oddly absent from this post, as to why CGI is wide spread. This can help explain why they cozily populate the top of the box office when practical is falling out of favor, and he even talks about some of the technical limitations of CGI over practical. If the posts were needless, instead of holding them up for their credentials and scholarly publications why not just say. . ."That's fine, Vehgah, but I don't need to see all this crap." But you didn't do that. You attacked it; even implying that Alec Gillis is a narcissistic moron. Which is frankly baffling. Seems like a nice dude.

You want to know why it doesn't invalidate cgi? Because it wasn't supposed to. Gillis even goes as far to say that there are things practical can never do that CGI can. As I've said before for a tiring amount of times, I referenced the two videos to pretty much to articulate why it's reasonable to believe CGI's 'triumph' over practical has less to do with audience demand, technical superiority, relative believability, and even directorial favoritism and more to do with perceived cost benefit on the part of the executives. As an added bonus, the technical limitations of CGI as an effect compared to practical are also addressed. I don't know why this one video is getting the attention though, it was NC I was pushing more. He talked about the success of Gollum, lighting, the difference between going to a movie and expecting it to be believable, and going because of the story and effects without worry of believability; and a whole host of other things. It's an editorial, but it was relevant to the post I was referring to before the line of discussion derailed.

 

The one slight problem I see with that though is that this is a movie not a play. What you see isn't what was actually there. It's a creation. The lighting that goes off of it is a creation of the lighting they set up. The dust is there because of the dust they decide to add to or not add to the scene.

Since it isn't real and it's not breathing it can't simply interact. Every motion is planned. People talk about how it's a physical object. It may be there but it can't move unless the move is planned for the cameras. I don't recall the scene but there is one at least where Yoda is not actually the puppet but Deep Roy in a costume and not the one when we see it from behind and it's walking but a later one.

Yoda is fake. Yoda is not real. Everything he does is planned out. Puppet or CG. This idea of being "natural" is false. It's not natural. You would not like to see the Yoda puppet in a natural setting because that it is a puppet becomes too obvious. What you and I want is the Yoda puppet in an unnatural setting in the Dagobah set so that they can attempt to make him look like he's something approaching a real creature.

The CG Yoda as has been gone over many times was one whereby they had to base it's centre on the limitations of the puppet. In AOTC before they slowly started pulling it out in the build to the fight with Dooku. For III they were able to loosen up more but for TPM they had to go back to modelling it on the puppet's moves.

All of Yoda's physicality has to be "programmed" one way or another. It doesn't matter if it's the several puppeteers on the set with direction or several CG puppeteers with the director. It's the same thing. A hunk of foam and rubber is no more real at the start than staring at a keyboard and screen.

If the puppet is "present" in the scene then why does it take weeks and weeks to get a mere few minutes out of it? Look back at how many times it actually isn't in the scene. How they shot the scene sans puppet and then cut in other shots. The actual interaction is created by cuts.

By comparison look at the CG. They can actually have actors and the CG Yoda in the same shot over and over again and truly interact. You talk about small telltale signs that reveal it isn't really there. I don't need those because I know it isn't really there in the first place so the fact that it looks like it is there is the amazing part.

Nevermind fluidity of movement I'm talking about facial expression.

Talk about lighting. I find that odd as the point is that it's actually more real than you could get in a puppet. In III they made the point of how light interacts with Yoda's skin and goes through the tips of his ears how it comes off his face as with real skin.

What you seem to be doing is the Mark Hamill thing where he talks about how they can't get the lighting on CG the same as the models which is real light off of real models. That is because he is applying his subjective interpretation of what "real" lighting is. His perception of "reality" is based on what he prefers and is used to as opposed to CG which allows for more true to reality lighting and light sources and the way they bounce off.

CG Yoda is given skin that looks more like skin not rubber skin that looks somewhat like skin.

That inablity gives the game away with a puppet.

It's like the creature in the JJ promo. As soon as I saw it I knew it was a puppet because of the way it moved and looked. Telltale signs that gave the game away.

If anyone prefers a puppet over CG that's fine but the thing I really would call people out on is the idea that a fake puppet is more real than fake CG.

It isn't. The objective truth is CG can do more facially and physically from the smallest interaction to the grandest movement than a puppet can.

It's all planned out be it on the physical puppet plane or the pixel puppet plane.

What got some people so excited with that promo was "It's a puppet! It's a puppet!" No one was going "Is that a puppet or CG? What is that?" Once they saw it moving they knew what it was.

What would have been much better is if it had been CG but done in a way to make you think it was a puppet by giving it the texture and lack of movement that puppets have.

Now that is interesting because it's not even puppet vs CG buy puppet vs puppet. So if silicone had been used first and latex later then you'd be talking about gool old silicone.

So really it's not about anything but really "They did it that way so it should be the same"

 

Filmmakers don't have perfect control over their sets. There will be dust on the set whether they put it there or not (even moreso if they're filming outside). When Mark Hamill waves his hand, that dust will swirl around in vortices of air exactly the way they would if you or I moved our hand. When puppet-Yoda turns his head, the dust will swirl around his ear exactly the way it should, because his ear is present in the scene. If a CGI creation interacts with the dust at all, it has to be done laboriously, frame by frame; it doesn't happen naturally, and it doesn't match perfectly with what we expect, consciously or unconsciously.

When a slight breeze ruffles Luke's hair, puppet-Yoda's hair is ruffled in exactly the same way, at exactly the same time, in a way that looks natural to us, because we have decades of experience watching breezes interact with hair. If Yoda is CGI, the motion of every hair has to be matched precisely to the way Luke's hair is moving, or you're going to get a small telltale that Yoda isn't physically in the scene. It's a time-consuming process that the physical puppet gets for free.

Sure it is. If there's a hunk of foam rubber on the set and they tell me it's a Zopolon Rock (a porous green stone native to the planet of Zopolon), they don't need to do laboriously make sure the lighting on the rock matches the lighting on the actors, or make sure it squishes realistically when an actor picks it up, or make sure the ripples that arise when it gets thrown into the water look like what you'd get if you threw a lightweight rock into the swamp. It's right there, along with all the other real things in the scene. It's inherent in the properties of a physical object. The guy sitting in front of the screen has to 1) predict exactly how the object will interact with every "real" thing in the scene, down to the finest detail, and 2) implement it. There are limits to how closely they can match reality; eventually they get to a level of detail they don't have the patience, expertise, or money to match.

That depends on the puppet. Kermit the Frog could hold lengthy live interviews in real-time, and there are dozens of stories from people interacting with Kermit who simply forgot they were talking to green fleece covering Jim Henson's hand. The Yoda puppet from ESB wasn't actually a particularly good puppet; when Frank Oz got to the set, he complained bitterly that it was too heavy, too stiff, too stuffed with heavy hydraulics to be held at arm's length for long stretches of time. It had been built by F/X technicians, not by puppeteers. The fact that he got such a memorable performance out of it is a testament to Oz's skill as a performer, but we're still talking about a sub-par puppet from 35 years ago. State of the art puppets today can do things ESB-Yoda couldn't dream of.

But that's not the point—the point is, even with the technical limitations of the Yoda puppet, when it's sitting next to Luke on a log they're all there in the scene—Luke, the puppet, the log—and they're all interacting with the light and the dust and the fog and each other the way real physical objects interact. For free. If Yoda were CGI, every interaction with the physical environment would have to be programmed in the finest detail—not just blocking movements and choosing the lighting, which has to be done for live actors as well as puppets, but making the fog swirl, making the raindrops bounce, making the reflected light from Luke show up on Yoda and vice versa. With ships in a vacuum, you can come pretty close to perfect with CGI, but on a messy real-world set, interacting with real actors and real objects, there are always subtle signs that the actor and the CGI creation aren't sharing the same world.