Current Events > Claymation and puppets > CGI

(+) Yeah! (+)

Its real vs fake. Theres just something soulless about CGI compared to classic claymation or the puppetry in movies like The Thing. You get worse results when people are acting in front of a blue screen punching at an invisible enemy. Actors dont like it either and they cant give 100% when they dont even know whats going on

Claymation is horrible, utterly, comically horrible nearly 100% of the time.

But yes, practical effects are better than CGI. I think most filmmakers know this, but the filmmakers that are more CGI-friendly are more likely to get tagged for big Hollywood productions--Because Hollywood studios aren't trying to produce the best films possible, they're trying to produce the most profitable movies possible. That means big flashy computer effects that impress the general public who doesn't care about the artistry or visual fidelity of the films they're watching.

---

I will typically always take a really great puppet or animatronic (a great recent example would be the Star Wars sequels. Been watching the behind the scenes stuff and there are a ton of amazing practical effects) over CGI, but Ill definitely take CGI over stop motion.

That is, stop motion when its supposed to be in the real world. It CAN be really good like in the original Star Wars movies (like the walkers in Empire Strikes Back) but most of the time it just looks bad and more fake than CGI (like the terror dog in Ghostbusters). Stop motion movies like Nightmare Before Christmas are great though. Its definitely a really cool form of animation.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1THMc9g5SaU

CGI is a distant third between the two.

---

Im not trying to beat up on CGI, but I think sometimes they use it as a crutch. It also burns up so much money randomly. I remember they talked about how expensive it was to make the dragons in Game of Thrones, but Ive seen similar quality CGI in made for TV sci-fi movies with small budgets.

Rubber monster suits are great, too.

I agree that practical effects are better. Your eye can always tell what's physically there and what's not.

That said, I will concede that digital effects have come a long, long way in the past 15 years. They look less and less like video game characters every year.

A general rule is that practical is better for texture and appearance, digital is better for motion.

Payzmaykr posted...

Im not trying to beat up on CGI, but I think sometimes they use it as a crutch. It also burns up so much money randomly. I remember they talked about how expensive it was to make the dragons in Game of Thrones, but Ive seen similar quality CGI in made for TV sci-fi movies with small budgets.

Rubber monster suits are great, too.

Uh, no. If you can't see the stark, bleak differences in the complexity and quality of the GoT Dragons compared to a 10 Million budget SciFy Channel movie then... I mean, c'mon dude.

---

It wasn't that long ago CGI in mainstream movies looked bad. The creatures in Peter Jackson's King Kong looks like a video game. So did a lot of the effects in the Star Wars prequels.

It's kind of embarrassing how long it took animators to realize CGI characters needed shadows that were consistent with the other characters. I mean, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? took note to make sure the 2D animated rabbit had the same shadow effects as the humans surrounding him and that was the 1980s.

Muppets > real people

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Uh, no. If you can't see the stark, bleak differences in the complexity and quality of the GoT Dragons compared to a 10 Million budget SciFy Channel movie then... I mean, c'mon dude.

The point is that its not enough of a difference to justify the millions of dollars that it costs. The difference in Hollywood CGI and low budget CGI is not as big as people act like and the Hollywood CGI people cost too much. Never got why it costs so much to have someone program something on a computer

Animatronics are great for horror sci-fi movies. They give off this weird creepy look even if they don't look real. Total recall has some good ones.

And Jurassic Park wasn't cgi and it was great.

Is it cheaper to just use cgi nowadays? Because if the animatronics industry improves, advances and becomes cheaper to make then they are definitely better when done well.

---

Payzmaykr posted...

The point is that its not enough of a difference to justify the millions of dollars that it costs. The difference in Hollywood CGI and low budget CGI is not as big as people act like and the Hollywood CGI people cost too much. Never got why it costs so much to have someone program something on a computer

I'm sorry to say, I think the point of CGI is to make it so that you need a 200 million dollar budget to have a good special effects movie. Once you condition people to dislike practical effects, that makes it impossible for low budget movies to hold their own.

Practical effects is what made old horror movies look so terrifying, as opposed to todays lame CGI

---