CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
6
CGI Puppets, models and mattes
Debate Score:10
Arguments:8
Total Votes:10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 CGI (4)
 
 Puppets, models and mattes (4)

Debate Creator

imrigone(761) pic



CGI or Puppets, models and mattes

We all know that CGI now dominates the special effects industry. But I know several people who dislike this turn of events. They feel that CGI looks inherently fake, and requires too much suspension of disbelief. Others argue that acting in front of bluescreens limits the realism of actor's performance.

On the other hand, CGI can be used to create virtually any scenario, and the more it is employed, the more realistic it ultimately gets. It also may create more options in post production.

Opinions?

CGI

Side Score: 4
VS.

Puppets, models and mattes

Side Score: 6
1 point

I think you should make use of both when and where necessary.

Side: Both
1 point

For instance, I can imagine few reasons where CGI blood would have a benefit over good old fashioned fake blood.

But what inspired this was Yoda. I don't find either the puppet or CGI version particularly convincing. But I do feel that CGI Yoda was more expressive, and I'm sure orchestrating the fight scenes involving him was much easier and versatile with CGI. But some people swear by the puppet for reasons that are beyond me.

Side: CGI
1 point

"I do feel that CGI Yoda was more expressive"

I whole-heartedly agree. Example: The CGI model of Yoda used in Revenge of the Sith was extravagantly more detailed than the model from Attack of the Clones. I even go as far as place my hand on border-line realism if I do say so myself.

Side: Both
1 point

If used properly, CGI does wonders. Especially today, when you can have a purely CGI film and not even realize it (no, I can't think of any examples, but they could make re-make Shawshank Redemption using only CGI and make it like the old one).

Side: CGI
3 points

The original Star Wars, Dark Crystal, The Labyrinth, MST3K, etc. would have had very different feels if CGI had been available and utilized, and while there would be no puppet version with which to compare them if they had, I think they would have lacked a warmth and substance that is hard to define. This is probably an opinion heavily influenced by nostalgia, and I do think movies like Avatar wouldn't have been what they were supposed to be without CGI, (also a puppet lightsaber fight probably would have been ridiculous) but there is something appealing about the ingenuity and unique challenges in designing puppets, model sets, and other real special effects.

Side: Puppets, models and mattes
1 point

"but there is something appealing about the ingenuity and unique challenges in designing puppets, model sets, and other real special effects."

I certainly agree with you there. I remember being very fascinated by the "Making of (Special Effect Driven Movie X)" Specials when I was a kid. I wonder whatever happened to all the puppet makers and model-builders that Lucas and Henson employed...hopefully most of them were near retirement age by the mid-nineties anyway.

As far as warmth, I think you are right, that it is mostly nostalgia. But I share in that same nostalgia, so I know what you mean.

Side: Puppets, models and mattes
1 point

The original three Star Wars shows that this can be done quite effectively. Puppets, models, and the like are good for certain areas. If your budget is too low to do full-CGI frames, than puppets stick with the movie much better.

Side: Puppets, models and mattes
1 point

I like the actually puppets and models for the close up shots... something about the CGI that just doesn't look completely real... The Jabba the Hutt in The Phantom Menace looked terrible compared to the original... but CGI for distance shot and backgrounds like in Titanic is great.

Side: Puppets, models and mattes