CGI vs Puppetry

[frogboy4]

In this fast paced world of disposable film making it is no wonder that CG is so popular. An image or character can easily be swapped for another with computer graphics technology, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

When looking back at the visuals in high-concept pieces such as the original Indiana Jones films, Blade Runner and The Dark Crystal there's a rich sense of pre-production planning that's lacking in much modern cinema. There should be no need to swap elements around so much and, as we know with Lucas' tinkering with the original Star Wars trilogy, CG can actually rob a film of its heart and alter crucial subject matter to the detriment of the piece.

Computers are a tool - not a genre, band-aid or an excuse for lazy planning. The best films are like an orchestra - many elements blending together to make for a better piece. There's too much post-production tweaking that computers allow these days and it really can dim the thrill of cinema.

A puppet or animatronics creation inhabits real space and its physical presence will always seem more natural to the human eye, but computer graphics have their place too.

I suppose the answer to the debate is simply the question - why? What is the reasoning behind a director's choice to go a certain rout? Does the artist have a decisive vision? What best creates that vision and illusion - what enhances the piece?

The answer is usually both in the right place.

 

[Taco Wiz]

I prefer puppets. CGI looks heartless, corporate, and ugly. I don't know why, but I've always found the imperfect methods to be more appealing.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

On a side note, technically, CGI is a form of puppetry. The Puppeteers of America had an article in their Puppetry Journal a few years back noting why that is. It is an intruiging form of puppetry, which, again, is why I say I like to see a blend of both CGI and animatronics (when the situation allows for it).

I might be splitting a hair here, but technically speaking difference between puppetry and animation is that puppetry is real-time manipulation of objects whereas animation movement/manipulation occurs on a frame-by-frame basis. Whoever wrote that for PofA was wrong about that. There is a lot of crossover between puppetry and animation, but they're different.

 

[Super Scooter]

I might be splitting a hair here, but technically speaking difference between puppetry and animation is that puppetry is real-time manipulation of objects whereas animation movement/manipulation occurs on a frame-by-frame basis. Whoever wrote that for PofA was wrong about that. There is a lot of crossover between puppetry and animation, but they're different.

The point was that with CGI, you're manipulating an inanimate model. With traditional animation, you draw something new each frame, but with computer graphics, you're usually using the same model for the whole thing. The same with a puppet. It's an inanimate object being manipulated by it's puppeteer.

I didn't mean to say that it IS puppetry, though that is what I said, isn't it? Should have thought my wording through a little better. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the PofA suggested it was exactly puppetry, it was more or less comparing the similarities between them.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

I've heard several CG animators say that they find it's more like stop-motion than traditional 2D animation for the reasons you mention.

 

[Super Scooter]

I've heard several CG animators say that they find it's more like stop-motion than traditional 2D animation for the reasons you mention.

Yeah. Yeah, it does seem more like stop-motion animation, even in the way it's used within movies today (creatures and stuff). Alot of the Star Wars animators cited Ray Harryhausen as an influence.

 

[Quesal]

CGI is cool, but I do prefer the live action stuff...ya know, like this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zSFVaR2SzFs

 

[Ilikemuppets]

CGI is cool, but I do prefer the live action stuff...ya know, like this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zSFVaR2SzFs

That's pretty funny!