CGI vs Puppetry

[Greedo]

I think CGI has it's place, but I think it should stay there. When they're incorporated into live-action cinematography, CGI characters (and sometimes scenery) still look a bit hokey to me. I think it's because the animators have so much control over all the little points that the characters actually move TOO perfectly. When that's juxtaposed with live actors, it looks awkward. Puppetry, being a form of live acting, looks more natural in a live-action film.

CGI looks great when everything on the screen is created on a computer. Shrek and Pixar's films look terrific because everything is in its element.

I definitely think you hit it right on the nosey, my friend. CGI still can't beat puppets in terms of live actor interaction.

 

[staceyrebecca]

I think both have their place, however I see puppetry as being more respected, and more than likely due to the lack of in film. People respect things less when they're exposed to it in the majority of the things they see. which is why we like & remember GOOD cgi.

Even taking it to stop motion puppetry, so many films in the last 10 years (although it seems to be tapering) were using stop-motion puppets. Those films with CGI would have been ick. Case-in-point: Flushed Away. It didn't do as well as any of the other ardman things.

 

[Traveling Matt]

Puppetry will always be more organic than CG, but if the story isn't interesting and sincere and the characters aren't interesting and sincere, I don't think it really matters which you use.

 

[puppetsmith]

Just wanted to add my two cents on this very interesting topic.

Hands down, storytelling is key. The skill used to make the characters "live" whether it be puppetry or CGI is also key. And bottomline, a good story is a good story, good puppetry is good puppetry, and good animation is good animation.

BUT, and of course I'm biased , puppetry and working with a physical puppet has a magic that CGI will never, ever have.

It's similar to watching a magician perform tricks on a live stage. It's amazing. You walk away saying, "how did they do that?". Performing magic onscreen dampens the effect (mainly because the audience is thinking "what camera tricks are they using" or "what are they cutting out and not showing us"). The magic of puppetry, on the other hand, is heightened onscreen. We expect camera tricks, and marvel at the creativity it takes behind the scenes to bring the characters to life. Each shot carefully planned and executed to create the illusion of life and existence in a real world. Most importantly, we know that the physical puppet is real. It's moving and reacting to a real world around it. That's where the magic happens. That's where you smile. That's where you wonder.

Imagine the bicycle scene in the Great Muppet Caper done in CGI. Would it be as magical? Would you walk away from the movie saying, "how did they have Kermit and Miss Piggy riding bicycles in the park?". Nope. You'd say, "It's computer animation"...end of discussion. No magic. But,when you watch the Great Muppet Caper and you see the puppets riding in the park, you know they are really there. If you were at the park when they were filming the movie you would have seen Kermit and Piggy on bicycles. It would be magical seeing it in real life (even with all the rigging and such) and it is even more so onscreen.

CGI no matter how it evolves from a technical standpoint will never be real. It will always and only exist on some sort of screen. It's the reality of the puppets that makes the magic.

 

[jcnegron]

I believe that the key to good CGI is that it doesn't attract attention to itself, but yet the great majority of recent productions are signaling a big "Hey look where We've spent our big budget!". Look, for example, at the trailers of the upcoming "speed racer" movie, where you wonder if it is even possible to make it look more fake than that.
I believe that old shows like Bewitched and I dream of Jeannie were more effective of showing magic with simple camera tricks, than current shows where every magic pass has to have thunders, glows, clouds of magic dust, and reflections all at the same time.
I remember when the Hitchhiker Guide came out people commented they felt relieved of seeing "living" characters for a change. The latest King Kong movie used the same state of the art techniques used in the Gollum, yet it didn't reach the same charm that the far from perfect 1933 animated gorilla achieved.

I have seen Winnie the pooh made with 2D animation, with puppets, and with CGI. And of all those I believe the original 2D cartoons were the best. It didn't look too bad with puppets but it wasn't entirely convincing either.

So every medium has its strengths, and some have been more abused than others.

 

[Greedo]

I believe that the key to good CGI is that it doesn't attract attention to itself, but yet the great majority of recent productions are signaling a big "Hey look where We've spent our big budget!". Look, for example, at the trailers of the upcoming "speed racer" movie, where you wonder if it is even possible to make it look more fake than that.
I believe that old shows like Bewitched and I dream of Jeannie were more effective of showing magic with simple camera tricks, than current shows where every magic pass has to have thunders, glows, clouds of magic dust, and reflections all at the same time.
I remember when the Hitchhiker Guide came out people commented they felt relieved of seeing "living" characters for a change. The latest King Kong movie used the same state of the art techniques used in the Gollum, yet it didn't reach the same charm that the far from perfect 1933 animated gorilla achieved.

I have seen Winnie the pooh made with 2D animation, with puppets, and with CGI. And of all those I believe the original 2D cartoons were the best. It didn't look too bad with puppets but it wasn't entirely convincing either.

So every medium has its strengths, and some have been more abused than others.

Well said, my friend!

 

[movielad]

I just wanted to drag up this thread again, as I have a few opinions on this sort of thing - particularly as I work in the visual effects field. I used to work for a major post-production company in London who specialse in high-end visual effects for film and television.

We we called to produce a talking snake (voiced by Steve Coogan) for a Miramax film which initially started off as an animatronic puppet. However, the tests revealed that it just didn't look right and was given to us to produce a fully CG version. It worked very well indeed.

Likewise, for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, there were animatronic puppets which were replaced by fully realised CG because, quite frankly, they didn't stand up to the job that the director wanted.

For commercials we've had to replace puppets because the performance required just did not meet the needs of the client and consequently CG models were used instead.

Here's why directors like CG: Whereas with an animatronic puppet, once the design has been agreed upon and everything has been built and tested - it is VERY expensive and time consuming to make any changes without possibility having to rebuild everything again. With CG, you can go in and refine the look of the character AND the performance.

The tools to build, manipulate and integrate these characters into films and TV shows have come on leaps and bounds and I have been very proud to work for a company whose CG character department has done very well. Their latest work can be seen in the form of Reepicheap from the new Chronicles of Narnia film.

Of course, the downside to CG characters is how do you provide feedback to the actor? Well, there are a number of different ways - but ultimately the actor has to work harder to create the illusion whereas having a physical puppet and performace there and then on-set would help enormously.

Also, the number of staff required for a CG character increases (producers, technical directors, character riggers, animators, compositors, system engineers, etc) as does cost.

Many of the ex-JHCS staff have moved to different post-houses around Soho and I've had many interesting conversations with some of them about CG technology and puppetry. NVIDIA have produced some very nice tools for real-time GPU rendering which could make very high quality CG character models for live performances (or on set feedback) much more of a reality than it is now.

It's a shame JHCS closed down, but from what I hear they were expensive and the post-industry was extremely competitive (in fact, it still is).

 

[Buck-Beaver]

The Creature Shop is still open and doing reasonable amount of work , just consolidated in L.A. with a small New York shop (I believe). Or are you just referring to the London shop?

 

[Super Scooter]

The Creature Shop is still open and doing reasonable amount of work , just consolidated in L.A. with a small New York shop (I believe). Or are you just referring to the London shop?

Doesn't the New York Creature Shop primarily just do what the old Muppet Workshop did? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. Maybe not.

The animatronics built for Revenge of the Sith and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy were really incredible! I'm really not sure why things supposedly look better to certain filmmakers when done CG. Perhaps their initial animatronics just weren't as good as they could have been. Then again, animatronic snakes have always given filmmakers a lot of trouble (like with Raiders of the Lost Ark). I think animatronics can do certain things equally as well as CGI, with the added benefit of having an on set effect. But, I like a good blend of both.

 

[Super Scooter]

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).