I could just leave it at the title, since that pretty much explains the post, but I have to fill this out with something.
Back in the later 70's to mid 90's puppets were huge in film. They look much more realistic than the CGI that replaced them. This isn't even a nostalgia thing, it's just the truth.
I get it, in really big budgeted movies CGI can look great, but not all movies have a $200 million budget.
That is true to some extent.
On one hand, we have the work of Ray Harryhausen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF_Fi7x93PY
On the other hand, we have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaH8ChvupQk
"What I would and wouldn't do with your tight twink body is none of their business. But seriously, I would fucking destroy you." - Xenomit
At 9/1/14 12:15 AM, NippleManOfMilk wrote: I... have to agree. CGI is fine for what it is but puppets are far more enjoyable to watch. I also rather like stop motion.
I'd rather watch thisthan Star Wars Episode III anyday.
I've always thought cgi looked better than puppets.
At 9/1/14 12:54 AM, Magical-Zorse wrote: I've always thought cgi looked better than puppets.
The problem cgi has is that if it's done anything short of perfectly you can tell the objects aren't there, taking you completly out of the story. Has cgu been done perfectly? We could all site examples, but we could site many more where it was not.
I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's
I don't think you truly realize how CGI is being used in movies and series; it's not just stuff like Yoda or Kermit or whatever, sometimes it's the environment, extra crowds/people, weather - literally everything you see on screen can be, and more times than you think, actually is CGI. There's a reason they started using it.
Puppets, you say? Puppets are about to get a whole lot cooler.
Just an 02er.
At 9/1/14 01:23 AM, November wrote: I don't think you truly realize how CGI is being used in movies and series; it's not just stuff like Yoda or Kermit or whatever, sometimes it's the environment, extra crowds/people, weather - literally everything you see on screen can be, and more times than you think, actually is CGI. There's a reason they started using it.
I don't think you or the other people coming on here making similar comments don't realize how much I was clearly only talking about characters and not backgrounds.
At 9/1/14 01:00 AM, Xenomit wrote:At 9/1/14 12:12 AM, vannila-guerilla wrote: Back in the later 70's to mid 90's puppets were huge in film. They look much more realistic than the CGI that replaced them. This isn't even a nostalgia thing, it's just the truth.lol, fuck off to a far away planet and never return
This is the second time in this post where I have to point out that I said big budget movies do pull it off well.
Not sure why you left that part of what I said out.
At 9/1/14 01:35 AM, Xenomit wrote:
The fact is that CGI is so popular and so much more successful than any other method because it's aesthetically more pleasing, in other words it looks better.
if there's one thing the age of reality TV shows us - it's that only quality things are popular. Or sometimes they're less expensive and labor intensive to produce.
I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's
At 9/1/14 01:52 AM, Xenomit wrote: Sure puppets and practical effects are much cheaper, but CGI still looks better in every single conceivable way.
The muppets wouldn't look better in cgi. Check and mate.
"What I would and wouldn't do with your tight twink body is none of their business. But seriously, I would fucking destroy you." - Xenomit
At 9/1/14 01:57 AM, Xenomit wrote:At 9/1/14 01:54 AM, koopahermit wrote:Because their style is puppets, part of their charm is the childish puppets with exaggerated reactions, making them CG takes away that charm.At 9/1/14 01:52 AM, Xenomit wrote: Sure puppets and practical effects are much cheaper, but CGI still looks better in every single conceivable way.The muppets wouldn't look better in cgi. Check and mate.
Foking dumbass. You said "every single conceivable way". I posted a scenario where puppets beat cgi therefore proving "every single conceivable way" wrong. If you said cgi beats puppets "almost all the time", or "practically every time", then you wouldve won because your statement would have room for exceptions. But "every single conceivable way" is a statement that leaves no room for exceptions.
"What I would and wouldn't do with your tight twink body is none of their business. But seriously, I would fucking destroy you." - Xenomit
At 9/1/14 01:55 AM, Xenomit wrote:
When it comes to the movies, a large amount of a movie's popularity lies in how good it looks, that's part of the art of film making. CGI looks better, so obviously it's gonna be more popular, and it is. When it comes to TV, it's whatever can make people forget about their lives, and mindlessly investing themselves into a reality show does that better than other shows, which is why they're so popular.
So people watch movies for eye candy, so quality matters. But people watch TV for eye candy, so quality doesn't matter.
I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's
At 9/1/14 12:20 AM, koopahermit wrote: Comparison
I was always disgusted by cgi yoda, compared to puppet yoda
Bitte meine beliebte Nazi mods, keine bannerino, weil ich auch ein Nazi Scwein bin! Danke schön
At 9/1/14 01:01 AM, Xenomit wrote:At 9/1/14 12:54 AM, Magical-Zorse wrote: I've always thought cgi looked better than puppets.Because it does, objectively
the old star wars movies look a lot better than the new ones, i'm sure many people other than me think this. avatar has very high quality cgi and i don't think it looks bad, but i've seen more visually interesting movies with organic effects.
with horror movies especially, the ones where they use cgi almost always look like crap, whereas older horror films such as nightmare on elm street, romero's of the dead films, and the thing have effects that look great to this day.
i have to say that in the last decade, cgi has made leaps and bounds forward in quality, but i agree, it's better to watch something where you know something is tangibly there.
the recuts of star wars are alright, because you know there's something there- you know? you know the cgi yoda there is basically put over a puppet, making it look better than it would otherwise.
i'd rather watch that than episode 2. episode 2 was shockingly boring.
It all depends, really.
There are some puppets that are shit, while others are good-- realistic, even.
There's CGI that's shit and there's CGI that'd make George Lucas wet or something.
It depends if the people behind it aren't half-assing the work and if lots of time, effort and money are put into the work.
Hell, you can make great CGI with a shoestring budget if you pull the right cards-- like: knowing the right people and making sure that they do it for the art, not the money or something.
I wouldn't agree entirely but the Volgons in The Hitchhikers Guide To Galaxy are insane
At 9/1/14 01:52 AM, Xenomit wrote:At 9/1/14 01:50 AM, vannila-guerilla wrote: This is the second time in this post where I have to point out that I said big budget movies do pull it off well.Because it's irrelevant, if it can be done then it doesn't matter that it costs so much more, the fact is it simply looks better.
Not sure why you left that part of what I said out.
Sure puppets and practical effects are much cheaper, but CGI still looks better in every single conceivable way.
They really don't. Puppets looks just as good as CGI when it comes to characters, and when it comes to lower budgeted movies always look better.
ET wasn't created using CGI and he looked great. Yoda in the original Star Wars movies looked great as a puppet. CGI only looks as good when higher budgeted films use it.
I get it, one day CGI will look completely realistic, but for the time being most movies need to start using puppets more and CGI less, because it looks like crap in most films. Most films with a budget of $10 million or less can't pull of CGI well at all.
At 9/1/14 11:08 PM, Xenomit wrote:At 9/1/14 10:42 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:Again, everything you said was 100% irrelevant. If you can agree that CGI looks better than puppets, regardless of budget, then you've already contradicted your own thread.
No, I didn't, because I said straight from the get-go that I understand that big budgeted movies can make CGI look good. Even then, a lot of big budget movies still screw it up. Also, I didn't say CGI looked better than puppets regardless of budget, I said that CGI can look AS GOOD as puppets if the budgeting is right. So, no, no flub on my part.
It doesn't matter if it takes a lot of money to make it look better. It still looks better.
It really doesn't. Plus, this is a fallacy of composition, anyways.
At 9/1/14 11:48 PM, Xenomit wrote:At 9/1/14 11:41 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: It really doesn't. Plus, this is a fallacy of composition, anyways.I'll post this again just to remind you to fuck off of earth if you genuinely believe that a fucking puppet can look anywhere near as good as a computer generated masterpiece. You can't make a puppet do all the intricate and amazing things that you want it to do, all they can really do is just kinda sit there and move around awkwardly.
I'll also say once again that CGI is mostly used for environment and background anyways, if it wasn't for CGI movies like the lord of the rings saga and pretty much anything made in the last 2 decades couldn't exist.
Again, that's what the fallacy of composition is, and you did it some more. I'm not going to argue with a person who does nothing but throw around names, anyways, so I guess I'll be ignoring you from here on out. Mostly since your arguments are weaker than you think, but you're being smug and trying to act like you're above anyone that disagrees with you.
At 9/1/14 11:49 PM, Xenomit wrote: It's nostalgia-fags like you that makes me happy film producers know what they're doing and don't listen to tards stuck in the 70's and 80's of film.
Hey man puppets are real cool i mean just imagine ok
Xenomit are you actually trying to argue the " objectiveness " of something like aesthetics?
