Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
I barely notice or care about the difference between puppetry and CGI
This is why I have more fun at movies than you do.
Comments
How much are you selling those uncanny valley resistance powers for?
To be fair, Avatar could have been vastly improved by the addition of the Muppets.
Something in particular sparked this, I just know it.
I notice, this is why I prefer puppetry.
I mean, I can tell the difference between good cgi and bad cgi and good puppetry and bad puppetry, but beyond that I don't care.
Is puppetry v. CGI Serious Business? I've seen people go on about whether the CGI in a particular film was good or bad, but not about "Those shitty puppets that should have been replaced by CGI."
"Those shitty puppets that should have been replaced by CGI."
I will literally hug a person if I ever hear them say that in real life.
They're both tools with their uses. Puppets are easier to act around, but there are some things that you can't really do with them.
The thing about puppets is that Directors have to actually frame shots around them so it's not instantly apparent that they're puppets, which in a proper film leads to some really beautiful shots, like Terminator or The Thing. With CGI, it's mostly in the hands of the Special Effets crew. While I'm sure the guys who worked on the Tranformers movies are really good at their job of CGI-work, they're not directors.
Also
'I don't notice the difference between Deontology and Utilitarianism.
That is why I enjoy life more than you.'
I don't know if it is in general, but there are a fairly large amount of people back at the other place who think that CGI is categorically less authentic, less expressive, etc. than regular puppetry. they'll also expound on this fact at every oppurtunity.
They're not as bad or annoying as you think they are, get over it, etc.
You've never seen the stop-motion Vs. CGI debates.
And I like painted backdrops better than CGI backgrounds, but I know that filmmakers don't give a shit about what I think so I don't whine about it constantly
Does everyone else just have dog ears or something?
Sorry but CGI is less authentic for me and there's nothing I can do about it. It's not a matter of tastes or principles or opinions. My brain, beyond my control, can identify when something is a mix of animation and live action. If it's supposed to be obvious, as in Roger Rabbit, I have no problem suspending my disbelief, but to my subconscious, the CG in films like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars may as well be neon party balloons flailing directly at me as they scream "I'M FOR REAL!!! I'M FOR REAL!!!"
It's a black and white cut-off point between "made of matter" and "made of data." If something is made of matter in a setting made of matter, my mind just accepts it even if it's hanging off an obvious string.
I KNOW it's all in my head, I know how advanced and how useful computer images really are, but it's impossible for me to control the effect I get from it. It's not strong enough to really reduce my enjoyment of a film, but it does mean I'm at best *indifferent* to a CG effect while delighted by make-up and prop work.