Poll: Props or CGI?

[-Seraph-]

Film and television have used various methods in sparking the imagination of viewers for ages. Using the aids of props, animatronics, and CGI, some truly incredible works have been produced. Props and CGI have made our greatest dreams and nightmares come to life and without them some of the greatest films ever made woulnd't be a amazing as they are.

Props brought us incredible movies such as Aliens, Jurassic Park, Star Wars (OT), and The Thing.

CGI and green screen has provided means of recreating and even imagining up environments and have brought movies like Toy Story, 300, and The Matrix.

So fellow escapists I ask you, which do you enjoy more, Props or CGI?

Me personally I enjoy props a whole lot more, the amount of realism that can be created through props is truly amazing. I would rather have a very well crafted and realistic prop than what can be sometimes lackluster CGI. The unfortunate expense of props leads many to use CGI which is not a bad thing, but I always felt CGI lacked something. Props feel more convincing and can blow ones mind in wondering how developers were able to pull such things off.

Now vote away!!

 

[SmilingKitsune]

I'm going to go with cgi because it can render things that would otherwise be impossible, some visions simply can not be realised with props.

 

[wewontdie11]

I like both in moderation to be honest. Gratuitous use of CGI has the potential to spoil films by distracting the audience from other points of the film, and props can often look better in close up situations. For things on a grander scale though models just don't cut it and CGI is far more useful.

 

[Aqualung]

I like both in moderation to be honest. Gratuitous use of CGI has the potential to spoil films by distracting the audience from other points of the film, and props can often look better in close up situations. For things on a grander scale though models just don't cut it and CGI is far more useful.

This^

 

[darthzew]

One day, CGI will be able to produce anything. I'd put my money on it.

Then again, a combination of both is awesomest.

 

[oliveira8]

I like a mixture of both.

If its done right go with CGI unless its the last Indiana Jones were you could actually see that 80% of the movie was done infront of green screens...

But movies like Lord of the Rings trilogy showed brought a mix of both.

 

[-Seraph-]

Indeed CGI enables us to create entire worlds which I can truly appreciate. My heart will always be with props though as some of my favorite movies used props in a cleaver fashion that would lose it's charm if it were CGI'ified. Sometimes I just think CGI in film and TV just gets out of hand but I can't complain as it has brought about some marvelous works.

 

[Space Spoons]

I have to go with props. It's mostly from personal experience; I remember when I was growing up, I could always tell when something was CGI, and it would totally kill the experience for me. If it were a prop, or animatronic, on the other hand, I'd start to question if what I'd just seen in the movie might be hiding in my closet late at night, waiting for me to close my eyes so it could jump out and grab me.

No kid should be able to say, "Oh, that's fake. That could never happen in real life." We all deserve the chance to think there's a Gremlin under our bed.

 

[RebelRising]

Guillermo del Toro is one of those directors who have hit upon an excellent balance of the two; he uses costumes and sets a lot; even some of his CGI looks like props.

 

[GDW]

Prefer animatronics/prosthetics.

CGI is the worst thing to happen to sci-fi/horror monster designs. Thanki you, "Deep Rising" for reminding me of that.

 

[Starnerf]

I say go with whichever looks better in that situation. If it's in the foreground and the camera is focusing on it, use a high-detail prop. If there's a lot of motion and you won't be seeing any one area for more than a second or two then use CGI.

 

[-Seraph-]

LOL I remember Deep Rising, although saying it's the worst thing to happen to sci fi!? you gotta be crazy, half that stuff wouldn't be so good without CGI. I can't imagine seeing BSG or Farscape without their CGI, and BSG had near movie quality CGI.

 

[JokerGrin]

Both. The type of special effect doesn't define how good the film is, just HOW they are used.

 

[sms_117b]

A mixture of the two is best, some things just cannot be done with a prop or with animatronics and other things shouldn't, just shouldn't be done in CG.

 

[Hyperactiveman]

Props for films like Star Wars and Indiana Jones

CGI for films like Lord of the Rings and The Matrix

 

[Antidamacus]

CGI for effects and robotics for characters and others. One day we will have awesome robot actors.

 

[new_age_reject]

I hate CGI it ruins things i.e. Star Wars, LOTR.
If you think props don't work for bigger things, watch Metropolis.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Toy Story is technically not classified as CGI, because CGI is a term used for specific shots or characters/object/etc. Computer Animation is used for when the graphics in of themselves constitute a majority of the film. I know it's a weird definition but it's true.

 

[Zer_]

A combination of both works best IMO. They should both be used in moderation as well.

 

[KaZZaP]

Pans Labyrinth style and use props/make-up with some CGI parts. There's a name for this kind of style but I don't remember it.