Poll: Props or CGI?

[fix-the-spade]

Jurassic Park used a lot of cgi.

Granted a double life size T-Rex is an awesome prop, but they used a lot of cgi as well (like anywhere there is a full body shot of the T-Rex, ditto the herd of Gallawhatsits and the Brachyosaur(s)).

CGI is best, potentially, the problem is so many directors/produceers have no bloody clue how to use it (George Lucas I am looking at you). It removes a lot of the constraints that props inherently suffer from, mainly the laws of physics.

But at the same time it's very easy to get carried away with it. Leading to monstrosities on a JarjAr scale.

 

[GBlair88]

CGI tends to stick out like a sore thumb in movies so I don't really like it. Granted there are some things you just couldn't do with props and only CGI can cut it. But I think a pysical object looks better than a virtual one.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Granted a double life size T-Rex is an awesome prop, but they used a lot of cgi as well (like anywhere there is a full body shot of the T-Rex, ditto the herd of Gallawhatsits and the Brachyosaur(s)).

actually they had a full t-rex model on set, tho a lot of the dinorsaurs were cgi

i think there's a good balance between the two, sometimes cgi works and sometimes props work just fine.

there are the few times where there's cgi and most ppl don't realize it, like Tony Stark's face inside the Iron Man suit

 

[sky14kemea]

i like both, but props its probably easier for the actors to work with, if only slightly

 

[fix-the-spade]

Granted a double life size T-Rex is an awesome prop, but they used a lot of cgi as well

actually they had a full t-rex model on set, tho a lot of the dinorsaurs were cgi

I know, that's what I said.

The animatronic had an enormous hydraulic arm up it's crotch, it also couldn't move very fast. So anywhere where the entire animal was in shot (except when it steps on the 4x4, that's the model but edited) it's a cgi T-rex.

 

[karmapolizei]

Can't decide, really. CGI has got and shown a lot of potential for both good and bad. There's been awesomely rendered scenes and even characters, but then again, in a lot of movies it's really gone bad. Ironically, it's George Lucas who doesn't seem to be able to get it right:
Using CGI for almost every single scene and absurd ersatz scenery is stupid and looks fake. It was okay to try in Episode I, but he should have abanonded excessive use by then and moved on - but he didn't, which gave us the Crysis-looking jungle in Indy 4.

 

[doctorwhofan]

Lord ofthe Rings is an excellent example of both. I like both.

 

[AndyVale]

Depends how good it is or even if it's necessary. I sometimes find that too much CGI just looks too fake.

The one that made me laugh was Transformers, it was often so fast and intense that I couldn't really see what was going on. They could've saved millions by chucking two cars down a hill and I wouldn't really know the difference.

 

[zacaron]

A combination of both would be good.

 

[Altorin]

whenever it's possible to, it's always best to have something real in front of the camera.

Look at the power armor in the Alien movies, and then the power armor scene in the Matrix movies. There's no reason they HAD to have the Matrix power armor fully CGI, but they decided to anyway, and it looked like shit.

I don't think that CGI, in and of itself is a bad thing, but it's easy to just throw some CGI into your movie and cut corners.. And it IS cutting corners. The best movies are the ones that make do with camera tricks and models.. I would have the say the best melding of them is probably the Lord of the Rings movies. So many interesting camera tricks were used.. and while there was some CGI, it wasn't cheap CGI, and it was always used in conjunction with something real on the screen.

 

[Firia]

Utimising practical effects with computer tends to yeild the best results.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

I have to go with CGI, if its realisitic enough.

 

[Simalacrum]

a good balance of both is important imo

 

[Altorin]

CGI sucks - you can always tell, and movie makers use it to make their characters do the same old boring, tired wall-run moves.

The matrix used CGI well. I can't think of another movie that did. (and for the record i considered the LOTR series)

The first matrix used hardly any real CGI at all. Most of the really awesome effects were camera tricks and stunts. Sure, there was some, but for the most part, it was pretty CGI-Lite, especially compared to its sequels, which went a lot heavier on the CGI, and were a lot worse because of it.

 

[Altorin]

The first matrix used hardly any real CGI at all. Most of the really awesome effects were camera tricks and stunts. Sure, there was some, but for the most part, it was pretty CGI-Lite, especially compared to its sequels, which went a lot heavier on the CGI, and were a lot worse because of it.

good points well made. I always thought the matrix should have ended after the first movie.

There's a scene in Matrix Reloaded when Neo's flying through the night sky... and it's CLEARLY a CGI Neo. It bothered me, because there was no reason they couldn't put Keanu in front of the camera for a bit of the shot, but it was 100% CGI, and it bothered me.

Same movie, when he fights the army of Agent Smiths... There's a point in the fight where it visially clicks into CGI. Sure, some of the fight would have needed CGI, but not ALL of it. I just found it lazy.

 

[Scarecrow38]

Well, take Lord of the Rings as an example. Every castle and city ( Helms Deep, Minas Tirith, Rivendell) you see there was a minature, almost no CGI. Obviously there was CGI used alot of things but no small amount was real.

I think CGI is good because you can have locations and objects that just don't exist. Against that nothing looks as real as the real thing. I think you need to have a balance. Use props for as much as practical, then move to CGI.

Moviemakers shouldn't just lean on CGI for everything.

 

[P1p3s]

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.

what he said

 

[atv_chic_18]

Personally it depends on the movie. A lot of movies use both now days.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

If Jurassic Park is any indication... Both.
Hell some movies today still don't have CGI as good as Jurassic Park's, and the puppet/animatronics were mind blowing.

 

[Mythbhavd]

I agree. A mix of both is great. I don't think props should fall by the wayside. Together with CGI, they make a great movie.