Poll: Props or CGI?

[Moormur]

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

You are right. One day CGI will be able to produce anything. But the question isn't the power of te CGI system...the question is should we rely on it? Take Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings I think had such a sense of realism to it that other films don't have because huge portions of their sets and environments were either real or models. I can compare it also to the whole 'digital' experience that people get when they go to a digital theater. They get an experience with no grain on the film and no pops in the audio.

I don't want that.

Digital film doesn't have...character. Part of the whole experience of going to a movie is hearing those little chinks in the sound or having a little sploch on screen every now and then. Same goes for CGI environments. If something is hand made, it seems to have more 'character.' A person made it in a real environment. Maybe their crafting tools slip every now and then and left just a remnant of an impression where there shouldn't have been. These features give life to a film.

Eh, oh well. People said the same thing about vinyl and look where we are now. People of the new generation have rarely listened to a record, if they have even seen one. Even when they do, they just call it poor quality. My guess is that within 30 or 40 years everything will be digital.

And no one will care.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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)

go watch Iron Man and try and pick out what is cgi and what isn't, you'd be surprised to find out what is cgi and what isn't

 

[Cortheya]

I really don't understand the hate on CG

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Props, touched up a bit with some conservative use of CGI.

Too much CGI gives us stuff like the Star Wars prequels.

 

[-Seraph-]

Props, touched up a bit with some conservative use of CGI.

Too much CGI gives us stuff like the Star Wars prequels.

Or sky captain *shudders*

 

[Arcyde]

both

 

[Slycne]

I voted both, but it depends very largely on the shot. Recently more and more directors have been opting for practical prop shots maybe touched up slightly with CGI. Then for a full blown CGI image, but it can vary.

Even with the best computers a film can fall victim to the "uncanny valley". Images that look very close to being real, but there are just so close that it's even more jarring to the audience then normal.

However with enough style you can pull off some great looking films, example Sin City.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Aaa fuck should've gone for both. Well obviously, for most 'real' movies I prefer props. As cuddly_tomato pointed out, or else you'll get the horrors from the Star Wars prequels. But ofcourse fully animated movies can be awesome, like Toy Story, Shrek, Wall-E and the likes. And ofcourse Sin City is frakking awesome.

 

[Lullabye]

BOth is good for now, but in the future, cgi will probably dominate

 

[TwistedEllipses]

A healthy mix brings the best results, only use CGI when you really need to...