Monster Animation: The Eternal Debate

[No Nukes, The Satanic Pikachu]

Which do you think is better?

pros and cons of monster "puppets":
1.) generally inexpensive to make
2.) can be made much smaller than midget-in-suit monster or non-human forms. Good for "mouths", "worms", et al.
3.) can be camoflauged until victim is withing grabbing range
4.) animatronic forms look more "realistic" than CGI (but are very, very expensive)
5.) puppetry is very high-maintenance, especially animatronic equipment which is notorious for bursting into flame without any warning, especially if there is a lot of hair or fur involved.
6.) Extra space and planning is needed for places for the puppeteers to "hide" from the cameras

pros and cons of "midget in suit":
1.) midget can fit in as another actor and must be paid as such
2.) costume must be designed to be effective and fit actor comfortably
3.) pray that the MPAA will take your movie seriously

pros and cons of CGI:
1.) CGI is less labor-intensive, expensive, and considerably more safe than animatronics
2.) CGI can be used to make convincing scenery, buldings when handled by a proffesional (see: Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone)
3.) CGI must be in sync with action of movie.
4.) CGI software must be up-to-date; must be at least PAST Lightwave 4.0
5.) proffessional CGI artist must be employed in art dept. as well as concept artist and several
6.) There are some times CGI-rendered monsters or special effects don't "feel" right to most audiences

[StatCat]

Old fashion suit actors (why midgets?) and puppetry (reptilicus!) over cgi anyday. I don't like cgi at all really most of the time.

[systemcr4sh]

Yeah, Sometimes cgi can work (I'm thinking lord of the flies here) and sometimes it can't (I'm thinking ARCADE here. haha)

-Dan

[ErikJ]

There's something macical about a guy in a suit or animatroncs in a movie. Some nostalga or old school feel. Everyone seems to be using CGI anymore so it's refreshing to to anything else.

[Mofo Rising]

Lord of the Flies CGI?  Did I miss something?

A lot of people complain that bad CGI is completely jarring.  I'll grant that, but I think they forget that bad puppetry can be just as jarring.  In my mind, either one is perfectly acceptable as long as it is done well enough to make it unnoticeable to the audience.

A lot of CGI is ranted against because it's so obvious.  I think it's because, for the most part, the technology is so new.  Until recently, very few could convincingly place CGI into a real frame.  (Of course, some argue they still can't.)  Even SPIDER-MAN and STAR WARS: AOTC, probably the pinnacles of CGI, still have noticeable flaws.

But I don't buy that puppetry is intrinsically better either.  I think it must be a bit of that old nostalgia creeping in.  Listen to Ebert go on about how CGI always feels less real to him than old fashioned puppets and stop motion.  Of course it seems more real, these are the techniques that were scaring and fascinating him when he was a kid.  Kids are ready to believe, and I think this is what stuck with him.  Nostalgia.

But I meant what I said at the beginning.  Either is fine as long as it's not noticeable to the audience.  Genre fans are incredibly picky, but I don't think your average joe off the street was alert to when Spider-man was Tobey Maguire in costume and when he was a computer-crafted image.  I put myself with those people.  As long as the puppetry or CGI isn't bad enough to make me realize I'm just watching a movie, to pull me out of this world they had created, it's alright in my book.

[mr. henry]

just curious...this has always driven me crazy...what the hell does the "I" in CGI stand for?

when i google i get Common Gateway Interface.

so what is it Computer Generated i...illusion?

-mr. henry

[Squishy]

Imagery. Computer Generated Imagery.

Mofo said it all better than I ever could. I love good CGI; I also love a good rubber suit or a good puppet effect. It's not the type of effect; it's the skill that goes into creating it--not to mention the quality of the rest of the show.

[BlackAngel]

One other example is the American version of Godzilla.  Granted everyone and their parents remembers the old Godzilla and how the skill of the special effects, back then, made a man in a costume look more real.  But in today standards, not really.  Mofo said that kids are ready to believe, that's not always the case.  If Godzilla of the '60s was seen by a 12 year old kid today, he/she would say "Oh please!  That's a man in a costume.  How cheesy is that?"  He also pointed out that CGI, if done professionally, as among the others, can make that image feel more real.  I like the other version of Godzilla because he looked and feel more beast-like, more reptilian than its "grandfather".  The way it walked/ran and the way it swam underwater, not walked underwater.  I say it's more believeable now that it was back then.

[Goon]

      Don't forget these:
Pros and Cons of live animals
1)  Provided you film it at high speed and insert it into the footage correctly, you appear to have a genuine live animal many times it's normal size, moving, breathing, etc.
2)  You need to take care of the animal during filming, and the animal doesn't always behave.
3)  The audience can instantly tell what you did and how you did it.

Pros and Cons of Stop Motion
1)  Done right, your creature looks more realistic than cgi.
2)  It is very time consuming and expensive.

     I don't realy think it's a question of what is best, each is good for a different type of camera shot.  CGI and stop motion are good for wide shots of the whole creature, animatronics and puppetry are good for close-ups and interacting with actors, etc.
----------------------ooo-'U'-ooo--------Kilroy was here.

[Luke Bannon]

I like all of them once done right.