Anyone miss it when they would use Puppets and Costumes for creatures? - General

I know all it is is CGI these days because the costs are much lower. But wasn't it just badass when they would make an actual puppet and it looked/seemed real? Imagine if they put the time and effort on puppets and robots these days, with our more advanced technology. It'd get more in depth. Especially in movies where it's some horror flick where the creature is some shit CGI thing, but as a puppet it looks real making it actually seem horrifying.

Most of the time it doesn't look that good. When they use puppets/real life things for monsters and stuff in movies you can tell right away and they usually move pretty weirdly/stiffly. The CGI nowadays is so good you wouldn't really be able to tell the difference in the first place.

I know what you mean. I wish Jim Henson was still alive so he could make more puppets. Some things though are best done with CGI though as they would be impossible (or like you said too expensive.) I'm just glad stop motion hasn't completely died because of the popularity of computer animated films. Thank god for the Fantastic Mr. Fox.

It was better this way. It's like if they did a live action Pokemon movie. In my opinion, they would have to be some sweet-ass puppets.

Suits and puppets are scarier that CGI.

Wouldn't be so bad if the animators didn't do such a horrible job. When I watch a movie with lots of CGI it's instantly obvious that it isn't real just by the motion alone. Jurassic Park was one of the very very few that actually got the motion right in the CGI scenes.

I didn't mind but it made the movie or programme more cheesy with puppets.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;23119371]Wouldn't be so bad if the animators didn't do such a horrible job. When I watch a movie with lots of CGI it's instantly obvious that it isn't real just by the motion alone. Jurassic Park was one of the very very few that actually got the motion right in the CGI scenes.[/QUOTE] That was the great thing about jurrasic park though, they used both when appropriate! From far distorted shots or large majestic shots they used CG but with up close shots they mostly used puppets. I think both have their place, but cg monsters never look real to me and always have this slimy sheen to them which sorta breaks it for me.

I think the term "suspend your disbelief" applies here.

It looks way better than CGI if it is done well. David Cronenberg films always use them to way better effect than CGI ever could. [IMG]http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nakedlunch3.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Tyvak;23118977]Most of the time it doesn't look that good. When they use puppets/real life things for monsters and stuff in movies you can tell right away and they usually move pretty weirdly/stiffly. The CGI nowadays is so good you wouldn't really be able to tell the difference in the first place.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/news/00022990.jpg[/img] Say what?

[QUOTE=Ker‎o;23121502][img]http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/news/00022990.jpg[/img] Say what?[/QUOTE] And love or hate Avatar the CGI was pretty good in some ways.

cheap suits are better than cheap special effects. good special effects are better than good suits.

Puppets made bad films good because they looked so funny. CGI makes bad films worse because the CGI is probably cheap and shit.

[IMG]http://cardboardmonocle.com/blog/fxsuits/Sammael.jpg[/IMG] That badboy in the movie Hell Boy was actually a man in costume, they used robotic, self moving mechanics to make the tendrils on his back move (weird is it looked so disgustingly realistic and gross) [editline]08:03AM[/editline] "The movement of the robotic eyes, the twitching in the animatronic head tentacles, the near-constant stream of saliva…stuff like that just totally makes this go from a guy in a suit to a living breathing demon creature." Seriously those eyes were imrpessive.

Hellboy is a perfect example of practical effects used to their fullest.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;23123749]Hellboy is a perfect example of practical effects used to their fullest.[/QUOTE] also Men In Black

[IMG]http://mynotetakingnerd.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/yoda.jpg[/IMG] vs. [IMG]http://runningdownhill.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/yoda.jpg[/IMG] I don't know, the puppet yoda looks way more life-like. Could just be the nostalgia factor though.

Puppets? Army of Darkness gets it right :D

I cried when I saw Yoda for the first time in Episode II.

[QUOTE=rosthouse;23124000][IMG]http://mynotetakingnerd.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/yoda.jpg[/IMG] vs. [IMG]http://runningdownhill.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/yoda.jpg[/IMG] I don't know, the puppet yoda looks way more life-like. Could just be the nostalgia factor though.[/QUOTE] It looks more life like because IT IS IN REAL LIFE. The CGI yoda couldn't get thread fibers and details better than a puppet crafted by hand could (unless it's CGI by todays standards)

[QUOTE=Ker‎o;23121502][img]http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/news/00022990.jpg[/img] Say what?[/QUOTE] Yeah, but in Where the Wild Things Are, a mixture of both costumes and CGI was used. In that case, it's fine - and very effective. They actually did that perfectly.

I always wanted to be a puppeteer for movies when I was little but now that market has dried up.

Tremors was a good movie that didn't use CGI either. [img]http://cdn.wg.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/tremors.jpg[/img]

CGI is the worst thing that has happened to movies. Look at the original Star Wars movies, they used Practical FX, men in suits, and miniatures and it holds up today. Where as the new ones were CG heavy and terrible. Movies that now look like video games. Practical will always be the best.

lighting and shading always feels "off", and most things lack texture and often gets a shiny/wet look.

It really depends on what sort of feel the movie is going for.

No one has mentioned The Thing yet I am disappointed

Movies with clay animation monsters are pretty neat too.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;23140767]No one has mentioned The Thing yet I am disappointed[/QUOTE] Last monster was CGI though, but yes.