We need to be clear about something: Disney animation is meant to be animation, not CG visual effect. In their Pixar releases, they always try to make sure they don't go for 3D simulation. They don't want 100% realism; they want a 3D cartoon.

CG visual effects are constantly getting better. Today, ordinary desktop computer (Mac or PC), together with proper software and skilled and creative artist behind the keyboard, can simulate real world down to the most minute detail. The tools are now available that will allow you to completely re-create ANY realistic environment, including bouncing light, lens flares, distortion, reflection and refraction of light rays through various gases, liquids, transparent or semi-transparent objects, etc. 3D animation tools are there that provide quick and intuitive ways to simulate kinetic motion and physics of every conceivable mass and surface. What it comes down to is time, effort and talent. To put together a 3D walking and talking animated duck takes no longer than 15 minutes in something like Maya or LightWave. To build a WWIII scene, with mutant soldiers, sci-fi weaponry, all in some doomsday scenery with ruins, smoke, fire, etc, would take a bit more than 15 minutes.

If enough time, effort and talent is invested, the result will look 100% like the real thing and nobody would notice the difference. However, if you convert the invested time, effort and talent into a monetary equivalent, it would probably be cheaper to build sets, costumes/wardrobe and props and shoot it with real actors and real special effects. The smartest guy in the group is the one that figures out where's that line between real and CG; when does it begin to be more expensive to shoot CG, rather than location.

I'm learning. I've seen the latest Star Trek, and I agree that a CGI monster doesn't seem to move as real as a puppet or mechanical contraption. I think CGI crowds (as in Troy) also doesn't move as naturally as a real horde of warriors. I will say, however, that I can't seem to see how the "light bounces off" a puppet as opposed to a CGI - but that may be because of my eyesight.

I now also understand the idea of working environment - people must be comfortable with their physical presence, and they cannot burn out by doing too many repetitious boring work. This is crucial in any job in any industry - in fact, whole books of laws have sprung up on this issue. Very good.

Anything else? ?:)?

My comment about light is a simple matter of reality. When a model or
puppet is used there is a physical object that is lit in the exact same way
any physical object is lit. Light bounces off that object and is photographed
by the camera. A drawing is a drawing of light. Really good CGI is amazing
, but it's still a drawing of the way light reacts - not light reacting.

I prefer a physical object. Just like I prefer a physical set, to a green screen
stage with platforms. I like the way a real castle wall looks when lit. I don't
like a pointed castle wall as well.

But ultimately, as the mogul, you will make the decision based on costs.
If you find that shooting your movie on a stage using greenscreen is
more cost effective then that will be the way you make your movie.

There is no right or wrong here.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

There is no right or wrong here.

---

You're right, but I am learning the issues, and that is an important first step.

I have been thinking of using mechanized puppets as aliens for my SF magnum opus, and I'm glad to know CGI isn't necessarily better.

Besides the visual look of the final product, there's a separate question here that has less to do with the technology and more to do with (let's see if I can pull this off without sounding like a pretentious blowhard)... authenticity.

I just watched Fitzcarraldo. That's a movie that could have been made using models and bluescreens. It could have been shot in a more hospitable location. Had it been, it certainly would have caused a lot less consternation for the cast and crew. But it wasn't. Herzog decided that he was going to take his entire production into the jungles of Peru and actually haul a freaking 340-ton steamship over a freaking mountain. Because of this, the movie took almost five years to make and nearly cost several people their lives. It's also a far, far better movie because of it.

I have no doubt that, given the final cut of Fitzcarraldo as a road map, a team of skilled and hard-working animators at ILM or Digital Domain could produce a shot-for-shot remake with effects virtually indistinguishable from the original film. But when you're sitting at a drafting table under a fluorescent light, you have a very different outlook than when you're standing knee-deep in mud in the Amazon jungle. New ideas occur to you that would not have otherwise occurred to you. Performances are more convincing. Water gets on the lens. These are things you can't storyboard in advance, and they're what's missing every time you fake something in a studio, or in front of a bluescreen, or on a computer instead of going out on location and actually doing it.

-----------------
Andrew Gingerich
Exploding Goldfish Films
Check out my blog at http://www.exgfilms.com
and my reel at http://portfolio.exgfilms.com

Fascinating! I'm going to get the DVD as well as the documentary, "Burden of Dreams". Thanks, bud. 🙂

Any other advice for an aspiring mogul? 🙂