$0 - B



    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • PREFER PUPPETRY, PROPS and No CGI Special Effects

    Votes: 6 75.0%

  • Total voters


Just a Quick poll to see who prefers Movies with Puppetry for Characters , Actors with Makeup/Suits,
Prop Vehicles, Buildings etc. Non CGI Special Effects.
CGI Characters, Vehicles and Buildings and Special Effects.

I know there are many variables as in how much CGI a movie can have, but a lot of modern movies seem to have a lot.
So I have made this poll 2 possible responses only.


Code Monkey
Staff member
I went with the non-CGI choices. The biggest example as to why I prefer physical special effects is the two Star Wars trilogies, the original (movies 4-6) versus the new prequels (movies 1-3).

With the original trilogy characters like Yoda had a depth to them; when you watch Luke interact with him in his cave on Dagobah, you believe the character is real. In the hangar scenes when the rebel pilots are about to take off to attack the first death star, or in any of the interior scenes on the ice plant of Hoth, the ships & backgrounds have a weight to them, a certain feel to them as though you were almost watching a documentary than a movie.

Watching the prequels in contrast feels as though you are watching a computer simulated world, as if the viewer had put on a VR helmet to play in some imaginary world. The characters, the ships, the backgrounds, to me they all looked & felt flat, that there was no depth to them that is there with real props. I felt no more a connection with the prequels than I did a Saturday morning CGI cartoon.

Now, mind you, age may be a factor in my response since I grew up with the original trilogy so there is a bit of an emotional connection with them, but watching the movies on a lazy afternoon, the original trilogy just grabs my attention & pulls me in while the prequels I just channel surf by them.


Mouthy Cow
I voted against CGI, too. Hollywood uses CGI too freely. The only movie I can think of where CGI was all win was Starship Troopers, and in that case it was shame the movie-makers made such a hash-up of an otherwise excellent SF novel. (n)


I greatly prefer practical special effects. I'm more picky about it than most people I talk to though. There's an ad showing on TV at the moment where there's a kitten frolicking playfully, and then they show it walking to the bowl. When it's walking to the bowl, I can see the CG used and it really bugs me. But to go to movies, Labyrinth and Dark Crystal would have nowhere near the same charm if they used CG.
Further to that though, I think that special effects done on a budget tend to be better than those where money is just thrown at them. When you're given limits, you try to do the very best with what you have. Whereas if you just have a bucket of money to give to the CG department, I've seen them pretty much phone it in.
One of the biggest times I noticed it was in the contrast between Blade and Blade 2.
There's a scene in Blade 2 with night time ninjas fighting Blade. It looks like a computer game. The models don't move properly, it's as if they don't have spines. And really, there was no reason you couldn't just choreograph a fight scene with real people. It would have looked better, and probably been cheaper.


I felt no more a connection with the prequels than I did a Saturday morning CGI cartoon.
You summed it up so well Kevin.
I actually didn't even give the 2nd and 3rd prequels a chance at all after watching the 1st prequel I couldn't be bothered. :)


But to go to movies, Labyrinth and Dark Crystal would have nowhere near the same charm if they used CG
The first Never Ending Story was very cool as well :)

The only movie I can think of where CGI was all win was Starship Troopers
I actually thought District 9 was awesome.


Yeah while most of the CGI is obvious it didn't annoy me as much as other movies , maybe cause it was so clever and funny.


I had to go real as well, there is a time and place for CGI but rarely is it as good or well done as hard props. One more movie that used both in good amounts was the original Jurrasic Park and TV series Farscape which used all puppets for the show and limited CGI for the space scenes etc..

CGI simply cannot recreate the depth of reality and I believe this is the "wieght" described earlier. We notice subtle color changes and shade and highlight to a far greater extent than we realize and pick up on small problems with physics rather easily.


I voted against the CGI also. While there is so much that can be done with CGI, and it can offer new levels of effects and entertainment the like of which I never saw as a boy, for many movies there is constantly something missing.
Using again the star wars franchise as an example, the original three movies drew you in, it had special effects yes but the depth of the characters and the storylines took precedence, and even the puppetry characters seemed more alive than their CGI counterparts.
The phantom menace wasnt too bad, but the other two I felt were more about the CGI than the characters or the storyline.

Azhria Lilu

I'm going against the rest of you - I like what's been done with puppetry, but CGI is getting to the point now where you can't tell what is and what isn't CGI and I like that about it... but I don't think it should be used just because it can... there's a time and a place for either option.. I would have liked a third option of liking both equally dependent on usage.


Whilst a few years ago I would've said Props & Puppetry, I think CGI has progressed to such a point now that it can achieve stunning levels of realism and I haven't been dragged out the experience by bad CGI in a number of years.

I think that one of the main flaws of puppetry is that, whilst what it did was so much more realistic, it only did one thing (rough, wrinkled hide) and the more and more films you saw using it, the more noticeable puppet-like (for want of a better word) it all seemed.