I don't know if this subject has been brouched before, but I am curious to know what you folks may think of this.
Like many of you I am a film fan and very much enjoy looking deeply into a films creative processes. After all, it's not just the finished aticle that represents the film, but a whole progression of idea development as wel as having a vast raft of people who have had input into it. But, ever since Terminator 2 (1991 I believe) and Jurassic park (1993), the emphasis has been increasingly on CGI and other overwhelming special effects. (Were there any actual real actors in Avatar?!)
When I was youngster, I would love to sit in front of the T.V. with my brother and sister for an hour on a sunday and watch Jim Henson's The Story Teller. I was amazed at the puppets that his team produced and there have been loads of examples since of intellegant uses of puppets in other movies (albeit, made-for-tv movies, sadly) and I have found them equally captivating.
Hence this thread. I, for one, would love to see so much more physical, real and present puppets and models and proportionally less CGI in movies. It is so obvious when CGI is used and although it often looks great (no arguments from me there) it simply lacks the weight and tactility of having something physically infront of the actors for them to interact with, as well as having the subtle and often missing effects of ambient and reflected lighting that places an object in an environmet. CGI creators are only human and cannot cover all the bases!
After watching Star Wars the Third (Revenge of the Sith - which could inspire a whole thread in itself!!) I was struck by the disapointing lack-of-set feel to it all. When the actors have to act opposit characters that don't exist and in environments that are just large green rooms, I think, it always suffers.
But what about you? What do you prefere?
Let's start a war. CGI vs. Jim Henson.
Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent!