The Instigator
Bix
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Thessentials
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Practical special effects are better than CG special effects

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Thessentials
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,658 times Debate No: 12415
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Bix

Pro

I argue that practical special effects, that is, the use of scale models, puppetry and other non-computer based techniques are better than computer generated special effects for the following reasons:

1) It is more exciting and satisfying to watch models and props being destroyed in films, as you know you are watching something real being blown up, crushed etc than watching what is effectively an animation being destroyed which is not something real.

2) A film is able to create a greater sense of danger, excitement or otherwise a more intense emotional response from seeing something real being in harms way (or something being harmed by something real) than seeing an animation.

3) One gets a greater sense of appreciation for the creativity and hard work of the film's creators when they use practical effects because of the obviously greater amount of time and creative thought that goes into creating models, puppets etc than in programming computer animation software.

4) There is a greater sense of "How did they do that?" when looking at impressive practical effects than with CG.

5) A person connects more easily with physical characters such as puppets than they would with CG animations.

6) The use of practical effects employs more people than does CG in most cases, thus creating more jobs.
Thessentials

Con

Thanks for posting this! Will be fun.

1. This argument is based on personal opinion. It would totally depend on what was being destroyed. If you want to see the cosmos shatter in an awe inspiring explosion, then I would go with CGI. Small scale destruction is fine and dandy but I do not believe NCBT (non-computer based techniques) can compete on as large a scale as CGI can. Again this argument is based on personal preference but judging by how well Avatar did, it's safe to say that CGI can excite people more than NCBT.

2. This would depend on the plot and character development. No amount of NCBT or CGI can make you care about a character or story without a thrilling plot. On this basis I would consider them equal. But I would like to point out that basically any movie by Pixar has had a saddening scene that without a doubt, touched the audience's heart.

3. CGI can require a serious amount of coding skill and a passion for design. I am not 100% certain that there is a way to prove NCBT users spend more time creating their product than CGI users spend coding and designing their own creation. You need to prove to me that NCBT actually requires more time than CGI creation (including art design? Your call.)

4. True. No one can really get excited about how a model was crafted in a computer program, no matter the amount of time put into it.

5. Again, pixar has shown that audiences weep over toy story characters and the like. In fact, I could probably do a search on youtube and find a good amount of tears being shed over a CGI character (there is definitely one with a guy crying over master chief, but I assume we are sticking to the movie industry?) Perhaps I will include some in the next round.

Thank you again for this debate
Debate Round No. 1
Bix

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate. May the best argument win.

"1. This argument is based on personal opinion. It would totally depend on what was being destroyed. If you want to see the cosmos shatter in an awe inspiring explosion, then I would go with CGI. Small scale destruction is fine and dandy but I do not believe NCBT (non-computer based techniques) can compete on as large a scale as CGI can. Again this argument is based on personal preference but judging by how well Avatar did, it's safe to say that CGI can excite people more than NCBT."

I agree that this argument is based on personal opinion. My opinion is that whilst CGI can certainly be used to represent destruction on a vast scale, it doesn't make that destruction any less "fake". Take for example the star fighter models used in the original Star Wars trilogy v.s. the CGI star fighters used in the prequels. In the original, you had dozens of scale models being blown up in real fiery explosions. The use of models and pyrotechnics created a realistic depiction of an otherwise fantastical situation: an epic battle in space. In the prequels, all people were seeing ware animations of ships and explosions, rather than real explosions, so that an impossible situation remained impossible, because rather than trying to make a fantastical situation seem real, the CGI just reinforces the fact that it isn't real.

"2. This would depend on the plot and character development. No amount of NCBT or CGI can make you care about a character or story without a thrilling plot. On this basis I would consider them equal. But I would like to point out that basically any movie by Pixar has had a saddening scene that without a doubt, touched the audience's heart."

I agree that plotting and character development are very important in determining whether your going sympathise with a character or not and that includes real actors as well. I believe films that are *entirely* CGI should not count in this debate, as we are debating the use of practical v.s. CG *special* effects. An effect that is used to represent the entire film ceases to become special. Though I do agree that Pixar are the gods of CGI animated films! On CGI v.s. practical effects characters in films with good character development and plotting, a practical effects character will always come out excellent. But if a CG character is not made to look almost convincingly real, then the fact that it is obviously fake makes watching it at least an awkward experience, regardless of how well the CGI character is voice acted or whatever.

3. CGI can require a serious amount of coding skill and a passion for design. I am not 100% certain that there is a way to prove NCBT users spend more time creating their product than CGI users spend coding and designing their own creation. You need to prove to me that NCBT actually requires more time than CGI creation (including art design? Your call.)

I'm not denying that creating CGI takes skill or that the people creating it aren't passionate. I think that depending on the type of effects used, the time it takes is different. I know that stop motion takes a lot of time in that the models have to be moved the tiniest bit and shots taken over and over again to simulate movement.

"4. True. No one can really get excited about how a model was crafted in a computer program, no matter the amount of time put into it."

Glad we agree on this point.

Sorry about repeating a point I already made on the 5th one. Looking forward to your responses to these and the 6th point as well. Again thank you for accepting this debate.
Thessentials

Con

Thessentials forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Bix

Pro

Since my opponent has not attempted a rebuttal of my previous points, they still stand.
Thessentials

Con

Thessentials forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Con forfeited, losing Conduct for sure. However, Pro has the burden of proof and never overcame the arguments that preference depends the effect, how well it is done, and upon personal taste.

We now occasionally get CGI that is so realistic it cannot be distinguished from photography, and we can expect more realism over time. If there is no difference, one cannot be preferred.

Not many people care how CGI modeling is done, nor can they appreciate the fine points. But I do. Special effects done with physical models are sometime annoyingly unrealistic. For example, they put sheets of cork in explosions to get debris that floats artistically to the ground.
Posted by Thessentials 7 years ago
Thessentials
I just realized I ignored your sixth argument, I will include it in my next round. I have to research whether CGI developers share the work on their projects or not.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
You ever seen the movie Beowulf completely CGI and of quality that was quite marvelous
Posted by Ancara 7 years ago
Ancara
Interesting topic! I definitely agree with you on point 3 and 4. The right combination between the two proved to get awesome results (LOR Trilogy). Good luck!
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
If i wasn't leaving again i'd take this. While i partially agree with you, my argument would probably be that the capabilities of cgi are so far out of normal props league. Meaning you can do so much more, and make things look so much cooler. It's also considerably cheaper.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
BixThessentialsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13