• Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    13 days ago

    Sure, there’s limits. Show enough and even the best has an uncanny valley because our brains are great at picking up subtle clues. But in this example there was little shown outside the head motion, and I’ll take most any of Henson’s or Weta Workshop’s stuff that tries to trick the mind into thinking stuff is real.

    Most recent is the work in Project Hail Mary. Not humanoid, but convincingly living.

    • SatyrSack@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      I’ll take most any of Henson’s or Weta Workshop’s stuff that tries to trick the mind into thinking stuff is real.

      Any specific examples? I just remember Farscape being firmly in the “obviously puppets” realm, but that is pretty old by now.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 days ago

        About as old, but the first Yoda out of ESB was incredible in believability, particularly in face expressions (given the topic here of just a talking head on screen). Lucas’s later attempts at doing more with Yoda using CGI was nowhere near the level.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      I think there’s different levels of what we call real. CGI might be more realistic, but our brains know that we are looking at something that never existed, whereas even the shittiest puppet is convincingly a real object; I think that to translates us more easily having feelings about the puppet.

      Stole this argument from a comparison of Carpenter’s practical effect smorgasborg, The Thing, vs its CGI-heavy remake.