Imagination Connoisseur, Dean Micetich, prefers physical models over computer-generated animation (CGI). Why is that? Which do you prefer? Let us know in the comments, below.

Hi Rob and the PGS,

I wanted to ask you a question. When it comes to effects work in film and TV shows, what do you prefer CGI or physical models?

Personal I am still rooted in physical models. Why do I feel this way?

When you see any of the ships or space stations from Star Trek up to mid 90’s, or any ships form the original Star Wars trilogy, the ships from the Alien franchise or Blade Runner movies or even the DeLorean and Time-Train form the Back to the Future movies among many others.

They feel like they are actually real, you can actually run your hand along the hull or even climb aboard them.

I know they are “in-scene real” as they are models. But when you see them on screen it looks like someone has actually built them and they are working objects.

Yes, the AT-AT looks a little funny when it walks in STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK due to being stop monition. But that effect has realism to it. I can see something of that size and weight walking “clunky”.

Even with the vast improvements in CGI technology, when I see a ship on screen it seems to be missing that physical element. I don’t get the feeling I can reach out and touch it.

I guess you can say it looks a little cartoony. This might also be because in some films and TV show, when we are seeing a shot of a ship or other moving element. The camera moves in directions that are just not possible, if it had been filmed in real world.

That not say I hate CGI, it has been used very well, but I think a mixture of the two could make ships look physical again, while having stunning back drops and action going on in the scene.

What do you and the PGS think?

Kind regards
– Dean M

%d bloggers like this: