Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> Roman Reiner wrote:
> > "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> >> [..]  Because it's stop-motion, rather than CG [...]
> > 
> > Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure it is CG but made to look like stop
> > motion for artistic reasons.

> Nope, it was good ol' stop motion:

  One sad thing about computer graphics is that people are dismissing other
great forms of art as "just CGI".

  CGI is great when well done, and absolutely stunning things can be
achieved with it (for example, I don't think the LotR trilogy would have
been physically possible in its current form without CGI).

  However, it's sad when other great pieces of work are deemed as "just CGI"
when in fact they aren't, so people will miss all the work which went into
making them by other means.

  An interesting question is, however: If a stop-motion movie is mistaken
for a CGI movie, is it an insult or a compliment?

  (Similarly one could ask if an animatronic puppet being confused for CGI
is an insult or a compliment...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message