Practical special effects are better than CG special effects

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.