Bricks in Motion
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO® and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
A place to discuss, share, and create stop motion films.
Ad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Forums - Bricks in Motion » General Film Discussion » Do you Prefer making Live Action, or Stop Motion films?
Do you prefer to go out and film live action films, or do you enjoy brickfilming more? If you prefer one over the other, why do you? I enjoy both myself. 
Live action for me.
I like brickfilming because I can have so many characters while still rolling solo, but It's not fun for me anymore.
I prefer minifigs to real people. Minifigs don't complain when I stab objects through them.
Live-Action is fun and groovy.
Brickfilms.. notsomuch.
Live action. Definitely. Brickfilm it's just a hobby for me. Live action has more...action? Idk. Maybe I like watching people act, you have more feelings in live action than in a minifigs' head
Live Action. I wish I could get good actors, though, then I could make good live action films.
I'll tell you my pros and cons of each, though I prefer live action to brickfilming.
Brickfilming
Pros: In brickfilming, you can control everything. How the lighting will work, what the set looks like, where the camera is, etc. AND you can "freeze time" to adjust something, or move the camera angle, then resume animating. Working with LEGOs has another HUGE advantage: cost/time/effort effective. Since they are tiny, you save money when it comes to greenscreen size, set design, lighting (you can't light a live set with desk lamps- only for brickfilming), and a lot of other things.
Cons: Some bad parts about brickfilming is the animation itself- you have to do it just right or it doesn't look right- and expression of emotions. It takes a real good brickfilmer to bring emotion to a brickfilm, since LEGOs don't have faces that move/express emotion. And the faces- you need particular programs to animate them- are very time consuming.
Live Action Films
Pros: You can tell the actors what to do, and they will move on their own. You can have a ton of things going on at once, and its really hard to do that in a brickfilm (you may forget to move a background character for a frame or two accidentally!). It's easier to convey emotion, and to make adjustments in the set, behavior of the actors, or pretty much anything else. You can film anywhere, in any light, whenever you want. Camera bumps are easily adjusted in post production.
Cons: It costs a lot to make a set, it's hard to get the lighting of the set just right, and if you mess up a camera angle, a dialog, a scene, whatever, it's hard to redo it exactly the same. Actors can make or break a film, while in brickfilming, all you have to do is change the voice actor with another, without having to worry about mouth movement changes. Sound is hard to master, either background noise, or a terrible boom mic angle.
Hope this helped, even though it was only [my] opinion.
I'll tell you my pros and cons of each, though I prefer live action to brickfilming.
Brickfilming
Pros: In brickfilming, you can control everything. How the lighting will work, what the set looks like, where the camera is, etc. AND you can "freeze time" to adjust something, or move the camera angle, then resume animating. Working with LEGOs has another HUGE advantage: cost/time/effort effective. Since they are tiny, you save money when it comes to greenscreen size, set design, lighting (you can't light a live set with desk lamps- only for brickfilming), and a lot of other things.
Cons: Some bad parts about brickfilming is the animation itself- you have to do it just right or it doesn't look right- and expression of emotions. It takes a real good brickfilmer to bring emotion to a brickfilm, since LEGOs don't have faces that move/express emotion. And the faces- you need particular programs to animate them- are very time consuming.Live Action Films
Pros: You can tell the actors what to do, and they will move on their own. You can have a ton of things going on at once, and its really hard to do that in a brickfilm (you may forget to move a background character for a frame or two accidentally!). It's easier to convey emotion, and to make adjustments in the set, behavior of the actors, or pretty much anything else. You can film anywhere, in any light, whenever you want. Camera bumps are easily adjusted in post production.
Cons: It costs a lot to make a set, it's hard to get the lighting of the set just right, and if you mess up a camera angle, a dialog, a scene, whatever, it's hard to redo it exactly the same. Actors can make or break a film, while in brickfilming, all you have to do is change the voice actor with another, without having to worry about mouth movement changes. Sound is hard to master, either background noise, or a terrible boom mic angle.Hope this helped, even though it was only [my] opinion.
that seems to sum it up almost perfectly
I think my Brickfilm time is over and I'm really starting to get into Live-Action, I really wanna make people feel emotions with my movies, it's just amazing doing that and just thinking about it.
Problem is that I'm a terrible writter at the moment though.
Just write alot and you'll get better. I used to be horrible, now I feel like I'm mediocre-ish. But I have a psychological, emotional script if you're interested. Take it or leave it, I sent it to your e-mail (along with the short story version) 
Stop Motion; because you dont have a Cinematographer/Actor/Editor/Producer/Sound Technician arguing with you.
I've been moving towards live-action, simply because I've been getting into a more naturalistic style. I wouldn't rule out making another brickfilm, though.
Live-Action is more enjoyable with good actors. Offcourse it's more demanding, I mean it's WAY WAY harder to make a good live-action film but it can contain human emotions and such things. Things that can be hardly imported into brickfilms. Stop-Motion is just my hobby and it's easier to work with toys/minifigures/action figures and such. So if the question is about making then I gotta say I prefer Stop-motion because it's simply easier.
I prefer Live Action. Unlike brickfilming its enjoyable.
DerTarchin summed up the pros and cons of each pretty well. Personally, I tend to go a bit pyscho after animating for too long, and it can be nice to just have things acted out quickly in front of a camera. The problem is, it's easier to make a decent-looking brickfilm than it is a live-action film when you have a small to nonexistent budget.
I have recently been writing/filming various live-action sketches (some starring myself), and the two most jarring things to get used to for me are A., memorizing my own lines (I tend to be pretty verbose when I write, and I have a craptastic memory), and B., not laughing my ass off when I'm behind the camera. It may seem idiotic to laugh at one's own lines, but when you write something outrageous and someone else acts it out - it can be surprisingly easy to lose it.
It's so insanely easy to sit at a computer with a microphone and script in hand, and bellow and carry on or what-have-you, and later animate a minifig bobbing his head in sync, that when you find yourself outside with a shifting sun directing someone as to exactly how you want them to hop around in this shot, and the fake beard you're wearing is itching like a mother, well, it feels pretty damn surreal.
STOP-MOTION. Why? You don't need to pay for people to act in it.
I don't pay people to act in it...I get paid. Nah, jk, I work with friends when making a live action. Little projects.
Stop Motion most definitely. I find it more enjoyable. I control how my sets look and everything about it. I dont mind the time factor
Posts [ 1 to 20 of 27 ]
