 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: To much Computer Animation in Spiderman? posted by Bolt_Snypr on May 04, 2002 at 12:39:12:
Either way you can still focus on the optical aberrations in each process that make it look fake.*hint*......NONE of it is real.
Tom §.
Follow Ups:
Poor SFX will be noticed and distract the viewer whether it's CG, miniatures, or photographic effect. I have no argument against that point.However, I seem to be noticing a trend in published movie reviewers and barstool movie reviewers that CG is inherently bad no matter what the quality (the cheesy comment below). It's not that spiderman has "too much" CG, it should be noted that it has relatively *poor* quality CG. CG can be very good at times (the opening sequence of Contact immediately comes to mind) and it can enable visual expression in film that was previously too resource-intensive or practically impossible to achieve via previous methods. A wholesale dismissal of any process is ignorance in action.
Tom §.
Sorry I wasn't more explicit in my post. It does matter. It matters because digital effects are inherrently inferior for certain applications. To create special effects that don't get in the way of the suspension of disbelief one must begin with good decision making on technique. These days digital imaging is often chosen over other techniques because it is digital not because it is the better choice.
but it's Spider-man. :) I enjoyed the movie a whole lot. The CG enhanced the surrealism of what the comics convey and left realism aside, to let the audience focus on larger issues such as Parker's personal development and general themes on humanity. Such CG effects complement movies like this, The Matrix for example or LOTR. But for say, the Gladiator, it's just unworthy for second viewing. I hope the producers in Hollywood get this point and not f#cking make another action flick with CG and have John Travolta jumping across a green screen.
Though I was going to say something similar.Suspension of disbelief is the key point. Show me a '50s or '60s
monster movie with a claymation dinosaur (or heck, give me Wallace
and Grommit!) and I am sucked in. Spend $50 million on similar digital effects, and my brain will often say something just isn't right.
Yes it does matter. When it is good it doesn't get in the way of the suspension of disbelief.
It matters.To a certain extent, it looks cheesy, no matter how good it is.
Though we are so desensitized to it by now, it becomes an important film element, like any other element in the presentation.
I saw those effects used in "Pearl Harbor" and they look ridiculous. Like the use of 3D, it looks so dumb. The detail reduces the "scope" of the film.
With all the processing power that's available, you'd think they could do a better job with computer generated effects. However, I think the problem is not so much the effects themselves but the very poor judgement that is often used implementing them into a movie, making it somewhat like watching a videogame, as one poster mentioned.Special effects should heighten the sense of realism you get while watching a well made film; that is their only legitimate purpose in good cinema. Throwing gobs of computer generated junk in a film just because that's what expected in a typical mindless, blockbuster action or sci-fi movie is not good filmmaking, IMO.
Todd
Hammer hits nail square on head
I'll take the current crop of well-crafted CGI movies any day... as long as the story/acting is worthy of the costly special effects! Suspension of disbelief is the key.Audiophilander
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
