Is there any film you'd like to see a criticism of, or any film you'd like to discuss? Would you like to offer a guest review? I am all ears and open to anything. It doesn't even have to be film related. Got something to say about sports, music, politics, or subway etiquette? Bring it on. Use the comments in this blog to start it up.
Ga'head, do it. Don't make Klaus angry...
Friday, December 7, 2007
Start A Discussion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The debate on CGI continues.
Here is a thought (from me, Astrid, M.A's favorite CGI-"fanatic"):
You say, and I quote: "It's like comparing van Gogh's Starry Night with a very well-done ad campaign. I don't care if it's for iPod, it ain't the same... There is no replacement for the natural. None."
Except, Starry Night isn't the natural. It, too, is an artist's rendition of the natural, like CGI-- that is, if we want to think of CGI as a comment on nature.
If we don't (instead, think- reproduction/fake), why do the mountains of 300 have to compare to the mountains in Kundun? What if the point of CGI is NOT to be "real"-- I wouldn't call 300 realistic. I don't think the creators of it were thinking, "Man, we have no way to shoot these guys on a cliff like this-- it's too hard to do it in real life. And models take too long to make. Let's spend thousands on computer graphics so that it looks "almost real," but everyone will secretly know it's fake. That's the idea."
I think it's bad to use CGI to fake realism. Movies that don't *require* CGI to express a point (think: Sex and the City when Carrie sees that leaf or balloon flying around-- so stupid. CGI not needed). I don't think using CGI is bad to *create* an alternate reality or recreate the impossible, like living in space, entire cities burning, or what it's like for a human to fly. After all, we don't fly. And we don't really "live" in space. In those cases, there is no "natural" to immitate poorly. There's only nature and imagination. Just like Starry Night.
Granted, CGI is annoying at times and beautiful shots are timeless, priceless, etc. But, just as there is bad filmmaking, there is bad CGI. And sometimes, the CGI can be amazing. For example, in the movie The Golden Compass. They used a lot of CGI animals. Sure, they could have tried to train animals to do exactly what they wanted so that they could be true to the book, but that would be near impossible. Is it "cheap" (think- not right) for them to use CGI animals? I don't think so. It's difficult to find the perfect animal actors and PETA is so unforgiving with time on set...
Another part of that movie that I am still thinking about days later are the death scenes of the characters and their daemons. When the person dies, their daemon vanishes into a puff of golden sparkles (possibly dust?). It was visually amazing, and didn't even have to be "natural." It was amazing in its own right.
I mean, how cute is this "fake" animal.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/telex3x/thegoldencompass_bigdaemon3.jpg
and one more thing, I have nothing but respect for the people who work on these films. my post isn't saying that they are not talented or that what they do isnt an art in itself. it is, it's just a slightly lower form within the film spectrum. forget the starry night analogy completely.
shooting a film with total reality its harder and more impressive to do it all real and the results are more impactful and important. it a lasting and satisfying experience. CGI, even if picasso was at the helm, is not so much.
Post a Comment