I think I may have to put on some Kevlar in addition to some asbestos, but I am not the biggest fan on CGI. More accurately, I'm not a big fan on how CGI is generally implemented in such broad strokes across so many films. I like effects that are "timeless". My favourite example is Blade Runner [link to amazing documentary about the film]. The only thing that looks a bit wonky is the obviously craned take off and landing shots of the flying cars. Other than that, the models and masking techniques are just amazing; I never sit there watching that film and think, "It's just a model." Too many times when I'm watching a modern CGI'ed movie I say to myself, "Watch this movie again in 5 or 10 years and you'll laugh at the special effects."Take the Lord of the Rings films. I loved them, enjoyed them, but a lot of the effects just won't stand the test of time. Of course this is a tall order, but I think that ubiquitous use of CGI is not the right approach to take. There are definitely times where CGI is the right tool for the job, but the blanket use is really taking away from the quality of films. "We'll just do it in post with CGI," has probably become a staple tool in the chest. I am not in the industry, so I am willing to bet that some of you will correct me on some of this and I hope you do if I am incorrect. This is why when I saw this article I was ecstatic. I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on the actual results, but it makes me happy that they are taking this approach: "To create his controversial sci-fi epic The Fountain, director Darren Aronofsky had to slash the Hollywood budget ditch the usual digital f/x, and return to his roots as an indie filmmaker...
"...'No matter how good CGI looks at first, it dates quickly,' [Aronofsky] says. 'But 2001 really holds up. So I set the ridiculous goal of making a film that would reinvent space without using CGI.'..."I full heartedly agree. Tags: movies, rant
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
