 
|
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: Does it *really* matter if the special effects are photographic process or CG? posted by Tom §. on May 05, 2002 at 05:33:54:
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.
Follow Ups:
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 ]
