 
|
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 |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: Chronicles of Narnia. It's Children's movie posted by Jon L on December 27, 2005 at 09:49:20:
s
Follow Ups:
I agree that the digital creatures were largely digital looking. They were not cheap though. When has it not looked bad? The first Jurassic Park with the T Rex and the Raptors, Mighty Joe Young, At times Gollum in LOTRs. Digital is usually at it's worst when dealing with creatures. OTOH digital effects used for other things tend to be SOTA and often so good you never know there was any digital effect done at all.
It's when someone (usually Auphy) remarks about the great CGI, that I know the process has drawn attention to itself and is therefore visible.clark
"Great CGI" doesn't necessarily mean that it draws attention to itself. It means that it's visually stunning, nothing more. One can *know* something must have been filmed in the digital domain without the effects drawing attention to themselves. THAT is what I mean when describing something as "great CGI." So, if you don't mind, please quit trying to interpret my literal comments to suit your own purpose.AuPh
with some effects one has to know that there was an effect due completely to the content. If you see dinosaur you know it is an effect, be it digital or physical. I found the T rex and the Raptors in the first Jurassic Park to be quite convincing. Ditto for my other examples. No matter how good they may have been there is no way to fool anyone into believing they were not effects. I think hey are an easy target for any cynic. But there are numerous effects in any given movie that are not obvious because they could be real. Those are the ones that are ofen seemless and go un-noticed by the general public. I am confident that you have seen digital composites and subtle digital effects like the removal of cables that were invisable effects, effects you did not notice as an effect. You will not likely find anyone substantially more critical of bad digital effects or bad effects in general than me. but I am not going to make negative claims about an entire technology or dismiss a movie based on their use just because sometimes they are done badly. Digital is often don badly, it is not inherently evil.
Your point is well taken. While not CGI, the same point can be made with the recent Cinderalla Man. I learn during the final fight scene that most of the people in the crowd were not people, but were dummies. They could not afford to fill an arena full of extra actors. During the film, with some camera and lighting tricks, those dummies were not noticeable as such. After learning they are dummies, and watching those scenes again, they are dummies. I suspect that we watch scenes in films of real objects not knowing they are CGI, because we do not question their reality. They look real, because they are real, somewhere. Our brains never take over. On the other hand, in LOTR and Jurassic Park, there are no special effects that can fool us to believe there are really dinosaurs on the screen because we know there are no dinosaurs, whether they look real or not, we know they are fake. Our brains know better, and instruct our eyes.
...then how do I get fooled into thinking that actors are real characters? And I most surely do.I'm willing to suspend quite a lot of disbelief, but digital effects that draw attention to themselves are like ham actors, you never fall for it.
clark
That said, I found the CGI work in King Kong and Peter Jackson's prior efforts, The LoTR trilogy quite impressive, and realistic. The CGI effects in last summer's War of The Worlds were excellent as well, but that film had other problems. IMHO, Narnia sucked for many reasons, including the inconsistent and unconvincing CGI effects.So, Clark, tell us what MOVIES with CGI effects you've seen this winter; we'll get at the truth yet! ;^D
AuPh
And if the CGI in WoW was "excellent" (actually it wasn't *all* that bad), and that in LoTR "impressive, and realistic" (I gave up after #2), then I see no need for further viewing of it in this decade or so.clark
but you keep coming back for his smileys! ^_^ (my weak attempt)
(~8^D)
v
;^)
The answer (OBVIOUSLY) (hence why bother?): None; but winter is only seven days gone. Geez!In the future I shall continue not to dignify such inaninty with an answer.
clark
What do I have to do, hand you a friggin' Aztek calendar and request that you check the stars alignments against Peter Jackson's sacrificed entrails before being granted a direct, unnuanced response? (~8^/)My ONLY point in all of these discussions is that you've relied (ONCE AGAIN) on a second hand review (Duncan Shepherd) to diss a film that you apparently haven't seen (King Kong). If you've seen the film, then why not just say so without all the evasive crap? Since you make every effort to not go on record, it looks to me like you see nothing wrong with linking critical opinions for public consumption when you yourself are uninformed, and there's the rub.
Analogy time: It's like a certain politician telling the American people that there were WMDs in Iraq in order to get support for a war. He lacked personal knowledge and relied on a critic of Saddam's government just like you lack personal knowledge about a movie and have chosen to link the opinion of a critic you favor even though you have no basis to criticize the film yourself.
Now if you have seen Kong, just say "yes, I've seen this film" and post YOUR own opinions. Then link whichever critical reviews you choose that are in agreement with your POV and open the topic for discussion. That's easy enough isn't it? To do anything else is deceitful, IMHO.
AuPh
Plus you could just have said "recently", but no, you got specific so I was forced to take you at your word. Now I have learned... not to."Analogy time: It's like a certain politician telling the American people that there were WMDs in Iraq..." Oh, you mean the junior Senator from Massachusetts? Or the junior Senator from New York? Oh, I got it -- you mean President Clinton! Well, big of you to recognize what they said all along about WMDs.
Or... maybe that isn't such a great analogy after all?...
clark
PS Saw Batman Begins, Spidey II and maybe another before the winter began.
Winter was mentioned because most of the films we're discussing are being screened during the winter film season openning over the holidays. I was trying to keep it general so you would provide a broader list of films that you've actually seen. "Recently" is a word that allows even more weaseling as it can be interpreted to mean anything from a few days to a few months. The bottom line: I think that it's safe to say you haven't seen Peter Jackson's King Kong (yet?) based on the entirity of your dodgy comments.I rest my case.
AuPh
...on it, although one of your ruder cohorts accused me of just that.clark
Technically, you're correct; you haven't issued an opinion, but I have some problems with it from an ethical standpoint.What you've done amounts to endorsing a second hand opinion without having any direct knowledge of your own. In a court of law that would probably be called heresay evidence and ruled inadmissable. Here, expressing an uninformed opinion through posting someone else's review may just be blowing smoke, and viewed as okay or par for the coarse, but I think of it as deceitful.
Why, you might ask?
Because failure to inform folks whether YOU have seen the film that you're posting a critical review about still leaves the misimpression that you've seen the film in question; it's this guilt of omission that I find most egregious, and it amounts to weaseling, IMHO.
You probably don't see it this way, and you're certainly entitled to that viewpoint, but I think that others probably will see where I'm coming from on this point. I'm calling you on this, as I've done occasionally before, not to be an arsehole, but because I think that it's patently unfair to rely on a surrogate critic's viewpoint to trash a film you haven't seen yourself.
AuPh
I watched Jurassic Park 2 the other night. The movie wasn't very good, but the effects (i.e. dinosaurs) were far more "realistic" then the cartoonish CGI in King Kong.
Wait until the DVD of Kong comes out and then you can compare the effects of the two features side by side using the same format and delivery device. In CGI like most other things involving "pixel-dust," size really does matter, Kong notwithstanding! ;^)On an HDTV or projected on a smaller HT screen the CGI visuals will probably appear even more realistic!
AuPh
Not sure I buy it, but I will check it out.
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 ]
