 
|
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 |
207.200.116.68
In Reply to: "The cheap, obviously-fake looking CGI." And where has it not been ever thus? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on December 27, 2005 at 10:21:14:
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.
Follow Ups:
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
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 ]
