Forum

Notifications
Clear all

CG: good? or bad?

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
723 Views
(@rocket-attack)
Posts: 27
Eminent Member
Topic starter
 

this has been an ongoing debate with me and a few friends of mine....

movies these days seem to be relying more and more on computer graphics. do you think this is a good thing? or a bad thing?

--------------------------------------------------
This film cost $31 million. With that kind of money I could have invaded some country.
? Clint Eastwood

--------------------------------------------------
This film cost $31 million. With that kind of money I could have invaded some country.
? Clint Eastwood

 
Posted : 17/02/2006 5:45 pm
(@robi8886)
Posts: 220
Reputable Member
 

for directing i think it is mostly good. It allow there to be no limit to your imagination, you can do anything you want on screen and get any shot you could think of. If you want a shot to start at somebodys face and zoom all the way out to the moon (i don tknow why you would) you can do it. The down side is it takes away from the way one uses a camera and lights to create an emotion which is what some people (and me) love about making movies.

From a special fx person or actors standpoint i think its bad. Actors are needed less and less which takes away from their careers. and for a special fx person it takes away from their skills in real life. On the flip side it creates a new job for a computer animator.

so froma directors standpoint i don thave to much of a problem with it but it does take away from certain aspects of the job and art but not enough for me to hate it...if that makes any sense

"Anyone who has ever been privileged to direct a film also knows that, although it can be like trying to write 'War and Peace' in a bumper car in an amusement park, when you finally get it right, there are not many joys in life that can equal the feeling." - Stanley Kubrick

"Anyone who has ever been privileged to direct a film also knows that, although it can be like trying to write 'War and Peace' in a bumper car in an amusement park, when you finally get it right, there are not many joys in life that can equal the feeling." - Stanley Kubrick

 
Posted : 17/02/2006 7:11 pm
(@rakechan)
Posts: 10
Active Member
 

In my opinion it's bad, bad, bad! mainly because most CG stuff (with odd exceptions!) is just too glistening and not 'real' looking. Of course, eventually I'm sure the techies will crack it and it'll be great, and I know that it takes time to get to that point, but alas... I just like getting my hands dirty! 🙂

 
Posted : 19/02/2006 7:53 pm
(@rjschwarz)
Posts: 1814
Noble Member
 

CGI is what you make of it.

If you can turn twenty guys into an entire D Day invasion with planes above and additional ships I think you've improved your movie. If you think using CGI to put a tank next to the actors you're probably fooling yourself. On a smaller scale the movie Ichi the Killer used CGI blood on the walls of a hotel room because it was impossible to mess up the room, shoot, and clean it up in the time they had. CGI can save a lot of money.

On the other hand if you are putting your actors into a green room with nothing to act against you risk flat preformances.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

RJSchwarz

 
Posted : 21/02/2006 1:53 am
Share: