Ehhhh. Blah blah blah. We’ve heard it already. But, like I said, we can’t not talk about it. Instead of rehashing the argument, I’ve picked a few key quotes from the blogger community:
Ralph Eggleston, Artistic Director for The Incredibles says:
In my opinion it's always been a fallacy, the notion that human characters have to look photo-realistic in CG. You can do so much more with stylized human characters. Audiences innately know how humans move and gravity works, so if a human character doesn't feel right, they'll feel something's wrong. But if the weight works for stylized characters, the audience doesn't question it.
And, the General Public writes:
*Okay, so maybe I'm just a geek cinephile but it totally looks like CGI to me - it's the lack of emotion in the eyes, the stiff appendages and the rubberized body motions that give it away so easily. However, that said, the technology has come a long way and it still looks pretty darn fantastico*
*I hate this type of lazy film making. It gets big stars on the cheap so they don't have to work too many days. Then a computer does the rest. No real investment in actors at least trying to get into character (any wrong expression can be fixed by the computer guy) and no real sets. It's lazy and an insult to ones intelligence*
*Animated Angelina HOT...Buuut. She's also animated, which defeats the purpose of daydreaming in my book. Why go thru all the trouble for the animation technique when you can just shoot live-action. Obviously it's cheaper, but it kinda takes the magic out of the movies*
Why go through the trouble? Just because...we can. Thomas Kang, our guest speaker, elaborates:
No comments:
Post a Comment