At what point in time does a movie become just a 'Cartoon' when a vast majority of it is Computer Generated? Call me 'old school' but there is something pure and more realistic in movies that use models and real physics and lighting over things done in CG [Computer Graphics]. I'm not against CG at all, but I am getting bored of it. I see two basic levels of CG in movies not counting the full blown cartoons like Toy Story:
1) reality enhancement creating better art in a live action movies like skys or backdrops in Forrest Gump where CG replaces matt paintings for even more realism, or creating things that are just too dangerous or expensive to make
2) films that rely on CG for EVERYTHING just because it's easier or cheaper now. EX: most Star Trek TV spinoffs
Anyone else tired of boring computerized footage reaplacing live actors or scale models??
I liked the LOTR movies but they are also a good example of it. CG was needed to create locations that don't exist, and shrink people and such but is there a percentage where the studio should call it a cartoon since it is all drawn and not real? Isn't that what a cartoon is? Heck, they use CG for most cartoons now anyway. And when they are showing those long CG pan shots of large areas of land, why must they ALWAYS do a 'flyby' helicopter like pan PROOVING the existance of "3D"?? It's like a standard in the graphics world: if you can do it, DO IT, reguardless of the cinematagraphers visions - if its a long surface shot move and pan to SHOW OFF the amazing 3D landscape. Zoom ins are fine, they usually feed the plot somehow. And WHY put "lens flare" in a CG shot at all? How does THAT add realism when real lens flare is a negative by product that most directors would want to remove? Add to that video games that have lens flare... when was the last time you looked at the sun and saw cascading lens reflections in your eye? Realism out the door.. they do it because they figured out how to do it. Whoopee-woo. I know, I know, in the future everything will be CG and no more models will be built and they will improve the lighting and physics, but until it is perfect I'll still notice it and feel a littel let down by the lack of effort for whoever clicks the 'Compile scene' button on their SuperXG-MAC instead of hiring a team of model builders.
... I also remember a dude at my recording studio saying digital music will never sound as good as analog.
... I also remember a guy at my work saying phone lines will never physically support more than 9600 baud.
Man, I complain alot don't I?
1) reality enhancement creating better art in a live action movies like skys or backdrops in Forrest Gump where CG replaces matt paintings for even more realism, or creating things that are just too dangerous or expensive to make
2) films that rely on CG for EVERYTHING just because it's easier or cheaper now. EX: most Star Trek TV spinoffs
Anyone else tired of boring computerized footage reaplacing live actors or scale models??
I liked the LOTR movies but they are also a good example of it. CG was needed to create locations that don't exist, and shrink people and such but is there a percentage where the studio should call it a cartoon since it is all drawn and not real? Isn't that what a cartoon is? Heck, they use CG for most cartoons now anyway. And when they are showing those long CG pan shots of large areas of land, why must they ALWAYS do a 'flyby' helicopter like pan PROOVING the existance of "3D"?? It's like a standard in the graphics world: if you can do it, DO IT, reguardless of the cinematagraphers visions - if its a long surface shot move and pan to SHOW OFF the amazing 3D landscape. Zoom ins are fine, they usually feed the plot somehow. And WHY put "lens flare" in a CG shot at all? How does THAT add realism when real lens flare is a negative by product that most directors would want to remove? Add to that video games that have lens flare... when was the last time you looked at the sun and saw cascading lens reflections in your eye? Realism out the door.. they do it because they figured out how to do it. Whoopee-woo. I know, I know, in the future everything will be CG and no more models will be built and they will improve the lighting and physics, but until it is perfect I'll still notice it and feel a littel let down by the lack of effort for whoever clicks the 'Compile scene' button on their SuperXG-MAC instead of hiring a team of model builders.
... I also remember a dude at my recording studio saying digital music will never sound as good as analog.
... I also remember a guy at my work saying phone lines will never physically support more than 9600 baud.
Man, I complain alot don't I?
