DISQUS

Cole Abaius · 1 year ago

1. You're lack of foresight is astounding, grump.
2. It's not just a job, it's an adventure? I think you're mixing up stuntpeople with another fighting force, although, yeah, being a stuntperson would be awesome.
3. The first time you see a film made entirely from realistic CGI done effectively, you won't even realize it.
4. We started making movies in 1798?
5. We're making lists again?

The Pterodactyl from Citizen K · 1 year ago

I'm an anti-CGI guy. It's nice for enchanging the colour in a scene, etc. but I really hate when it rules the entire picture. You don't need to build a set, a realistic setting, now you only have to get green screen and draw everything from pixels. It's real fakery.

CGI characters will never have the warmth and human qualities as. They are programmed to act. Watch Maria Falconetti in Dreyer's "Jeanne D'Arc", watch Giulietta Masina in "La Strada", watch Takashi Shimura in "Ikiru". The most perfect CGI animation will NEVER be able to have these HUMAN emotions and depths. Never ever.

Admdjg · 1 year ago

The only reason this tech is being pursued so hotly is because of fans, nothing more. We all know there are people out there who only want to see certain movies and tv shows made or remade with the origional cast members. Want to see Star Trek with young Shatner, Nimoy and the rest? How bout new Superman movies with Chris Reeve? a sequel to Casablanca with H. Bogart? With this new tech, Angelina can be young forever and make even more action movies.

Robert Fure · 1 year ago

@Cole
1. I am lack of foresight? Or did you mean "your," possessive? People predicted the end of the printed word years ago, its still here. People like actors. You can't read about digital Angelina adopting digital kids.
2. Real stunts are awesome and so are stunt men.
3. By the time I'm that old, I don't know if I'll care about it. And the question isn't "Will I notice?" it is "Should we make that switch?" I say no.
4. The first moving picture was in 1895, which is 113 years ago. I never said I was good at math. Error corrected.
5. Yes.

@Pterodactyl
Agreed.

@Admdjg
I don't want to see those. First of all, it would just be pictures of them, not them. Not their acting or insight. Second, better left alone. I am supremely anti-recreating actors to digitally insert them into new roles. All things most end, if that includes our favorite franchises with their original actors, so be it.

Jeremy M · 1 year ago

I said it once, I'll say it 1000 times. Puppets/rigs are far better then CG at this point IMO.
The Vogons on the Hitchhiker's Guide would have looked terrible and dated if they where
CG.
Maybe a combination of puppetry and CG is the key.

D Train · 1 year ago

Don't get me wrong, I am no CG advocate. I think it's killing movies today as directors put all the focus on spectacle and none on the consequence or impact of said spectacle. However, I think some movies lately have used it to good effect (Iron Man, The Dark Knight) and directors may be learning how to use CG to improve a solid film.
Also, there is no denying that CGI brought back to life the near dead genre of animated films (or it may have killed traditional animation, but that is a discussion of itself). And we all know that Pixar has been rocking out solid films for years. Wall-E was a masterpiece, and brought emotion to a tin can. There is a place for CGI, live action filmmakers just need to find it.