For an example we are to refer to movies that are nearing 20 years old? Is there no allowance for the maturing of the FX industry in those 20 years?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
For an example we are to refer to movies that are nearing 20 years old? Is there no allowance for the maturing of the FX industry in those 20 years?
Yes, let’s pretend that modern movies don’t use the same techniques to replace practical sets and real location shooting because some suit at a studio thinks it’s cheaper with CGI.
Ghostbusters (2016)
The current Ghostbusters films are a prime example of this, where the VFX in the original 1984 film are more believable and “real” because they were shot with real actors, in a real location, reacting to real objects with VFX added in to complete the experience
Compare that to a situation like the one above where the actors are in a green room reacting to marks on a wall, and the entire environment has to be drawn in around them.
Actors have had 30 years to adapt to the changing VFX world. Their skills grow as they continue to acclimate. Much like skills changed as we moved from live action theater to more intimate TV and movie settings.
But that goes back to Nolan's original point in the text I quoted above.
There's a threshold where the fictional world you're trying to create loses believability because it becomes an obvious animated environment instead of a real environment and loses suspension of disbelief.
Everyday the technology gets a little bit better. There will come a time where we won’t be able to tell the difference because of the maturity of the technology and actor skill in playing off of green screens. One thinks about it, I imagine mime skills would be helpful.
I heard that in Spock’s voice.
Then my work here is done.I heard that in Spock’s voice.
I gave you a Spock and a smile.
I don't really care if the FX are CGI or practical, as long as they're there to enhance the story rather than show off what can be done in CGI. My feelings about nudity, violence, and sex in visual media are similar, I don't mind any of it if it contributes to the story, but if it's just shown for its supposed shock value, I get bored with it pretty quickly, and even if it wasn't particularly shocking, the Carol Marcus bikini scene in STID didn't contribute to the story at all.
For me Bullitt will always remain the ultimate car chase movie, and that was all done with practical effects.
For me Bullitt will always remain the ultimate car chase movie, and that was all done with practical effects.
I ain't complaining about that scene.
I find practical effects actually more satisfying than CGI. Feels more natural, not like the exact, perfectness of CGI.
Completely off-topic: I like to think that something similar to the Julian-Gregorian switch happened with stardates, and the conversion system from stardates to Gregorian years is flawed, so the dates actually do work out with the differing WWIII dates and such.
I firmly believe it's a tradition-breaking travesty that mirror universe Kira didn't have a beard.
He was off screen.
The beard?
Mirror Garak was twisted in ways that would scar our minds.
To be fair, Prime Garak was, too.
To be fair, Prime Garak was, too.
Mirror Garak was twisted in ways that would scar our minds.
To be fair, Prime Garak was, too.
He was neither a good person or good character.Mirror Garak was twisted in ways that would scar our minds.
To be fair, Prime Garak was, too.
Which was largely the point of his character.
Similar threads
- Locked
