Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Let's take T2, you think the T1000 could have been done with mechanical effects? There are thousands of other examples. On that note, J. Cameron used both digital and mechanical effects for the Terminator films.
|
Tell me, honestly, what makes the T1000 such a compelling villain in T2? Is it Robert Patrick's wonderfully menacing delivery and physical acting? or is it a shiny CGI blob? It's the actor, and it's the story. The CGI is just a gewgaw. Cameron did just fine in the first Terminator movie with no CGI at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
You don't put much faith in film makers to use whatever tools are best for the job do you?
|
Nope, I don't. Because most of the production decisions for big-budget Hollywood pictures are all made by marketing suits who only care about the first weekend gross.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
As for Avatar, you are slagging off the movie before you ever see it, seems odd to me. Do you have some kind of hate for CG in films? Digital effects are just another tool in the arsenal of the film maker. It is up to that film maker to use whatever tools available to realize the script, and to do it as believable as possible. Maybe you've seen too many Micheal Bay movies? |
I've only seen half of one Michael Bay movie (Armageddon), walked out because the filmmaker's grasp of physics was so bad. And I wasn't slagging on Avatar specifically, I'm slagging on the trend these days to overlay CGI on everything, just to impress the gullible masses who seem to love bright shiny things that don't add anything substantive to the overall product. Good actors and effects crews can do a lot more on their own, so fricking let them! Predator, Alien, Terminator ... if any of them were made now you know they'd CGI the hell out of them, and would they be any more compelling? No.