Upcoming "doom" film--Predictions?

[ulthar]

Cheecky-Monkey wrote:

> Was that supposed to be a joke?

Can't speak for Freep, but I'd say probably not; just a good point.  Essentially, it seems like you are saying that an effects technique YOU don't like should never be used.  Artists/directors should ONLY use effects in the genre(s) you approve.

My old arguement: CGI effects done RIGHT go unnoticeable, so you don't complain.  There's virtually no modern movie made without some degree of computer effects.  Even if that is just motion blurring 'stop motion' animation, etc.  Usually, it's more.

Personally, I think it is blasphemy to make a movie based on a COMPUTER GAME and NOT use CGI.  But, that's just me.  ;)



Post Edited (04-13-05 18:19)

[ulthar]

Cheecky-Monkey wrote:

>  But putting it
> in movies the way people like George Lucas, Steve Sommers, etc.
> do, it's putting good effects artists out of work.

But, if Stan Winston is taking the fx lead in this flick, that's not  out of work; that's employed.

A good fx director can blend both classic and modern fx tools to achieve the most awesome visuals.

[Fearless Freep]

Can't speak for Freep, but I'd say probably not; just a good point.

It was saitire or parady or such.  Not funny per se; but making about as much sense as the original it was based on

Effects are just effects.  They all look decent enough when done well; the look bad when done poorly.  Just consider the blue screen flying effects in Superman vs MegaForce.  One done well, one done badly.  One done well within the context of a good movie so even the obviousness of the effect was easy to overlook. One done poorly within the context of a bad movie so it wasn't so easy to forgive as it was just one more silly thing to laugh at.

For me, the classic example of a comparison is "Anaconda"; it had CG and animatroinic effects, both done..not great.  The CG snakes moved like they were weightless and the animatronic snakes moved poorly and barely at all and looked like plastic.  Thins is, the CG effects did stuff that animatronics could never do, and the animatronics provided more detailed closeups then the CG could so..both did there job in the context of the needs of the production, but...both could've been much better.  But...you know what,...the CG snakes...or the Animatronic snakes, were not the worst part of that movie so...who cares?

All effects have a certain amount of the filmaker winking at the audience and saying "ok, just suspend disbelief a bit and go with this, please?".  Some accomplish it better than others but...realistically speaking, just about all effects betray themselves in some way and if you want to critique and find fault, you can and if your willing to go along with it, you can.  Usually, the willingness to go along is partially how well executed the effect is, but also partially if the movie has built up goodwill in the observer through good plot, story, characters, etc...