3 Comments

• 
  Allan June 12, 2008 at 2:06 pm

  Being anti-CG is a somewhat ironic stance to take when you make a living as a professional appreciator of computer-generated entertainment.

  Or is it just me?

  Me, I’ve always thought authenticity was a crutch for people without imagination (not that I’m implying you belong in such a group). I don’t care if it’s “real” or “fake”, just as long as it isn’t boring.
• 
  Wayne June 13, 2008 at 10:49 am

  I hadn’t even thought of that, but now that you mention it, that is incredibly ironic. I’m going over the moon over how realistic the graphics are in Metal Gear Solid 4, and yet at the same time I’m getting a kick out of seeing guys without wires jumping from car to car.

  I guess mostly it’s because I’m taking a snobbier approach to viewing film, sort of in the same way I have a snobbier approach to games. I appreciate the incredible work a few elite game development teams put into making textures and graphics as realistic as possible when so many would just say “Ah, good enough.” On the other hand, CG has started becoming a crutch to many to try and inject more high octane visuals into a movie and this sometimes comes at the cost of ignoring the fundamentals like a good story.

  In the end, I guess I just now have a greater appreciation for the sheer work involved when you do it the old fashioned way. Like how these days, if George Lucas were composing a shot, he’d just take assemble various elements and composite them together. George Miller on the other hand had to wait for the perfect sunrise, coordinate different cars racing around the refinery and then try and make sure his team was all ready to commit this shot to film for the precious few minutes when it look breathtaking. And he did it.

  In the same way, there’s a part of my head that salutes those crazy Aussies that actually jumped from vehicle to vehicle with no green screen or digitally erased wire work because it means they literally did risk life and limb for the sake of a great shot, as opposed to merely doing it controlled studio conditions.

  I guess for me it’s just know how much more difficult such shots were in the pre-CG era that makes me kind of sniff–perhaps unfairly–dismissively at shots that do the same thing but with digital tablets and editors as opposed to “If you miss this jump, you will be run over by the car and die.”
• 
  Allan June 13, 2008 at 6:42 pm

  I think it comes down more to budget than any inherent problem with CG graphics. If you look back at the production history of most of the classic genre films, in virtually every case the filmmaker was forced to come up with creative solutions in order to get their vision on screen for the limited budget they had available.

  If you look at the career of most filmmakers, in many cases the films where they had to make compromises because of how much money they had to spend are often much better than the films where they had carte blanche to bring their vision to life.

  The irony being that the self-indulgence allowed by a bigger budget makes most projects less creative than they would be if money was constantly an issue.

  That said, I have to point out an additional irony to this post–namely that since making his name with the Mad Max series George Miller has been at the forefront of CG technology, to the point that his most recent film was 100% animated. My guess is that after having risked life and limb to get his first few films made, he realized there was something to be said for projects with virtually zero risk of fatalities.