> no the real problem is that CG affects are put in to make it look like
> something it's not....real motion occuring in physical space.
That's usually the nature of _any_ kind of special effect. After all, when Willis O'Brien was adjusting his 18-inch models bit by bit, exposing each frame separately, he was creating the illusion of "real motion." He was also creating King Kong.
much more
> will be lost than gained. i mean aesthetically alot can be said for
> technical limitations....eventually with more and more cg stuff things
> like cinematography and inventive camera work will suffer. what's more
> intersting.... how a cinematogrpher makes limited wire work effective
> (not
> neccesarily more realistic or believable) in a wuxia/kung fu film or that
> matrix stuff? not all people like having the physics completely spelled
> out for them. why do we even need say a CG affected shot were it makes
> the
> camera look like it's doing something it can't do like zoom through solid
> matter without any cuts? what's the point?
Well, there's a lot I dislike about CG effects these days, but that's mainly because I'm an effects geek from way back. I used to enjoy noticing the matte lines, the odd compositing errors, the slightly-visible wires and the obvious models. I liked it because the craft was _very_ visible; you had to respect the fact that the effects masters of the past got it _that_ good, given what they had. And I liked it because it was fun to puzzle out how particular shots were done.
The problem I have with CG effects is that it makes it extremely easy to create photorealistic scenes with no defects at all... and I just can't churn up the same degree of respect I had for, say, Willis O'Brien or John Fulton or Linwood Dunn or Douglas Trumbull. Miracles just don't astound us as much when _everyone_ has godlike powers.
But that said, I can't agree with Mike's points above. For one thing, inventive camera work has always been performed against the limitations of camera technology. Cameras of the 1930s were, frankly, monsters, and even a graceful glide like the close-in on the key in Ingrid Bergman's hand in _Notorious_ required a _massive_ crane system to move the camera. Even tracking shots required yards of carefully-laid-out track and hours of preparation. Camera movements like those of Max Ophuls required a lot of coordination, planning, and heavy lifting.
But now that cameras are lighter, and more agile, and camera _mounts_ are more nimble, filmmakers have a much wider palette to draw from... and the costs needed for such shots are much lower. One could take Mike's comments above and apply them to technical advances like the Louma crane or the Steadicam-- and ask what the "point" is of, say, those wonderful tracking shots in _The Shining_ or _Bound for Glory_.
And the use of CG isn't just in creating scenes as in _The Matrix_. Take _O Brother, Where Art Thou_, where all of the scenery was computer-processed so that the vegetation was a sun-blasted, desolate Dust Bowl brown. Added a lot to the movie, I think. CG has opened cinematography up in lots of ways; now, instead of experimenting with chemical processing, filmmakers can now control color values to a tremendous degree of precision.
Obviously, no film is better just because it uses higher tech. Stan Brakhage made brilliant, beautiful films, frequently by painting on 35mm filmstock, or pasting things into it. But the technology gives other artists a much wider, easier-to-manage palette... and occasionally, someone uses it to really achieve something.