>--- Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Miike Quenling Ellis
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>but that was real motion occuring in physical space. the godzilla or Rodan
>model actually did fly through the air. and it was always light going
>through a lens onto some celluloid.... physical space. light had to always
>travel to the camera etc. CG negates physical space and imposes a
>simulated version.
>
I've been using the English language for nearly forty years, and I fail
to see how CG techniques "negate" physical space. They don't _use_ it,
but how it "negates" it is, well, past me. I'm also not certain you
understood my reference to King Kong. The point I was making was that
King Kong did not actually "move." His motion was _simulated_ through
stop-notion animation-- so your point about "real motion" just wouldn't
apply in this case.
But you seem to insist that the actual exposure of film, through a camera lens, is what's important. But that's true with CG as well, since that involves exposing CG-generated images to film. I fail to see why this is so radically different from exposing film to hand-drawn images. Matter of fact, your claim about "real motion" and "imposing a simulated version" applies to animated cartoons.
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>well you just pointed out it's major defect. it quantifies every aspect
>it touches.
>
Again, there's this odd use of the language. How does CG "quantify"
everything it "touches?" I said that it gives a tremendous amount of
power to a filmmaker that, previously, was the province of a handful of
technical experts and visionaries.
> earlier in the message you basically said this was the reason you didn't
>
>like it, for it's 'godlike powers'. what about say a very beautiful shot
>that happened by accident?
>
What about it? They happen, and they will continue to happen even with
the use of CG. What matters here isn't the availability of CG, but the
choices of the filmmakers. If a "happy accident" occurs, it still
requires the decision of the filmmaker to use it or not.
>or alot of indeterminate features that add alot
>of interesting things.
>
This is gonna be a cheap shot, but... Jesus Christ, it's "a lot." TWO
words. I _hate_ it when people fuck up on this simple point. Sniping at
spelling errors might seem like a trivial Internet gaffe... but you
throw around words like "negate" and "quantify," as though they add
meaning to your comments, and you can't get "a lot" right?
>Take for example...'happiness of the katakuris' by
>Takeshi Miike there's one scene where there is a solar eclipse....it
>wasn't in the script but they had to finish that scene on that day and it
>was night time...half the scene in daylight half of the same scene at
>night....T. Miike just put in a solar eclipse. that wouldn't have happened
>with total control over everything....that was an indeterminate aesthetic
>element inherrant to film making. no matter how much of a control freak
>the director is those indeterminate elements will find their way in. with
>CG that is eliminated almost completely.
>
No, it isn't, not even in such controlled productions as animated
cartoons-- an actor's line reading might inspire a complete re-design of
a character, and even a rewrite of what was a tightly-controlled script.
Even someone as control-oriented as Stanley Kubrick was likely to make
suibstantial changes to his films during and after production. CG might
give filmmakers a greater degree of control over what they do, but they
can _never_ exert absolute and total control over everything.
>
>