I wish I'd seen that. It can't have been easy, as there was a time near this film's middle when I started to think "Oh, not another empty display of computer graphics!" (Thankfully daylight came and the effects technician was temporarily pulled off the job.)
Have you seen Dogville by Lars von Trier? If not, it's a film about the goings on in a small town. The odd part is that the film looks like a play, and it was obviously just filmed on a black walled film lot, with the streets and houses marked with little more than paint on the floor, free standing doors and a window hanging from the roof on wires.
However, you quickly forget all that, and the excellent acting and the strong story make the minimal sets just vanish. It's quite a trick.
Given this, and after seeing some just dreadful effects-driven films, I've sometimes wondered whether all the money spent developing Computer Graphics was worthwhile. (Obviously they have other important uses like medical imaging.)
I did like Avatar. On the other hand, thinking only of Christopher Nolan films - from the CG-heavy Inception via the CG-light The Prestige and back to the CG-free Memento - it seems to me that his films get worse as he uses increasing amounts of CG effects.
I'm sure a time will comes when CG effects find their proper place in a film maker's toolkit, but in the long run, I suspect they'll have added surprisingly little, and that people will still be queuing to see live theatre.
____
"If you ain't a marine then you ain't *beep*
reply
share