|
I actually don't have anything against the medium of CG, because I think it's good--and it's still developing, and will look better as time goes on. I do have a problem with the way this "we can do anything now" opportunity seems to invite people to create all kinds of shots that you KNOW can't be real because you couldn't get a camera to behave like that or because real 2-ton dinosaurs couldn't possibly move at 150 mph.
I'm stating it awkwardly, but here's what I really mean, a little more succinctly: I think the magic of movies works because, in a perfect situation, you have tricked the audience into thinking that whatever it is they're looking at really happened, and someone happened to be there with a camera to photograph it. In other words, I believe it because seeing is believing. If I see something that intrinsically looks "not photographed," I am annoyed because I feel a basic principle of special effects filmmaking.
(This principle is why you see fake lens flares, simulated camera shake, and other false photographic artifacts...they trick you into thinking that someone had a camera and was really there shooting that stuff. Things like that show an awareness of the need for naturalism...not everyone has a high awareness of that need, though.)
So many effects films today, as colorful and dextrous as their effects are, seem to lose sight of this idea, and the effects come off as surprisingly unreal--you don't feel for a second that those actors are really in the room with that monster or that they're in actual physical peril. The effect is spending too much time showing off and not enough time being real.
|