View Single Post
Old 08-20-2011, 04:18 AM   #23
gortusbig

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
476
Senior Member
Default
it doesnt matter how good you make the CGI... sure you wont notice the difference in the detail but the interaction/behavior with the environment is completely disconnected with CG. CG can look great and be helpful to show a vast landscape or w/e like when flying over a city/landscape and so on.. but to use CG in everything such as the entire room where a gun fight takes place is so awkward and disconnected feeling. Look at westerns... The fact that the scenes were real gave it such a gritty and real feel. Wood spintered like real wood and not this high density CG splintered wood crap when a bullet hits it... Real set = Grit, More Realistic behavior/relationship with surroundings, and just awes inspiring when done right. CG = no thanks. The only way it would ever work is when we get the technology to holographically change a room into what ever we want so that the actor sees the room as well instead of acting in front of some green screen/white screen.
The methods for CGI implementation have improved quite a bit over the years. Studios can finally use real set pieces when incorporating large layers of CGI. The new Planet of the Apes movie allowed Andy Serkis to act out his role in a real environment instead of being forced to use a studio and a green screen (it obviously must have worked, since they are pushing for an oscar for a few category). I would imagine real set piece would be used for a new Blade Runner, with CGI used only to "sweeten" certain scenes.
gortusbig is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity