Call me a luddite if you have to, but I miss the days in which science fiction movies were actually done with real gadgets, real models, real robots—even with dwarves inside—and real explosions.
There’s something about real objects that—no matter how hard they have tried so far—3D computer graphics still have failed to capture. Yes, synthetic images have been evolving as fast as computing power, with new techniques that sometimes fool the eye. But while 1983 Star Wars may look bad at times compared to JJ Abrams’ Star Trek, the former still feels… more real even while it looks less realistic, perhaps? I don’t know how to define it, but it just feels better.
Certainly better than 2005 Star Wars, and not only because of the awful script. [Uberpix—Thanks Genevieve]
Andrew
June 12, 2009 at 2:13 PM
The generation just before CGI have that edge – The Hunt For Red October submarine sequences still looks great; multi-passes of film using smoke and other innovative layers to build up the depth. Ironic that to create the illusion of size, ILM used a periscope to get close to the submarine models as they were submerged in smoke to simulate water.
Report PermalinkDeath Duck
June 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Practical effects are better viewing than CGI in every way.
CGI just doesn’t look like it takes up any three dimensional space.
I don’t care that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park didn’t look 100% real. They looked like they were actually there.
Report Permalink