4 ms·

IMO, CGI is no different than any other effects: the purpose is to enhance “suspension of belief” to advance some plot line. For example, look at the original

IMO, CGI is no different than any other effects: the purpose is to enhance “suspension of belief” to advance some plot line. For example, look at the original Star Trek. The effects were very unrealistic, everyone knew they filmed planet scenes in the desert (not on a different planet), etc. But nobody cared, it’s still a cult classic. Star Trek TNG is pretty much the same. Despite more advanced effects, everyone knows Data is just a guy with makeup, but it was much harder to think the Enterprise was not a real ship. At the end of the day, suspension of belief depends on delivery of lines, acting, etc, and much less on CGI or “classic” effects. CGI just makes (arguably) easier to achieve the effects.

mvaliente2001 5y ago
The difference I see is that before, when they had to use practical effects, they had a more earnest appreciation of their limitations. The toy planes and ships in old movies appeared only for a few seconds since they knew they didn't fool anybody. On the first days of CGI they used to do the same, keeping the effects short. Then... somehow someone lost perspective and though scenes like this one didn't look like a joke[1]. What's worse, the abuse of retouching is making real things look fake. I remember watching the ending of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull at the cinema and thinking "why did they chose to make the top of the pyramid CGI? It's so cheap." Later I discovered it was a practical effect, color "corrected" to the point of removing any resemblance with reality. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxzyARI2lPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxzyARI2lPQ
tshaddox 5y ago
> the purpose is to enhance “suspension of belief” to advance some plot line. I think that's overly restrictive. There's nothing inherently wrong with flashy CG environments, elaborate action sequences, etc. even if they're largely "for their own sake." When conceived and executed masterfully, I want to see the flashy stuff too! Of course, it's also true that sometimes very rudimentary effects can work great to advance themes or plots (like in the Star Trek series)!

mvaliente2001 5y ago

The difference I see is that before, when they had to use practical effects, they had a more earnest appreciation of their limitations. The toy planes and ships in old movies appeared only for a few seconds since they knew they didn't fool anybody. On the first days of CGI they used to do the same, keeping the effects short. Then... somehow someone lost perspective and though scenes like this one didn't look like a joke[1]. What's worse, the abuse of retouching is making real things look fake. I remember watching the ending of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull at the cinema and thinking "why did they chose to make the top of the pyramid CGI? It's so cheap." Later I discovered it was a practical effect, color "corrected" to the point of removing any resemblance with reality. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxzyARI2lPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxzyARI2lPQ

tshaddox 5y ago

> the purpose is to enhance “suspension of belief” to advance some plot line. I think that's overly restrictive. There's nothing inherently wrong with flashy CG environments, elaborate action sequences, etc. even if they're largely "for their own sake." When conceived and executed masterfully, I want to see the flashy stuff too! Of course, it's also true that sometimes very rudimentary effects can work great to advance themes or plots (like in the Star Trek series)!