4 ms·
Yes but it's clear that the article is not talking about this. It's talking about things like The Hobbit compared to LOTR. The latter is a classic, the former h
by laputan_machine 5y ago
Yes but it's clear that the article is not talking about this. It's talking about things like The Hobbit compared to LOTR. The latter is a classic, the former has aged terribly, in a big part due to awful CGI
- greedo 5y agoAged terribly implies that it ever looked good.
- Daub 5y agoI disagree. Our tastes migrate, and what satisfies us yesterday may look bogus today. I remember being blown away by the ch of Terminator 2, which looks very pale nowadays. Still a good film though.
- Daub 5y agoYes. I wrote that without looking at the article. However, having now done so, I see nothing there of substance. The author is claiming that non-check films look more ‘real’. Amazing…. Apparently reality can now be measured in degrees of intensity. The author buries their best point, which relates to The merit of non-cg is the merit of performance. We may be able to see through the smoke and mirrors of the transformation scene in the American Werwolf, but it has the appeal of the stage magician, an appeal rooted in immediacy. Here is a paper I wrote on the subject… a bit dense but I believe I made a few good points… https://www.dropbox.com/s/759kvcnot4abaey/Constable_HEAD.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/759kvcnot4abaey/Constable_HEAD.pdf...