3 ms·

This isn't an especially compelling theory without some data to back it up. Not to mention some less nebulous criteria for good or bad films.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
> This isn't an especially compelling theory without some data to back it up. It's not difficult to reason how a real painting could plausibly incite a more realistic performance out of actors than a green screen. This trope of asking for "data to back it up" for the most obvious things is tiring. This is an internet message board, not a top tier scientific journal. You can ask for evidence if you want, but do you really need to do that in this case?
- handoflixue 5y ago
  > You can ask for evidence if you want, but do you really need to do that in this case? I mean, the job is called "acting" and I'd think someone is a pretty bad actor if they can't pretend it's a real painting instead of a fake. They're already pretending to be an entirely different person, in an entirely different setting, dealing with a reality that often has extremely different rules than ours. So, yeah, it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to insist that they can handle stunt doubles, fake props, and painted backgrounds... but a single green screen painting is just too much for them to handle.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > So, yeah, it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to insist that they can handle stunt doubles, fake props, and painted backgrounds... but a single green screen painting is just too much for them to handle. Nobody said that the problem is a single green screen painting. Since you read the OP, you know that the OP laid an argument against the prevalence of CGI, specifically how overt use of CGI leads to movies feeling less realistic. This single green screen painting is merely one small thing contributing to the overall problem. But now we're asking for scientific studies to conclusively prove at p<0.05 that having a single green screen painting on set reduces actor performance? If you genuinely want that level of proof, why are you reading anything on the internet at all? Nothing you read should be convincing to you of opinions you don't already hold.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago

> This isn't an especially compelling theory without some data to back it up. It's not difficult to reason how a real painting could plausibly incite a more realistic performance out of actors than a green screen. This trope of asking for "data to back it up" for the most obvious things is tiring. This is an internet message board, not a top tier scientific journal. You can ask for evidence if you want, but do you really need to do that in this case?

handoflixue 5y ago
> You can ask for evidence if you want, but do you really need to do that in this case? I mean, the job is called "acting" and I'd think someone is a pretty bad actor if they can't pretend it's a real painting instead of a fake. They're already pretending to be an entirely different person, in an entirely different setting, dealing with a reality that often has extremely different rules than ours. So, yeah, it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to insist that they can handle stunt doubles, fake props, and painted backgrounds... but a single green screen painting is just too much for them to handle.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  > So, yeah, it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to insist that they can handle stunt doubles, fake props, and painted backgrounds... but a single green screen painting is just too much for them to handle. Nobody said that the problem is a single green screen painting. Since you read the OP, you know that the OP laid an argument against the prevalence of CGI, specifically how overt use of CGI leads to movies feeling less realistic. This single green screen painting is merely one small thing contributing to the overall problem. But now we're asking for scientific studies to conclusively prove at p<0.05 that having a single green screen painting on set reduces actor performance? If you genuinely want that level of proof, why are you reading anything on the internet at all? Nothing you read should be convincing to you of opinions you don't already hold.