You're aware that this production relies more than "heavily" on CG, right? It's an animated film, and makes few bones about it.
Also, your statement doesn't make clear what the CG "doesn't look as good" as. Photographed real subjects? This is hardly surprising, and strikes me as an odd complaint given the context - you might make such an objection to, say, The Ghost In The Shell (or, perhaps more analogously, the recent Appleseed remake) with equal legitimacy. Ironically, it occurs me that your objections may owe more to the technological and aesthetic successes of the film than any failure of same: would you feel so strongly if the visual effect of the animation didn't venture so tantalizingly close to reality?
For my part, while I felt that the character modeling and animation were a novel achievement, the real strength of the digital medium was manifest in the film's cinematography: how many of those magnificent shots (e.g., the establishing shot near the beginning of the movie featuring the slow reverse zoom/crane shot from Heorot to Grendel's cave, or the continuous action sequence at the movie's climax) could have been pulled off (or convincingly faked) in the real world?
your objections may owe more to the technological and aesthetic successes of the film than any failure of same
exactly what I was I trying to suggest. the cg attempted to be photorealistic and failed. I kind of recognized Ms Sean Penn, but it was like watching an animatronic dummy molded from her face. people's faces are sending out lots of subtle cues, and I felt like a large number of them went uncaptured by the technology. brief grins, blinks, nearly imperceptible eye movement, the ripple on a cheek when someone grinds their teeth, and the like all contribute to projecting emotions. losing some of them takes away a lot of humanity, and that gap was too distracting for me.
it's possible that my eye has been too grounded in the extremes of cartoonishness and straight-up photography of real subjects in a real environment.
I dig what you're saying about the camera, though. that was pretty cool.
Also, your statement doesn't make clear what the CG "doesn't look as good" as. Photographed real subjects? This is hardly surprising, and strikes me as an odd complaint given the context - you might make such an objection to, say, The Ghost In The Shell (or, perhaps more analogously, the recent Appleseed remake) with equal legitimacy. Ironically, it occurs me that your objections may owe more to the technological and aesthetic successes of the film than any failure of same: would you feel so strongly if the visual effect of the animation didn't venture so tantalizingly close to reality?
For my part, while I felt that the character modeling and animation were a novel achievement, the real strength of the digital medium was manifest in the film's cinematography: how many of those magnificent shots (e.g., the establishing shot near the beginning of the movie featuring the slow reverse zoom/crane shot from Heorot to Grendel's cave, or the continuous action sequence at the movie's climax) could have been pulled off (or convincingly faked) in the real world?
Reply
exactly what I was I trying to suggest. the cg attempted to be photorealistic and failed. I kind of recognized Ms Sean Penn, but it was like watching an animatronic dummy molded from her face. people's faces are sending out lots of subtle cues, and I felt like a large number of them went uncaptured by the technology. brief grins, blinks, nearly imperceptible eye movement, the ripple on a cheek when someone grinds their teeth, and the like all contribute to projecting emotions. losing some of them takes away a lot of humanity, and that gap was too distracting for me.
it's possible that my eye has been too grounded in the extremes of cartoonishness and straight-up photography of real subjects in a real environment.
I dig what you're saying about the camera, though. that was pretty cool.
Reply
Leave a comment