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
( ... )
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.
Why was this labeled NSFW?morpheusrexDecember 20 2007, 20:51:43 UTC
Aesthetic is a personal thing. You can talk about your sense of aesthetics, or you can talk about what you think is someone else's aesthetics, but you're still just talking about yourself. Whenever someone's tempted to go on about 'aesthetics', you should ask them to replace the word with either 'art' or 'beauty'. See how far they get without sounding like a douche
( ... )
Re: Why was this labeled NSFW?obsessed_folderDecember 21 2007, 18:30:31 UTC
aesthetic IS beauty. "style" and "look" are just neutral words for "beauty". and yes, I sound like a douche, but how can one talk about art without sounding like an idiot? in a lot of cases, we end up clucking amongst ourselves long after the artists have abandoned the work to the world at large. I have managed to convince myself that this process of analysis and discussion is important for the filmmaking.
while I agree that the achievements of this movie were entirely technical (nice work on using "largest" and "impressive", then following it up with "boobs". I thought she was the most realistically rendered of the movie, which isn't surprising because I suspect she was the single highest above-the-line cost), that doesn't make it a "good" movie to me.
Re: Why was this labeled NSFW?morpheusrexDecember 21 2007, 20:12:21 UTC
You bring up a good point - it's hard to talk about art without sounding like a douche. I can spend hours talking about why The Evil Dead is a superior film series (What narrative!) than The Cremaster Cycle (What aesthetic!) but I'd be talking out of my ass. Much less interesting than talking into (or about) Jolie's boobs. It's an exclusionary process, not readily fit for public conversations. How can someone dispute how something makes you feel? I think your best is to keep a handle on your true motivations and take real ownership over what you mean to say
( ... )
I labelled it nsfw because lots of things aren't safe for some workplacesobsessed_folderDecember 22 2007, 00:14:07 UTC
How can someone dispute how something makes you feel?
fine art theory/history of the western european canon has a very strict set of rules regarding analysis. according to that theory, there is a wrong way to evaluate art (but no one would ever say you're wrong, just that you're not sophisticated enough). but that's neither here nor there.
I think I get your point that my movie reviews are essentially a large volume of heated gas, and I don't dispute that. but it's useful for me to organize and articulate my thoughts about what I look at, in order to lay groundwork for when I start the physical implementation of my next project.
I would say, however, that it is sexy enough. I know people who have gotten laid directly as a result of working on a set.
Comments 6
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 ( ... )
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
Reply
while I agree that the achievements of this movie were entirely technical (nice work on using "largest" and "impressive", then following it up with "boobs". I thought she was the most realistically rendered of the movie, which isn't surprising because I suspect she was the single highest above-the-line cost), that doesn't make it a "good" movie to me.
Reply
Reply
fine art theory/history of the western european canon has a very strict set of rules regarding analysis. according to that theory, there is a wrong way to evaluate art (but no one would ever say you're wrong, just that you're not sophisticated enough). but that's neither here nor there.
I think I get your point that my movie reviews are essentially a large volume of heated gas, and I don't dispute that. but it's useful for me to organize and articulate my thoughts about what I look at, in order to lay groundwork for when I start the physical implementation of my next project.
I would say, however, that it is sexy enough. I know people who have gotten laid directly as a result of working on a set.
Reply
Leave a comment