Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from 
> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?

  Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
making the film.

  Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Wouldn't Rodney King be a better example?  I don't recall there being 
> much evidence that the police tried to frame O J.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit!

Yes, the whole point was the cops used racist language, didn't properly 
label the evidence, etc etc.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/09 11:11, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from
>> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
>
>    Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> making the film.
	
	In the end, it's the output that matters. They're selling a product: 
Not the effort that goes into the product.

	If we're talking about purely artistic endeavors that are _not_ made 
mostly for commercial purposes, I can see your point. But if I'm buying 
a chair and I have two choices: One made in a factory and the other hand 
built, and I can't distinguish between the two, why should I care how it 
was made? I want the chair to be comfortable.

>    Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

	It doesn't sadden me at all. It'll only sadden me if the resulting 
movie is of poorer quality (to save expenses), or if there are 
techniques that can't be done on a computer and they're just not 
bothering to do them live.

	It's like people who are sad that film is on its way out and most 
photography (including professional) is digital. I can understand them 
_missing_ film, but it's not as if something good is being sacrificed 
for something inferior.

-- 
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
> don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
> cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
> cheques per week is much different.

Maybe it's different on that side of the pond, but these days even if 
you hand a teller a check it gets scanned right then & there, and 
transmitted electronically within minutes (not immediately, of course; 
they're sent in batches to reduce overhead).

Mostly it's the smaller banks & credit unions that process checks by 
hand, and even then it's usually the ones that have fewer than 10 branches.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That too. Or lovely models or especially sets that aren't computer rendered.
>
>   It's actually surprising how much miniatures are still used in movies,
> rather than making everything with CGI. Yet, sadly, most people can't
> appreciate the huge amount of work put into those miniatures because they
> just dismiss it as a computer model.

And, conversely, the other effect - the people who dismiss even high-quality CGI
without an iota of understanding how much effort, research and talent goes into
it. Most people even seem to dismiss movie sequences as 'just cgi' even when
there isn't any. It seems trendy for people to bash movie effects as if it makes
them look clever for spotting the effects - even if it's logically impossible
for a scene to be done any other way.

Grinds my gears

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the
> > special effects, too. :-)
>
> Back in 1988, when making Die Hard, John McTiernan actually blew out the
> windows on the first three floors of the Fox tower (despite having
> signed a release saying the building itself wouldn't be harmed :) ).

I thought that was a composited effect? I heard that the building's owners were
aghast at that scene, until it was explained to them that actually the building
wasn't touched.

That's what Die Hard's trivia on imdb claims anyway. Might not be true. It
certainly seems a cheaper way of doing it though!

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
>> don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
>> cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
>> cheques per week is much different.
> 
> Maybe it's different on that side of the pond, but these days even if 
> you hand a teller a check it gets scanned right then & there, and 
> transmitted electronically within minutes (not immediately, of course; 
> they're sent in batches to reduce overhead).

Interesting. When I walk into the bank, you get to watch the person 
stare at the cheque, type in the various code numbers, stamp the cheque 
to say it's been processed, and hand you a recipt...

Post a reply to this message

>   It's actually surprising how much miniatures are still used in movies,
> rather than making everything with CGI. Yet, sadly, most people can't
> appreciate the huge amount of work put into those miniatures because they
> just dismiss it as a computer model.

It's surprising how many people think making computer models is somehow 
"easier" than making real ones...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

Ever seen, I don't know, any movie Pixar has ever made?

Post a reply to this message

> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I don't 
> know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a cheque, 
> they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 cheques per week 
> is much different.

What's a cheque?

Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?  I think I have only used 1 in my life. 
Do many people actually have a chequebook anymore?  I know I don't for any 
of my accounts.

Post a reply to this message