Is Roger Ebert right about what he said about modern editing?

I think the problem with CGI is that most everyone ignores the physical laws of science. So even if we cannot tell the difference between CGI and the real thing, it looks faked anyway.

THIS. Right here, this is one of the biggest problems in CG effects today. It's painful because you could definitely follow actual physics/dynamics and get a perfectly real can't-tell-it-apart-from-the-world's-most-expensive-stunt, but you need very good effects people to do it and they're not cheap. Hollywood has learned that the average movie-going moron doesn't really care, so producers generally go with the cheaper, crappy-looking effects.

Heck, just look at the swinging around in the recent Spider Man movies. Had they stuck with more realistic-looking physics and motion those scenes would have been increcible. Instead, I felt like I was watching a video game.

For CG done right, take a close look at Davy Jones in the 2nd Pirates movie. Absolutely brilliant modeling, animation, and rendering. The first time I saw it I wasn't entirely sure if I was watching CG or an astounding prosthetic device.
 
I feel like he sometimes actively just says big controversial statements as it's part of his job and keeps the entertainment part of what he does active. I think possibly in the future CGI and modern editing could get rid of the need for stunt performers. However as it currently is, or even the near future, hell no.
 
Heck, just look at the swinging around in the recent Spider Man movies. Had they stuck with more realistic-looking physics and motion those scenes would have been increcible. Instead, I felt like I was watching a video game.

My thoughts exactly. And I think crowd scenes, with lots of real soldiers, are better than their video game counterparts.

That said, I'm not so sure the public would be indifferent to CGI v the real thing.
 
Sometimes I realize what a luddite I am. I went back and forth through a long email discussion with the editor on my last film as he convinced me to let him do a sky replacement in one scene. That's how anti anything not "practical" I am.
 
I think the focus should be on what dives the decissions of the studios to do what they do. And, as a Hollywood producer told me, "The studio execs don't care about the art or how good something is. All they want to know is how much money has it made before."

I know from insurance agents I spoke with to price my on set insurance, action is the one factor that drives up the cost of insurance astronomically. However, action is only really expensive if an actor or pyrotech near actors are involved. Insurance can be reduced with minatures, models, CGI, stunt dummies, and no physical contact with another actor.

I'm sure this is the real reason for the "New styles of action."

Edit:

It's about the money and not the art or style.
 
Back
Top