Good afterdawn! Forgivings, please, as I extra-sized my sleeping today!
Anyway, good morning. It's still morning where I am. More than that, let's remember that HORRORTHON starts at midnight TOMORROW. Throw off the shackles of boring old September!
For today's chattertop, I wondered if there's anything new to add to our forever ongoing discussion about Computer Generated Images in movies and whether or not they can ever be scary. The concensus among us has always gone back to the perceived threat -- when you can tell something isn't really there, it's hard to find the fear. I feel the same way.
As CG gets older and better (presumably), can the situation be improved? The reasons one can tell a CG element isn't really there can fall under two general categories 1) flaws in the reproduction of reality, the usual tell being the unreal nature of CG character animation, or 2) the fact that the viewer knows it can't be there because such things don't exist.
My guestion is, can improvements in the former category ever overcome the latter? Can you think of a CG monster that you found effective? Maybe even scary?
If the answer's an overwhelming "NO," let's cite some of our favorite fails on the matter.
And for some interesting background on the subject, check out the Cracked article The 7 Most Common CGI Screw-Ups (Explained). Very helpful and informative, and filled with things you know you've seen but maybe didn't know how to identify.
Monsters!
Ghost monsters!
Horrorthon!
0 comments:
Post a Comment