Re: I'll tell you what I'd do, man...

Posted by Shawnkara from spider-mtc-ta023.proxy.aol.com on October 16, 2000 at 02:21:12:

In Reply to: I'll tell you what I'd do, man... posted by Indiana Slick on October 15, 2000 at 17:47:11:

I'll tell you what I'D do; nothing. There is a time and place for all of the CG bullshit and the "Raiders" films are certainly not the place. I'll have to admit the added effects improved Star Wars, but then I never thought the Star Wars films were any good to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for CG effects but only if it's kept in mind that this technology is meant as a tool, used to visually improve a story, and not a god damned plot. I've heard alot of people clammoring for a CG enhanced version of the Indy trilogy. This is obviously comming from the younger fans, many of whom probably don't know what things like "on location" and "physical effects" even mean. If that's what you want then go buy "The Mummy". It's an entertaining 'Indy' story, but overall it's a weak story used only as a vehicle to showcase the latest in digital effects. You can argue all you want about what digital technology has or hasn't done for entertainment. I'll tell you one thing it's surely done; it's removed all the talent and inginuity. "Jurrasic Park" is probably the only film I've seen to date that really made good use of the tools; this story could not have been told on film without CG effects. But lately Hollywood seems to use CG effects "just because". Back to the talent thing, I'm sure it's bound to get attacked by the uninformed. Drawing, painting, sculpting, designing and crafting are talents. Learning to use pre-programmed software IS NOT..... A..... TALENT!! If it is then everyone who has figured out their copies of Microsoft Word must be Stephen King. My art work, mostly watercolor and acrylic, has recieved praise from Richard Corben, James O'barr and many other cult comicbook artists. Along with the work they veiwed I also showed them samples of my digitally rendered works. It received equal praise, Corben going so far as to say it was some of the most original and well crafted work he had seen since the beginning of the digital craze. My point? It took me eleven years to learn to paint and six months to figure out digital color/photographic manipulation. I think that says it all. So be fore you climb atop your digital-praising high-horses and proclaim it to be the answer to everything, save it; some of us know the difference between art and quikie-crap.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: I'll tell you what I'D do; nothing. There is a time and place for all of the CG bullshit and the "Raiders" films are certainly not the place. I'll have to admit the added effects improved Star Wars, but then I never thought the Star Wars films were any good to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for CG effects but only if it's kept in mind that this technology is meant as a tool, used to visually improve a story, and not a god damned plot. I've heard alot of people clammoring for a CG enhanced version of the Indy trilogy. This is obviously comming from the younger fans, many of whom probably don't know what things like "on location" and "physical effects" even mean. If that's what you want then go buy "The Mummy". It's an entertaining 'Indy' story, but overall it's a weak story used only as a vehicle to showcase the latest in digital effects. You can argue all you want about what digital technology has or hasn't done for entertainment. I'll tell you one thing it's surely done; it's removed all the talent and inginuity. "Jurrasic Park" is probably the only film I've seen to date that really made good use of the tools; this story could not have been told on film without CG effects. But lately Hollywood seems to use CG effects "just because". Back to the talent thing, I'm sure it's bound to get attacked by the uninformed. Drawing, painting, sculpting, designing and crafting are talents. Learning to use pre-programmed software IS NOT..... A..... TALENT!! If it is then everyone who has figured out their copies of Microsoft Word must be Stephen King. My art work, mostly watercolor and acrylic, has recieved praise from Richard Corben, James O'barr and many other cult comicbook artists. Along with the work they veiwed I also showed them samples of my digitally rendered works. It received equal praise, Corben going so far as to say it was some of the most original and well crafted work he had seen since the beginning of the digital craze. My point? It took me eleven years to learn to paint and six months to figure out digital color/photographic manipulation. I think that says it all. So be fore you climb atop your digital-praising high-horses and proclaim it to be the answer to everything, save it; some of us know the difference between art and quikie-crap.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]