I agree with your post! I'm just adding new wrinkles.

Posted by California Mike from 209-21-33-215.dialup.microweb.net on May 08, 2001 at 17:19:31:

In Reply to: posted by Austin Powers on May 08, 2001 at 16:58:17:

Good, glad to see you responded with debate!!

I don't suggest that you blame CGI! I don't believe you do. I agree that Hollywood is overusing CGI.

Now here is my point that I want you to respond to:

What is CGI? Is it simply a tool for moviemaking (i.e. stereo sound, color picture) or is it part of the creative process itself?
I am of the mind that it is more of a tool for moviemaking than part of the creative process (although its both). Operating from my premise, that CGI is simply a mechanical tool for presenting a story (versus dialogue, etc.), CGI simply allows bad filmakers to indulge in new and creative ways. Hopefully this will work itself out over time. I agreed with you!! I just shifted gears to a more philosophical tone. Should we complain more about cgi, or more about filmaking in general.

p.s Of course, there is a strong point to be made that CGI is more than just mechanical, that with digital characters it has become in fact part of the creative matrix of a film (that it doesn't help the story, it becomes the story). If I were to accept this position as my starting point, than CGI has definitely acted to replace traditional filmaking to the detriment of hollywood. Artificial charactrs can't keep up with real actors. Thankfully few movies (star wars, mummy) go so far as to have digital characters replace actors.

Follow Ups:

This was never a debate.... Austin Powers 17:40:05 5/08/2001 (1)
- Olive Branch. California Mike 03:04:47 5/09/2001 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: Good, glad to see you responded with debate!!

: I don't suggest that you blame CGI!  I don't believe you do.  I agree that Hollywood is overusing CGI.

: Now here is my point that I want you to respond to:

: What is CGI?  Is it simply a tool for moviemaking (i.e. stereo sound, color picture) or is it part of the creative process itself?  
: I am of the mind that it is more of a tool for moviemaking than part of the creative process (although its both).  Operating from my premise, that CGI is simply a mechanical tool for presenting a story (versus dialogue, etc.), CGI simply allows bad filmakers to indulge in new and creative ways.  Hopefully this will work itself out over time.  I agreed with you!!  I just shifted gears to a more philosophical tone.  Should we complain more about cgi, or more about filmaking in general.

: p.s  Of course, there is a strong point to be made that CGI is more than just mechanical, that with digital characters it has become in fact part of the creative matrix of a film (that it doesn't help the story, it becomes the story).  If I were to accept this position as my starting point, than CGI has definitely acted to replace traditional filmaking to the detriment of hollywood.  Artificial charactrs can't keep up with real actors.  Thankfully few movies (star wars, mummy) go so far as to have digital characters replace actors.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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