Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
As I’ve said before, your ‘realism factor’ is the problem here. If you can’t engage with visual storytelling unless what you see is hyper-real then that’s a failure of your imagination, not of the production (even if certain things could have been done better). Throughout all of history, theatre has required its audience to become part of the creative process, using the imagination to fill in necessary gaps in the story that are caused by limitations in staging or timing. Recent developments in CGI don’t absolve you of that; great swathes of any story are either implied or dealt with in shorthand and require imaginative input on your part. Come to think of it though you’ve expressed dissatisfaction about that as well - when Mando’s ship got beaten up you found it difficult to engage with the next chapter of the story because it required you to accept he had spent time getting it repaired rather than actually showing you the whole process.
There is always room in film criticism to discuss how well any production handles audience engagement. A film-maker’s prerogative to ask the audience to engage its imagination doesn’t absolve them from doing their best and it doesn’t prevent a critic from suggesting they could have done better. But I don’t think you’re engaging in an honest critical process here. One piece of CGI that could have been done better just doesn’t ruin anything. If it did so for you, I really think you need to critically examine your approach to film before you criticise the film itself.
|
Although I agree with you here re- GM's lust for realism over imagination I disagree with you previous post shamok not having to start from scratch.
As far as the VFX dept is concerned ILM started from the same position. The scene had been shot. Lighting, camera angles, movement of the body double and every other decision was taken then the footage was passed to ILM for the VFX to be done in post production.