[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: JIN-ROH and LoTR


>On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, The Mattrix wrote:
> > Do you think "Shrek" was wholly appropriate for kids?

Peter replied:
>As always, it depends on the kid in question.

Hum...I agree that age and the proper unbringing are factors in determing 
how well a child will react to a film such as "Shrek", but I was speaking in 
general, broad terms.

Me:
> > Roger Ebert theorized that the realistic characters from "Final Fantasy:
> > the Spirits Within" are the stunt men of the future.

PC:
>Of the future?  What about *now*?  What about the people riding the brooms
>and ogres and trolls in _Harry Potter_ and _Fellowship of the Ring_?  Or
>the CGI bus that sank into the lake in _The Sweet Hereafter_?  Or the
>obviously CGI web-slinger doing acrobatics in the _Spider-Man_ trailer?

That's what he said.  This was prior to most of your examples, and I think 
he was forecasting a time when living, breathing stunt men were relegated to 
the role of the simpliest of stunts.  Its just safer, and probably less 
expensive- no insurance costs.

Me:
> > I think that animation is the highest form of cinematography.

PC:
>Um, I would disagree.  I tend to think of cinematography and photography
>as something that involves camera-work, and with most animation, the
>camera does pretty much nothing -- the animators simply give it a
>different drawing to snap a picture of every few frames.

That's changing.  More and more animation consists of three-dimensional 
camera movements, layered backgrounds, pans, etc.  Animators are getting 
more experimenatl with things like ligthing, camera angles, and color 
palettes.  I respect and fully understand your dsagreement, however.

Me:
> > If movies are about escapism, what is more escapist than animation
> > wherein ANYTHING can happen?

Peter:
>Ah, but *are* movies about "escapism"?

Sometimes.  Or always- even the most gripping or depressing or philosophical 
film takes us away rom our own limited reality for a few dozen mintes or so. 
  If we are reflecting on the lives of other characters, whether real or 
imagined, are we not escaping our own, personal life reflections?

ME:
> > Of course, films that boast no effects, and just simply explore the
> > human condition are not necessarily escapist, and are often among the
> > most compelling type of movie at the same time.

PC:
>And what about _Citizen Kane_, which, as Roger Ebert has pointed out, is
>also a special-effects movie in its own way?  Is it "escapist", a
>"compelling exploration of the human condition", or something else?

Never saw it.  What's my pennance?  Really, Peter, I don't see much.

Me:
> > Then again, animation can do the same. Every animated character that
> > ever was given voice had a flesh and blood actor behind it, providing a
> > "human" element to a mere 2-D drawing.

PC:
>And what about animated characters who *haven't* been given voices, like
>Tinkerbell or Gromit?  Is there no "human element" there?

Well, body language is a voice of sorts.  I merely sought to point out that 
animated characters are more that 2-D renderings.  They are 3-D, fully 
realised characters with the same actors we know and love from standard 
cinema lending their considerable talents to breath life into them.




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: