Msnbc says Hulk is a can't miss

[huedell]

A follow up post just occured to me....

Until a COMPUTER created BY a COMPUTER (solely) renders
a COMPUTER GENERATED movie---I think the whole "no real stuff" theory
goes out the window

Even though the stuff on the screen is CGI it's created by "real" people
which results in "real" art...to say it's any less is a ripoff to the people who
put their time in to make it

[ctc]

>The possibilities are almost endless---and will only get better as
time goes on & technology improves--

Problem is; at a certain point movies will LITERALLY become "add characters A, B and C to plot 45 with background X and resolution 55." I can already say the dialogue to most movies BEFORE the characters. It'll be a lot worse when everything is pushbutton.

>CGI just doesn't look right --- I CAN SEE IT TOO EASILY.

I agree; but it doesn't bug me so much.

>TO ME, it too much reminds me of video games.

This is kind of a symptom, because:

>CGI it's created by "real" people which results in "real" art.

Not always. Or maybe even usually. A lot of designs and vectors get recycled with CGI; which isn't really ART, it's commerce. There's no reason CGI can't be used to create art, or brilliant films... it just isn't 'cos it makes it WAY easy to be lazy.

>Transformers are robots, they were supposed to look mechanical.

That's not what bugged me. There was no real sense of scale, speed or position with the action in Transformers. Stuff sort of happened, then the camera moved, and more stuff sort of happened.... and it was all very fast, but lacked mass. Sometimes stuff got garbled: like when the cop car is chasing Bumblebee in the parking garage. That robot looks to be about 20 feet tall, but isn't banging his head on the cieling; which DOESN'T look to be 20 feet tall. Which is what happens when you use a $250,000 computer and old school HB cheapie animation techniques.

Don C.