|
|
quote:Originally posted by Saveloy:
Hollywood spends loads on cultivating stars with crowd-pulling appeal.
And unfortunately, you won't find computer hardware or software getting a blowjob from a hooker downtown,or smoking crack. Boxes of electronics are notoriously unphotogenic, too. They're not good for pull-quotes or scandal, which is, let's face it, the lifeblood of the film-industry.
I agree with the nixing of recreating old, long-gone actors, too. (Is it the new colorisation? I wonder...) It's been done before, though usually by cobbling together footage in a canny way - and it's just not the same. It's like the guy who's taken over Kermit-voicing duties - he sounds a lot like Henson, but there's that little bit missing that makes me go "Nah, that's not Kermie!". It won't be as satisfying, I'll say.
Then again, with advanced CGI, you could well get a good performance out of David Hasselhoff, so maybe I shouldn't knock it.
I think that, for the most part, highly-detailed CGI will remain an adjunct to live film, probably in a special-effects way. Films that're completely constructed digitally will, as wembley suggests, probably stay in the cartoon end of the market.
[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ] |
|
|