I should clarify slightly. I kept saying "CGI", where of course the focus here
is "special effects", which strictly speaking aren't always simply CGI, but
include trick photography, stunt work, etc. My point, though, is that too
many directors nowadays rely on FX to be the whole movie, instead of enhancing
it, and this list reminds me that there have been great directors who do it
right.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net
> Cool, thanks for posting! Some thoughts:
>
> Gotta agree with the dragon from "Dragonslayer", which is for my money still
> the
> best dragon in movies, "Reign of Fire" notwithstanding. But isn't the dragon
> a
> female?
> The skeletal warriors in "Jason and the Argonauts" still impress and creep me
> out. I hate that only people like Tim Burton use stop-motion nowadays.
>
> I really appreciate you dropping this post. On my list of posts-to-write
> (which
> is about an inch thick) is a long rant about the over usage of CGI in film
> nowadays. I feel that CGI and quick camera cuts are becoming too much the
> norm
> for directors who mistake "more" and "faster" with "better". Even the latest
> Indiana Jones film has been criticized for shoddy usage of CGI. One reason
> I'm
> so impressed with Chris Nolan's run on Batman is that Nolan tries his best to
> minimize the use of FX, preferring to use live action as much as possible.
> And
> he understands the concept of good cinematography: long shots, pan shots,
> etc.,
> which the Michael Bay's and younger directors of H'wood just don't get. So it
> was that I've been a bit down on CGI in the last couple of years, fearing it
> was
> replacing old-fashioned stunt work, cinematography, and intelligent direction.
>
> Your posting this list reminded me that CGI used well is not only
> appropriate,
> but necessary. Some of the films listed here are among the best scifi work
> I've
> ever seen--heck, among the best *films* I've ever seen. The CGI and FX they
> utilized only added to their power. These were films by directors who in the
> main saw CGI as a tool to aide in telling a good story, not a framework on
> which
> to hang a limp excuse for one. Even though I disagree with some of their
> choices and omissions, reading the list actually made me feel more positive
> again about what H'wood can do with the right man or woman behind the camera.
> And if they won't, some of the better foreign directors certainly well.
> Perhaps
> there's hope yet, and we won't end up in a world where Michael Bay and Uwe
> Boll
> are considered good directors and stunt work goes the way of the dodo.
>
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "brent wodehouse" <brent_wodeho...@thefence.us>
> > http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/177951/top_50_movie_special_effects_shots.html
> >
>
>
--- Begin Message ---
Cool, thanks for posting! Some thoughts:
Gotta agree with the dragon from "Dragonslayer", which is for my money still
the best dragon in movies, "Reign of Fire" notwithstanding. But isn't the
dragon a female?
The skeletal warriors in "Jason and the Argonauts" still impress and creep me
out. I hate that only people like Tim Burton use stop-motion nowadays.
I really appreciate you dropping this post. On my list of posts-to-write (which
is about an inch thick) is a long rant about the over usage of CGI in film
nowadays. I feel that CGI and quick camera cuts are becoming too much the norm
for directors who mistake "more" and "faster" with "better". Even the latest
Indiana Jones film has been criticized for shoddy usage of CGI. One reason I'm
so impressed with Chris Nolan's run on Batman is that Nolan tries his best to
minimize the use of FX, preferring to use live action as much as possible. And
he understands the concept of good cinematography: long shots, pan shots,
etc., which the Michael Bay's and younger directors of H'wood just don't get.
So it was that I've been a bit down on CGI in the last couple of years, fearing
it was replacing old-fashioned stunt work, cinematography, and intelligent
direction.
Your posting this list reminded me that CGI used well is not only appropriate,
but necessary. Some of the films listed here are among the best scifi work I've
ever seen--heck, among the best *films* I've ever seen. The CGI and FX they
utilized only added to their power. These were films by directors who in the
main saw CGI as a tool to aide in telling a good story, not a framework on
which to hang a limp excuse for one. Even though I disagree with some of their
choices and omissions, reading the list actually made me feel more positive
again about what H'wood can do with the right man or woman behind the camera.
And if they won't, some of the better foreign directors certainly well. Perhaps
there's hope yet, and we won't end up in a world where Michael Bay and Uwe Boll
are considered good directors and stunt work goes the way of the dodo.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "brent wodehouse" <brent_wodeho...@thefence.us>
> http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/177951/top_50_movie_special_effects_shots.html
>
--- Begin Message ---
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
