All very true. More than any fancy shading boohaa, believability within the
laws of physical (even when stretched) is key for me to be willing to keep
suspending my disbelief in an obviously ridiculous scenario.

I'll go ahead and believe any outlandish magic/tech/gadget/superpower but
the thing that takes me out of movies faster than anything is if you have
non-superman characters survive impossible g-forces. Transformers has a
bunch of stuff in there with characters getting yanked out of the air or
scooped up a second before hitting the ground and all I can do is count the
number of times they should have had their bones shattered and necks
snapped.

Another pet peeve that is the lack of smoke when structures get blown up.
Hasn't anyone watched a building coming down on discovery channel?

-F

On 27 July 2015 at 17:46, Maurice Patel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Very well put. This is my feeling too.
> Take Kurosawa. He uses movement so perfectly - it is not necessarily
> realistic in that it is heavily staged but it is 100% believable as
> natural. If directors paid as much attention to movement then a large part
> of this problem could be moot. With so many people involved in the CG
> production it is hard to fault the artists (they can make improvements but
> cannot save a badly directed movie), it really does fall on the director to
> make sure (s)he is getting the right performance, whether its real or CG,
> and that requires flawless planning, coordination and a vision of what the
> end result should be. It can't really be delegated.
> maurice
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Lind
> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 5:00 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money
>
>
> I can go on, but the problem is everybody is trying to tell stories
> through FX rather than having the FX support the story.  So much emphasis
> is put on the 'look' that it fails to consider the more important element -
> motion.
>
>

Reply via email to