Originally posted by: mverta
I have no idea what you're talking about. I never suggested "dismissing" either approach. Nor did I say that effects have no merit or value. And you say that taking my idea of limiting effects shots to the extreme would mean no effects at all, which is silly. Yes, you're right, which is why I said limit, and not remove. What's the point of taking a reasoned argument to the extreme? I don't support such an extreme. My philosophy doesn't suggest that if limiting is good, removing is better. That's idiotic. I'm not sure what the point is of arguing with points I deliberately didn't make.
My point was that some movies need no "special effects" at all. One could then irrationally argue that all good movies have no special effects. In other words, one could place your artificial limit at zero (zero can be a limit too and I never said to "remove" anything). Just because certain movies of a certain genre that you are personally familiar with would work best with 300 or 200 special effects shots (or whatever number you want to throw out) does not then mean you can translate that number to every possible movie in existence. A movie can be about anything its creator wants it to be. That was my argument if you had stopped to consider my point of view for a moment instead of being defensive and thinking I was attacking you. Art is not so rigid and movies do not always have to be about about the "story."
Originally posted by: mverta
In any case, to clarify: story first, then effects as needed. The effects must not detract, merely enhance the story. It has been proven conclusively that the upper limit for any production seems to be around 300 for CG effects shots to remain absolutely top-grade. Beyond that, the quality slips and they effects become less convincing, and detract from the story.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I never suggested "dismissing" either approach. Nor did I say that effects have no merit or value. And you say that taking my idea of limiting effects shots to the extreme would mean no effects at all, which is silly. Yes, you're right, which is why I said limit, and not remove. What's the point of taking a reasoned argument to the extreme? I don't support such an extreme. My philosophy doesn't suggest that if limiting is good, removing is better. That's idiotic. I'm not sure what the point is of arguing with points I deliberately didn't make.
My point was that some movies need no "special effects" at all. One could then irrationally argue that all good movies have no special effects. In other words, one could place your artificial limit at zero (zero can be a limit too and I never said to "remove" anything). Just because certain movies of a certain genre that you are personally familiar with would work best with 300 or 200 special effects shots (or whatever number you want to throw out) does not then mean you can translate that number to every possible movie in existence. A movie can be about anything its creator wants it to be. That was my argument if you had stopped to consider my point of view for a moment instead of being defensive and thinking I was attacking you. Art is not so rigid and movies do not always have to be about about the "story."
Originally posted by: mverta
In any case, to clarify: story first, then effects as needed. The effects must not detract, merely enhance the story. It has been proven conclusively that the upper limit for any production seems to be around 300 for CG effects shots to remain absolutely top-grade. Beyond that, the quality slips and they effects become less convincing, and detract from the story.
Still, that "upper limit" sounds like nonsense to me. "Proven conclusively" how?
It seems perfectly logical to me that you could potentially have a movie be one endless parade of special effects from start to finish and yet still have that work well (thought hey wouldn't really be "special" anymore). You would need to ensure that those effects were used properly of course, and that they were of high quality, but you could still have storytelling, for instance, be the focus of film. To put it another way, you want the artistic focus to be experienced more because of the effecfts and not in spite of them and that is the only rule that needs to be remembered if you ask me.