Spielberg comments on digital alterations to his films — Page 5

I'd like to know what you think about the DSII-plans hologram in ROTJ, though!

timdiggerm said:

I'd like to know what you think about the DSII-plans hologram in ROTJ, though!

Damn you, stop pointing out things that go against my argument!

theprequelsrule said:

There is a saying; "the exception proves the rule".

I was just thinking about that expression this morning and how it doesn't make any sense.  Are there proto-rules waiting around for exceptions to be found so that the rule can be proven and graduate to full "rule" status?

Is having exceptions a requirement for rules?  When did this happen?

Well, if something is an exception, it has to be an exception from something. So if there is an exception from something, that something is logically a rule :-) 

Harmy said:

Well, if something is an exception, it has to be an exception from something. So if there is an exception from something, that something is logically a rule :-) 

Ah, so the exception proves the rule of exceptions... is that it?

Until you can provide me with a case in which the exception does not prove the rule, I will not believe that "the exception proves the rule" is a rule.

I think the saying means that when the exception is contrasted with the rule, it makes it all the more apparent. Hence, the saying makes sense.

bkev said:

I think the saying means that when the exception is contrasted with the rule, it makes it all the more apparent. Hence, the saying makes sense.

Yes.

theprequelsrule said:

bkev said:

I think the saying means that when the exception is contrasted with the rule, it makes it all the more apparent. Hence, the saying makes sense.

Yes.

 Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

TV's Frink said:

*face asplode*

Be careful!  It might stay that way.

xhonzi said:

theprequelsrule said:

bkev said:

I think the saying means that when the exception is contrasted with the rule, it makes it all the more apparent. Hence, the saying makes sense.

Yes.

 Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

A truth is all the truer if it is sometimes false.

Hmmm. My bad. Move along, move along...

TV's Frink said:

If it's your bad, is it bkev's worse?

...

Or is he the exception that proves the rule?

Nope. It's on me Frink.

All this talk of CGI being "just a tool" and it in and of itself isn't good or bad and rather that the blame lay with the filmmakers' dependence on it all reminds me of something from that other "star" franchise - Star Trek, The Next Generation, specifically.

There was a "clip show" episode they did during the writer's strike where Riker was in sickbay owing to his wounds from some kind of malicious plant he encountered on the latest away mission.  At one point, Troi asks him if he wishes he wouldn't have gone down there because then he wouldn't be in this predicament.

Riker: "If you drop a hammer on your foot, it's hardly useful to get mad at the hammer."

The irony of the majority of this whole "to CG or not CG" discussion is that most of the arguments for or against are using "obvious" FX sequences as the basis for comparison.  There are tons of examples of CGI mattes in "everyday" shows like House, NCIS, CSI, Law & Order and 24.  And there are plenty of films that have tons of CGI and STILL get it right across the board like District 9.  Here's a demo reel for the effects for an assortment of films.

Just because you can quickly ID the bad ones doesn't mean that good ones don't exist.  The whole theory behind perfect special effects since the beginning of film has been that if you knew it was an effect then it failed.  The best FX are the ones you never knew were there.

Granted, when you get into sci-fi there's a certain level of "suspension of disbelief" that has to be figured into it, but I think the reason people can so quickly identify bad FX are specifically BECAUSE they already know it's an effect by nature of what it's trying to show you in the first place.  That makes the FX maker's job that much harder going in.

zombie84 said:

Has Steve Perry ever written anything really well? He's all over these franchise EU material, but all his stuff reads the way a fourteen-year-old would expect, although maybe he simply knows his audience in that regard.

The only thing i can think of is his Shadows of the Empire novelization, and the best parts of that merely echoed things from empire strikes back and foreshadowed return of the jedi.

His indiana jones crystal skull prequel with Mac and Indiana Jones, and Zombies.Is one of the very worst things to ever come out of the indy franchise, and i am including Crystal skull in this.

skyjedi2005 said:

zombie84 said:

Has Steve Perry ever written anything really well? He's all over these franchise EU material, but all his stuff reads the way a fourteen-year-old would expect, although maybe he simply knows his audience in that regard.

The only thing i can think of is his Shadows of the Empire novelization, and the best parts of that merely echoed things from empire strikes back and foreshadowed return of the jedi.

His indiana jones crystal skull prequel with Mac and Indiana Jones, and Zombies.Is one of the very worst things to ever come out of the indy franchise, and i am including Crystal skull in this.

I read that whole book hoping it would get better. It almost wanted to be likeable, yet right when it would get interesting it would veer off. Because Steve Perry likes using 4 different perspectives, taking place miles away from each other. Then Indy kept talking about getting his hat fixed, which didn't seem very Indyish.

Ziz said:

All this talk of CGI being "just a tool" and it in and of itself isn't good or bad and rather that the blame lay with the filmmakers' dependence on it all reminds me of something from that other "star" franchise - Star Trek, The Next Generation, specifically.

There was a "clip show" episode they did during the writer's strike where Riker was in sickbay owing to his wounds from some kind of malicious plant he encountered on the latest away mission.  At one point, Troi asks him if he wishes he wouldn't have gone down there because then he wouldn't be in this predicament.

Riker: "If you drop a hammer on your foot, it's hardly useful to get mad at the hammer."

The irony of the majority of this whole "to CG or not CG" discussion is that most of the arguments for or against are using "obvious" FX sequences as the basis for comparison.  There are tons of examples of CGI mattes in "everyday" shows like House, NCIS, CSI, Law & Order and 24.  And there are plenty of films that have tons of CGI and STILL get it right across the board like District 9.  Here's a demo reel for the effects for an assortment of films.

Just because you can quickly ID the bad ones doesn't mean that good ones don't exist.  The whole theory behind perfect special effects since the beginning of film has been that if you knew it was an effect then it failed.  The best FX are the ones you never knew were there.

Granted, when you get into sci-fi there's a certain level of "suspension of disbelief" that has to be figured into it, but I think the reason people can so quickly identify bad FX are specifically BECAUSE they already know it's an effect by nature of what it's trying to show you in the first place.  That makes the FX maker's job that much harder going in.

I think that because of the wide availability of CGI these days director's have to exercise restraint, whereas in the late 70s and early 80s you had to pick and choose what FX shots you would shoot, due to budget and tech limitations. George Lucas is like a child and CGI is his candy; if you make it available to him he will use it until he pukes (or we puke).

Forgive me for my ignorance (as I've never seen 2001), but I admit I fail to see how taking the time and money to shoot "miles" of unnecessary special effects footage would produce any kind of tangible benefit over simply storyboarding them out and producing what footage needed to exist.