Analogue arguably has more soul, feeling, depth, and impact than the more clinical-sounding digital. This shift is similar to the resurgence of vinyl analogue recordings among audiophiles despite the exponential technical advances in digital sound quality. With films like the John Wick film series, the later installments of the Mission: Impossible series ( Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation, and Fallout), and last year’s poster child for practical action – Top Gun: Maverick – it appears the old is new again. After the first Avatar movie and the advent of the MCU films (beginning with Iron Man in 2008) ushered in a decade and a half’s worth of CGI-heavy cinematic spectacles, it seems the pendulum may be gradually swinging back towards practical effects in recent years. However, as with any consumer product on the market, the flavor du jour comes and goes as we navigate the shifting sands of audience demand and preferences. It illustrates the difference between creating the world and enhancing the world of the story Last year, James Cameron’s long-awaited sequel, Avatar: The Way of Water, fascinated audiences worldwide with its groundbreaking underwater performance capture, water simulation, and facial capture technologies. Creating the enormous pre-historic sand worms in Denis Villeneuve’s Dune remake of the sci-fi classic digitally de-aging Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci for Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman, and the motion capture work that gave us Gollum/Smeagol in the Lord of the Rings trilogy were all made possible by cutting-edge CGI. But too much, can bamboozle, confuse, overwhelm, and disconnect the audience.Ĭertain types of stories clearly would not have worked as well – or at all – without the latest advancements in CGI technology. ![]() ![]() The point is to draw the audience into the characters’ psyche and bolster emotional engagement to the story, and as long as the results are top-notch, either method will do the job. Depending on the genre, story world, and visual style, one approach might prove better than the other or complement each other in equal measure. On the other hand, the tactile and tangible results of practical effects might work best to amp up authenticity and realism on the screen, but it can also be a logistical nightmare and elevate the risk profile of a project. While creating kinetic action sequences digitally may be more cost efficient and certainly much safer for the cast and crew, less-than-stellar VFX on screen could distract audiences and emotionally detach them from the story. ![]() When contemplating which style is best for a project – shooting “old-school” practical effects in-camera or relying on CGI – both have their merits and pitfalls.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |