"From the moment is called "FICTION", doesn´t hold on to reality. Unifying some reality to the spectator is just a NARRATIVE resource". - P. Schiller
Based on that premise, all arguments about CG effects (good or bad to make the story absurd or empty) are debunked. There´s only CGI as a resource for the spectator. Seems that these basic things are forgotten by a lot of cgi-movie critics. The fact that the VFX/CGI industry has contribute to so much in digital editing, doesn´t give those critics the right to make themselves into a critic-director-technical-specialist on marketing-AND movie comentarist as if they were in front of the orchesta. Truly, ignorance is defiant. I wonder if football comentarist feel the same, making themselves: investors-spectators-technical directors-fans and commentarists. So, I took just a simple example to know all of you guy´s points of view about this: Making more money on the tickets make a better story? Probably you´ve all read this article: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects_p2/ ...and I´m taking notice of how bad news like this spread like wild fire with no basis to blame the vfx industry. I´ve read the counter article (here: http://bit.ly/1DCsfGH), and some others; so now I´m just continuing the thoughts here on the list. What are your thoughts? Cheers. -- Portfolio 2013 <http://be.net/3dcinetv> Cinema & TV production Video Reel <https://vimeo.com/3dcinetv/reel2012>
