The Visual Effects Debate - CGI versus Live Action, Spectacle versus Narrative

[Temozarela]

Howdy folks

I'm a film student doing a dissertation on live action special effects in micro budget filmmaking. I'm looking to gauge a general public opinion on a few topics, so if you could answer the following questions, I'd be grateful. Feel free to discuss them in more detail, but for my work I need collective results.

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc?
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)?
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters'
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak'
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made'

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar?
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake?
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3?
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings?

Thanks a lot, if you have answered these you have become a nameless number lost in a large pie (chart) =]

[theunwantedbeing]

Yes
No - I'll often be put off watching a film if it's in 3D, bot just for the inflated price to see it but also how the 3D effect is almost always used to stick things out at the audience for no reason other than to make it extra obvious the film is in 3D.
Yes - Sometimes it does, in the above example it does the opposite
No - Often it detracts from the narrative especially in the case of bad 3D films

Disagree - narrative is the most important part
Agree - times have changed and things are very different to what they used to be
Agree - tech is advancing and CGI is getting better and cheaper and will eventually replace all live action
Disagree - plenty of digitally animated characters have lots of soul, plenty don't though
Disagree - there's still room for improvement, but we'll see less of it as CGI becomes better/cheaper
Disagree - plenty of big budget films look worse than no budget indie films
Agree - especially with CGI which has opened up the visual aspect to things which are impossible with models and live action

Avatar. I didn't like Dark Crystal
N/A. Haven't seen the latter one.
4,5 & 6. No gimmicks, the comedic characters are actually funny and the acting was actually good.
Originals. I prefer to watch things as they were intended to be seen rather than digitally remastered versions that can often lose some of the soul of the original.

[Lothlanathorian]

The implication that spectacle and narrative are mutually exclusion doesn't work for me. Also, the implication that CGI is spectacle and not narrative is also rubbing me the wrong way. Toy Story is excellent narrative and also happens to be all CGI. There are several action movies that are 'live action' (the quote marks over live action are there because everything has CGI in it these days) that are all about the spectacle. Several of your questions aren't black or white, yes or no questions, so, I'll answer the ones I can:

Answer yes/no to the following:

Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? Yes
Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? No
Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?
Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?


Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'
'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'
'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'
'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' Disagree
'Live action effects have reached their peak' Disagree
'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'
'If it can be imagined, it can be made' Agree


Select one of each:

Dark Crystal or Avatar? Dark Crystal.
Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Never seen the original, did enjoy the new one, though. And not because it was 'visual spectacle'. It wasn't a bad movie.
Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? There's a 1, 2 and 3?
Originals or Digital Remasterings? If digital remastering improves the film quality for the purposes of watching on DVD/Blu Ray/HD for better visual quality, then why wouldn't you want it? This has no effect on the narrative whatsoever. Unless you meant to ask about films altered after the fact, as was done with the Star Wars films, which has less to do with anything 'digital' and more to do with just being a stupid idea.

[dax]

In my opinion

1. Yes
2. No and if it has 3D in the title I'm even less likely to see it in the cinema
3. Yes
4. No

1. Disagree - Narrative every time I can forgive a good story with poor effects but not the other way around
2. Disagree - for the most part they are better but a lot of CGI still looks fake but then those effects could never be done with live action anyway
3. Disagree - Live action will always look more natural
4. Disagree - Just look at Gollum
5. Disagree - Live action is only limited by the current technology look at an 80s film and look at a current film the live action effects have improve massively as technology improved.
I do think a hybrid works best use a live effect but enhance it with CGI
6. Disagree - A clever Indie film maker can make the most of what they have available
7. Agree

1. Dark Crystal
2. Original Clash
3. Original Trilogy
4. Originals - stop messing around with films - Han shot first

The problem with your first 3 choices there is again it's all about story (and possibly my age) while Avatar, New clash and The Prequel Trilogy may look far better visually they all have weaker stories.
I tried watching Avatar for the second time recently and lost interest about an hour in the novelty of the effects had worn off where as I could watch the Dark Crystal or Labyrinth over and over again.

[Temozarela]

I'm aware of the greyscale nature of the subject, which is why my conclusions on this subject are not solely based on these findings, these questions are purely to gauge public opinion and emotional response. Example, the apparent loaded nature in 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' is to see whether some people find that their enjoyment of visual effects is inverse to new technology, or if they view the statement as Golden Age Thinking or simple nolstagia. So it's a simple b&w answer, but the data that accompanies it and the discussians that tie into it go to explore its true complexity with reference to in depth sources. The statements are purely that, subjective representations (not my personal thoughts) of different viewpoints.

So you need only treat a question like 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' the same as "Dark Crystal or Avatar?" because its not your task to highlight the complexity, its mine =] I've yet to see anyone see the complexity of 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' which is core to the question I am studying, the rest is just to fill out other parts of my research. My main project covers visual effects in micro budget filmmaking, and how the techniques available compare to the effects audiences' value.

The one fault in these question is that they are supposed to refer purely to live action films, and the sole impact of visual effects on them. I think Toy Story is the greatest trilogy ever made, but it's not relevant to this line of thought, plus it doesn't have a lot spectacle anyway, it's much more immersive. As for pure live action, again, it's only relevant to the impact of visual effects on narrative and spectacle. Speaking of which, the seperation speaks of the balance between immersing the audience with subtle effects (emphasis of story) or highlighting the effects to inspire awe (emphasis on cinematic experience), which arguably contradict each other, but the questions allow you to state that there is a balance.

Hope that helps makes things clearer, thanks for answring the questions you did =D

[Lothlanathorian]

I have a tendency to over think everything And I thought long and hard about 'If it can be imagined...' before deciding to keep it as simple as 'Yes' lol.

[bobafett_h]

1. Yes, I enjoy seeing what people can do to create a visual feast for the eyes, but I also thoroughly enjoy the genres that usually make the most use of these effects
2. Yes, this is one of the reasons Avatar did so well as we all know its story had hardly anything original about it (doesn't mean it was a bad story though). I also really enjoy 3D movies providing they are done right and don't just use it as a gimmick. Seeing movies at the cinemas is expensive so the few times I do go, I normally only see movies I feel will be worth seeing on the big screen.
3. Yes, the big screen helps show off the eye candy more in my opinion than what is currently possible on a TV screen at home
4. Yes, but it depends on things like the genre and setting of the plot, very few sci-fi films would work without visual effects for example

1. No, there is no reason why visually impressive movies can't also have a good story, The Matrix or Inception would be examples of this
2. No, the standard of visual effects continue to improve, but movies with low budgets and lazy crews stand out more
3. No, there are still situations where digital effects are not necessary but where live action effects are more appropriate
4. No, this usually depends on the motion capture and animation quality. Gollum in LOTR has more soul than performances by wooden actors like Kristen Stewart for instance
5. No, technology is still improving in regards to things like robotics, prosthetics and blowing things up safely
6. No, while the limit on effects is usually budget, good talent can still make up for this. Freddie Wong on YouTube is a good example
7. Yes, as long as there is enough time, talent and money to make it

1. Both
2. Original Clash of the Titans
3. 3 and 5 actually
4. Digital Remasters. There is no need for film grain, dirt, background noise and so on when movies can be restored and preserved digitally for ever.
   Making additions or changes to old movies though is a different matter: Han shot first, but there is nothing wrong with the scene where the CPU is removed from the T-800's head in Terminator 2...

[inq.serge]

Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? kinda

[*]Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? no
[*]Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?
Yes*
[*]Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?
More or less*


Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

[*]'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'
Feels like it**[*]'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'
Of course, technology change, for better or worse.[*]'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'
No, Analogue Effects, as they are called, are, when don properly, superior to digital Special effects[*]'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters'
No, all through not the same, and as powerful, as that of a claymation character[*]'Live action effects have reached their peak'
Maybe.[*]'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'
Nope, there are a lot of indie filmmakers who dream of making movies that look like hollywood, and most of them have acces to Adobe AfterEffects. [*] 'If it can be imagined, it can be made'
Nope, it also depends on skill, time and money.

Select one of each:
[*]Dark Crystal or Avatar? Dark Crystal [*]Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Haven't seen either[*]Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? I don't like starwars[*]Originals or Digital Remasterings? I think I'd choose remastered.



* Many ask what's more important in film; What you tell or how you tell it. As film-student striving to become a director, I find it a simple question to answer: How it's told. Because that's how the audience see it. You could tell some simple banal story in an amazing spectacular fashion (If you're skilled enough), and everyone will think it's brilliant, also, you can do like with "Sucker Punch" and tell something intelligent, brilliant and deep in such fashion that no-one understands it and consider it a piece of crap.

** Hollywood is a film industry, it's about selling, and making money. And Hollywood is NOT American film, it's international film for international public. It has to have simple stories with not too much "deep talk" and "Big Words" so that an wider audience could understand it, (Yes, the films are translated, but they must still be simple to avoid loss in translation). Spectacular effects are something most can "understand" and find amusing, and it can sell. People didn't go watch Avatar for the Pocahontas in space story, they went for the effects and to see a new world entirely in 3D, that's why that film has many "Planet earth"-like parts and is a lot longer than the storyline requires. It's more of an Attraction then a Film.

The Film Industry is an industry, and in an industry, only money matters.

[Avian]

Howdy folks

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? Yes
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? Yes (I fell asleep during the latter, but not the former)
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience? Yes
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)? Yes, they certainly can

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' Agree (though interesting characters is more important than both)
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' Agree (in the sense that visual effects today are not as they were 20 years ago)
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future' Disagree (if you aren't mixing in some live action, you are missing out)
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' Agree (unless we are talking about something like motion capture, which is not completely computer generated)
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak' Disagree (there is a distinct advantage to having an enviroment that the actors can interact with and they are continuing to come up with interesting ways of doing this)
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers' Disagree
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' Disagree (at least as far as 'it can be made WELL')

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar? Avatar
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake? (not seen either)
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? 4, 5, 6
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings? Remasterings

[Dargon]

Answer yes/no to the following:
1. Yes
2. Yes - Cinema is expensive and these days you only wait a few more months for DVD. If I'm going to see it on the big screen it has to promise a visual feast that won't be nearly as impressive scaled down to my TV.
3. Yes - See above.
4. No - But often it depends on how and where the special effects are used. Ultimately though, a good actor can sell anything without need of effects (often better, because imagination will often fill the blanks better than anything produced onscreen).

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):
1. Disagree - Spectacle should always support the narrative. The "Michael Bays" might have their day in the cinema, but 20 years on, it's the films with a good narrative that will still be making money in continued sales (especially when the inevitable remake happens and the public are given an alternative).
2. Disagree... unless I'm suppose to take the question literally (of course special effects aren't what they used to be, most technology has moved on, duh).
3. Disagree - Digital is a tool. You start using one tool for everything, it won't do every job very well. There is a time for the practical, and a time for the digital - the most convincing effects usually combine both.
4. Disagree - Just animators and actors who don't know how to put soul into an animated character. Gollum and just about any Pixar character prove it can be done.
5. Disagree - Technology is always evolving and there's always someone out there resourceful enough to take things another step further.
6. Disagree - Visual Effects technology gets more and more accessable every day. There is a definate divide, but it isn't insurmountable. Indie filmakers just have to be more clever.
7. Agree - As a set designer in live theatre, I have to believe anything can be done - it's just a question of how to do it effectively within your limitations (budget, venue, etc).

Select one of each:
1. Dark Crystal
2. Original Clash
3. Star Wars 4,5,6
4. Digital Remasterings

[Sai-Lauren]

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc?
   Yes.
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)?
   No, not really.
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?
   Yes, but not always, and it really depends on the film. For instance, shaking cameras, where you're meant to be in the middle of the action with the hero but can't actually see anything (the Bourne films are particularly bad for this), and very obvious CGI detract from it.
   
   Basically, if it's an effect for the sake of having an effect, then no.
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?
   Yes, but it really depends on the film.

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'
   Disagree
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'
   Agree.
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'
   Disagree. Some effects may only take a day and a small amount of money to do practically, whilst they might take weeks of runtime to do digitally, and still not get the look right.
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters'
   Disagree (Yoda in the prequel trilogy would be my case in point), but the render qualities have to be very, very high.
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak'
   Disagree. Someone will always figure out how to do something new.
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'
   Agree, but it's always been like that. Big budget movies will be able to get the big effects, whilst the small films have to make do.
   
   But that doesn't mean that a small film can't outdo the big budget ones, and small, cheap effects can be a lot more effective than larger, expensive ones.
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made'
   Disagree. More like "If it can be imagined, and the accountants sign off on the cost of it, it can be made."

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar?
   I've not yet seen Dances with Smurfs, so I'll say no preference.
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake?
   Not see the remake, so again, no preference.
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3?
   Original trilogy, mainly because I grew up with them (and Kevin Smith's right about Hayden Christensen ).
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings?
   Generally the originals, but it depends on what the remastering is. If it's something like artefact removal (such as has been done on the classic Dr Who serials), or it's tidying up effects, then yes. If it's George Lucas just trying to sell what today's vision of Star Wars should have been, no.

[TimLeeson]

Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc?
No. Those films pretty much sum up everything I dislike about film.

Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)?
No. More likely to put me off. Much prefer slow-moving, atmospheric driven experiences with solid dialogue and good concepts. I want brain candy - stuff that I will think about for hours afterwards.

Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?
Not really unless the FX are actually doing something fairly interesting/original (which modern films fail at entirely IMO)

Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?
They can do if done well.




Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'

Disagree. I prefer a narrative. Spectacle just sends me to sleep. It doesnt impress and it doesnt entertain me.

'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'

Agree. CGI looks too cartoony to me, at least when it is overused - it can be Okay when used in moderation or subtley - I think it has something to do with how the human eye perceives things, no matter how realistic it looks I think the human eye can always "tell" it is not real. Most of it reminds me of some videogame cutscene - especially the over the top stuff you get in hollywood films. I Am always impressed by good prosphetics, modelwork ect. I would cite examples such as "Blade Runner", "Star trek the motion picture", "Alien", "Carpenters The Thing" ect. That said I don't mind CGI when used to do things that couldnt be done any other way - ironically the examples I think of are very dated (babylon5 Shadow Ships) with their moving almost waterlike surface texture.

'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'

Disagree, models and physical effects will always rule and with todays technology those old methods can produce things that are a cut above any computer driven stuff, it takes more effort but it can be amazing when done right, see : http://www.behance.net/MatthewAlbanese/frame
That said, Digital effects can be good for people on a small-budget that want to do more than they could possibly do litterally physically, it is at least more forgivable.

'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters'
Agreed. It just always feels/looks fake and plastic to my eyes. It takes me out of the experience when characters are CG if it's meant to be a live-action movie. In animation I am more forgiving (such as Anime ect).

'Live action effects have reached their peak'
They reached their peak in the 80's. See my examples above.

'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'
Agreed. The Indies have far more creative ability. I think working with less can produce more imaginative and creative results as well. Problems faced can force people to come up with interesting and innovative solutions.

'If it can be imagined, it can be made'
Bit of a grey area - depends on the story, resources at hand, who's making it ect. Too many factors to be able to give a definitive answer to this. I would say something like Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker is highly unfilmable due to how it is written (a fictional history of the universe ect). HP Lovecraft is arguably "unfilmable" too (Unless you can tell me how you can show non-euclidean geometry?)


Select one of each:

Dark Crystal or Avatar? Dark Crystal, but I don't particularly care much for it.
Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Original.
Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? I dislike Star Wars.
Originals or Digital Remasterings? Depends on how it is remastered.New FX can make something look worse, however the remastered work from the guys who do for example the old Classic dr who DVD's have done a brilliant job at cleaning up the old black and white episodes ect.

All my humble opinion of course.

[de Selby]

I suspect that there's not going to be enough information in these answers to actually support whatever interpretation you put on them. I didn't answer because I was either going to have to write a paragraph for each one or give an essentially arbitrary yes/no.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I'm going to add comments to qualify my choices, obviously just the answer is what you're going for they can be disregarded.

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? Yes (although I watch a lot that don't too)
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? Yes. Although this doesn't necessarily mean I'm more likely to watch the film, it does make a difference as to whether I'll bother seeing it in the cinema or wait for it on DVD.
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience? Yes (at least, it can enhance the experience, not always but it can).
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)? Urgh. This isn't a fair question to make a Yes/No! I think it can add something meaningful to the story. How often that it does is another matter. So I guess that's a Yes.

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' Asking if it should be more important or whether it is more important? Assuming you meant "should it be more important" then I DISAGREE. If you meant whether blockbusters put more emphasis on it then I AGREE.
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' AGREE - they're a lot better. (You can take that as a DISAGREE depending on whether you meant they used to be better or not)
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future' DISAGREE - I doubt we'll ever get to that point
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' DISAGREE - if you didn't shed the tiniest tear at the beginning of Up, I question your humanity!
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak' AGREE it's hard to imagine how live action special effects could get much better
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers' DISAGREE - at least, not an insurmountable one...
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' AGREE

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar? Dark Crystal
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Original
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? 4, 5, 6
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings? Remasterings

[ColShaw]

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? Yes
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? No
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience? Yes
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)? No. Apples and oranges; that's like asking whether the script adds anything to the visual effects, just flipped around.

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' Disagree based on insufficient definition. There are many kinds of blockbusters, and the term is inadequately defined.
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' Agree, but pedantically. The quality of CGI has gone up, the use of miniatures and puppetry has diminished. Thus, quite literally, they are not what they were; in some ways they're better, in some ways worse.
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future' Disagree. Live action effects have a real "heft" to them and a physical presence that is very hard to convincingly duplicate digitally, while digital effects can do things that would be prohibitively expensive or outright impossible with live action. It's a toolbox; any director who takes one and has contempt for the other is a fool.
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' Of course they have no soul. Motion-capture characters, however, often do. I don't know which you mean; "pure" CGI characters or motion-capture. And even so, watch Pixar. So no, I don't agree.
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak' Disagree. To agree with this would require me to assume no further advances in physical technology, which is absurd.
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers' Huh? Obviously, effects cost money. Money is the divide between big studios and indies, so yes, I suppose the divide is there.
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' Agree.

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar? Avatar, but not because of effects; it's a more polished production in almost every way, including the capture of personality through an indirect acting (puppets vs motion-capture). Now, if you asked me Aliens vs Avatar, I pick Aliens every time. Now the Alien Queen... THAT was a puppet!
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Abstain, I haven't seen either.
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? 4-6. They're better movies in pretty much every way.
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings? Don't actually care. Never have been able to tell the difference.

Something bothered me about this; I think it's the assumption that digital effects are more advanced than physical effects, which is quite simply not true. There are things digital effects do better; there are things physical effects do better. Look at one of my favorite effects-heavy movies of all time: Aliens. Made in the '80s, its CGI is rudimentary at best, but Stan Winston's creature creations are, quite frankly, still astonishing. Look at the fight between the Alien Queen and Ripley's powerloader; you can't tell me that could be done better with digital effects nowadays than it was with physical effects 30 years ago. That fight has heft, weight, believability, and a grittiness that CGI still often lacks.

My point isn't to be a Luddite. My point is that it's not an either/or proposition. Any smart director will draw from the best of both worlds to get the effect he/she wants.

[eldargal]

How fun

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. No*

1. Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Disagree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree
6. Agree
7. Agree

1. N/A, not seen either
2. Original
3. 4,5,6.
4. Digital Remasterings

*I would have said maybe, if used well they can otherwise they tend to be a cruch to compensate for poor narrative.

[Shush]

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Not sure. I think yes, probably.

1. Disagree
2. Agree they must be better now
3. Disagree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree
6. Agree
7. Agree

1. Never seen Dark Crystal, sorry.
2. I've never seen the original one, sorry.
3. All Starwars films are awful, in my opinion. So, no preference.
4. Digital Remasterings.

I hope this helps,

Shush

[sigur]

Answer yes/no to the following:

1.) Yes (define large quantities)
2.) No
3.) They can ("meaningful"?)
4.) Not necessarily



Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1.) Disagree
2.) Agree
3.) Agreed (overall and only to an extent. They aren't the future, they are the current thing. This, to me, is nothing good though. Of course practical effects are in many, many cases better than digital)
4.) Agreed (but more in a spiritual sense. In general, it depends.)
5.) Disagree
6.) I wouldn't know because I, like most people am neither of those
7.) Agreed. I guess. Not sure about the relevance though.



Select one of each:

.) Dark Crystal (which, to be honest, I haven't even seen. It's just that Avatar isn't very good.)
.) Original of course.
.) Original Trilogy of course.
.) I don't mind either as long as the digital remastering is only that, not tinkering with editing or effects. For instance I like the remastered Star Trek TOS. It's done decently and with love for the original material.

[blackcherry]

Answer yes/no to the following:

Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? Yes
Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? No, if there is a strong enough narrative hook or it looks like an interesting premise, it catches my eye more.
Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience? Yes. Some of the (arguably) greatest films ever made or most influential ones usually have a strong visual style which helps it stick in the mind.
Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)? Yes. If not used correctly or as a tool to further or illustrate a part of the narrative, then they are just big flashy distractions.



Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each separately):

'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' Yes and No. The point of a 'blockbuster' film I thought, was that its a big film that places spectacle over narrative. Still, I tend to feel a bit gipped if a film places spectacle over making even a basic coherent narrative
'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' No and Yes again . It really depends. Whilst a lot of 'real' effects from the 90s hold up today, most things before that don't hold up so well and its just my rose tinted glasses letting me look past how hokey they look. Still, live action effects are dying slowly
'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future' No. Not until they can make digital effects look as real as the live action effects.
'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' Gollum disagrees. But that film was one of the exceptions as a lot of time was spent on him. Most films don't have the time or resources to spend of getting an effect to look that good. Still, Pixar. Any film that can make me like Tom Hanks (except Forrest Gump, thats allowed) and care for him, as a toy cowboy of all things has soulful CGI characters.
'Live action effects have reached their peak' No. Looking at what indie film makers on the net have done in the past few years alone, we have a long way to go. I'm hopeful for the future
'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers' No. Its all about backgrounds. The guy who made Monsters for example, has far more convincing visuals that the latest bay epic at less than a tenth of the budget. Its all about how you use what you have.
'If it can be imagined, it can be made' Not yet.



Select one of each:

Dark Crystal or Avatar? I've only seen one of them, so wouldn't be fair to compare.
Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Only seen the original. The remake is sitting still wrapped on my shelf, so I will let that speak for itself.
Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? As anything other than curios of pop culture? None of them. Expanded universe every time
Originals or Digital Remasterings? I can't make such a blanket statement.

I hope that helps. By the look of the answers, you may have to have a 'other' or 'undecided' category on that pie chart of yours