Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12:34 PM
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
Granted, the story was not that original, but all in all a very enjoyable movie with great special effects. I payed to watch it.
I am not going to pay to watch the 15th remake of a film that was lame to begin with.
12/21/09
Music was only good when it was performed with sharpened rocks, women were only good when bras were pointy, and movies were only good when directors could focus on the story and not on all the technical stuff they weren't capable of.
Riiiiggghhhhttt.
Why don't we let the music/movie/book industry keep running things the way they are because they agree with you!
12/21/09
12:52 AM
The majority of content on YouTube is crap, but that new ability has provided a number of gems that we all appreciate having. This is true of any development in any media or art form: a lot of people will use it poorly, but then some people will figure it out and make something amazing.
If you went back in time and saw all the movies from the "good old days" you would also think a lot of them sucked, because it's only the good ones that we keep around to remember.
12:00 PM
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
[www.youtube.com]
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
I know this is an old debate. There are some things about Raiders that couldn't be duplicated with CGI, wouldn't have the same richness or realism: snakes in the tomb, truck chase, desert and market scenes, the monkey, etc.
12/21/09
[io9.com]
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
That ingenuity is what is lost today, and is why today's blockbusters have such sterility and lack the soul of action films made prior to, say, 1994. Today's filmmakers don't need to be creative, they merely need to be imaginative.
12/21/09
He'd probably achieve better results by doing that.
It's a whole other discussion, but with our movie and TV (and games) oriented culture nowadays moviemakers are finding ways to make CG scenes look even better than real life.
Called ultra-realism by some.
It's like, the romantic urge for realistic scenarios and stuff, for some people, are defined not by real life settings, but by what is shown in movies these days.
There are situations where people after new experiences and places and ends up disappointed because the idea he/she had about it was enhanced by movies, photography, game or other media.
Sorry if I couldn't be clearer... it's a hard to explain idea.
12/21/09
12/21/09
Look, it either looks real, or it doesn't. You can't make something better than real. If it looks any different than the real thing, IT ISN'T REAL! That's like saying something looks more white than white.
12/21/09
That's part of it, but the concept can go even further.
@scottamain001:
That's why I was afraid some people wouldn't understand. No need to get angry though, chill.
I think it can better be explained though photography, though it can be applied to more abstract notions.
HD demo videos, for instance, are good graphical examples of what silverdee is talking about.
You see pictures of touristic scenarios with plenty of photoshopping, filters, bloom effects, fog, etc...
Those effects are applied in a way, not to make them look abstract, artistic, fictional/unreal, too perfect, or whatever. They are used to "enhance" the visual experience, giving more details to things we might not notice in real life.
Thus, ultra-realism.
I understand it's an abstract concept... it's not exactly "better than real life", but it's the best way people found to describe it.
And this isn't applied only to make things more beautiful... could be used to make a scenario darker, dirtier, more oppressive... to make a desert look more "dry", etc etc.
It's not related to the reality that surrounds us, but rather the reality imagined BY us, if that makes any sense.
12/21/09
I bet a 3D Terminator would would be Pants worthy.
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
[www.imdb.com]
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
So many of the effects that could have been done with CGI are done instead with painstakingly detailed sets and models. The "Troll Marketplace" behind the scenes blew my mind. Watch it.
12/21/09
CGI is a tool, that above all, needs to be used responsibly!
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09