James Cameron Vs. Peter Jackson Comments - Mania.com


Showing items 31 - 34 of 34
<<  <  1 2 3 4 
keithdaniel 12/15/2009 11:55:31 AM

Fellow maniacs,if Matt's comment about The Reader was said in sarcasm,then I apologize! I may disagree with some opinions here and there but I'm man enough to admit that I can be wrong! Anyway...wiseguy,you do make a very good point in that usually new effects technology tends to cost more but eventually the costs come down once that same technology becomes more available. However,there are exceptions to that rule! An example would be the first Star Wars,where new or more expanded upon effects technology like motion control was done and despite that,it still only costed $13 million to produce Star Wars and that wasn't even that expensive for it's time! Superman:The Movie costed a lot more at $52 million so it's amazing that Lucas and company were able to make SW for the budget they had. Lucas at the time used his own people,who were relatively new to the industry when they started ILM so perhaps that's one of the reasons why it dodn't cost more than it did. So as one can see,it's not always about hiring the most expensive effects talent or using expensive CGI effects tech. I believe great things can come when people are forced to do more with less. Director Nicholas Meyer has stated in his dvd commentary for Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan that one of the reasons why he feels the film turned out so well is because he was forced to find more creative solutions during the making of that film even though ST:2 was one of the earliest films to have used then state of the art CGI for the genesis explanation scene! Having said all of that,I still feel that my overall point still stands. If the movie industry keeps going the way they're going,eventually these genre films will get so expensive that they'll likely make fewer of them and they may even do something as foolish as passing the buck down to us fans,by insulting us with higher ticket prices! Perhaps Cameron should look back upon the first Terminator as well as Aliens to remind himself that he doesn't need to act like a spendthrift in order to produce a great movie!

EagleManiac 12/16/2009 5:37:38 AM

KeithDaniel, that's why I said I liked Cameron's Aliens as his best work. Didn't overly-rely on CGI(if at all), and it STILL is a fantastic action/thriller that is to me, with the exception of The Empire Strikes Back, the best sequel ever done. So I agree about your point on CGI and how it's gotten somewhat out of hand with the use of it. Forest Gump is an example of CGI being used that in most cases, the audience never even knew it was there. So really, when it comes to the use of CGI, I think Forest Gump is a prime example of HOW to use it and not OVER-USE it, like Transformers 2 did.

EagleManiac 12/16/2009 7:13:03 AM

Besides, I miss the days of plastic and metal models that were used to represent the "ships" or "space stations", etc. in Sci-Fi films. Ther will always be something tangable about those, more-so than 1's and 0's being used to make the FX. The fact that the spaceship one sees, as in the fly-by sequence in ST:TMP, makes the ship seem more "real", to me. I dunno.....I just think sometimes movie makers rely too much on the use of CGI to make things look more real than they should be, and that takes away from the realism, if you catch my drift.

keithdaniel 12/16/2009 1:00:24 PM

Eaglemaniac,I definitely see what you're saying! Too many studios continue to over-indulge many filmmakers who insist on their expensive needs and that would include excessive CGI. Even though there may have been a tad bit too much CGI in Peter Jackson's King Kong(but I still enjoyed the movie nonetheless,just for the record)I think his approach may be the best way to go. That is to use practical on set effects as much as possible and then add CGI when needed(like LOTR). I admit there are some interesting things CGI can do like creating characters and creatures like in the Star Wars films,the dragon,Draco in Dragonheart,The Matrix,The Hulk as well as the many animation features that have now become commonplace. But yeah,like I've said above,I see what you're saying. When you see a film that uses more on set practical effects,including models etc. the feeling of reality is felt,just knowing that something tangible is there makes us feel that we're there in a way. Perhaps the studios should bear that in mind in the future as well as being aware of the fact that using less CGI would help out in cost cutting or the bottom line;something any sane business should adhere to! 

<<  <  1 2 3 4 


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.