SCREEN-L Archives

August 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
cynthia fuchs <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 4 Aug 1994 13:28:00 EST
text/plain (19 lines)
i'll restate, sort of, briefly. i don't see an equivalence between high-tech
fx and dumbness.
to john's question/statement,abt the "high point" being jurassic park, and
the normalization of fx. not even. notso long ago, star wars was the
ultimate fx extravaganza. now it looks piddling. cameron and lucas are
continuing to cook this stuff up, in dueling labs (digital domain and
ilm, repectively). and spielberg can't stay out of it. the fact that such
effects are even beginning to look regular suggests the leap of logic and
expectation that they've initiated. those gimmicky techniques, split
screens etc, they are profoundly less integral to a reshaping of film/video
as a concept, than digitizing is. not to be prophetic, but digitizing is the
future--of production, distribution, and consumption.
and i don't see that this means movies/videos will be dumb-by-def.
robocop 3: bad movie. but robocop 2? now that's a mean movie, and funny. it
takes the verhoeven over the top.