Analog vs. Digital

Watch the first Jurassic Park and the newest installment back-to-back.
 
Watch any of the first three Star Wars movies and the 4th one (Episode I) back-to-back.
 
Watch any 20th-century movie where lots of things explode, and compare to recent stuff that's 100% CGI.
 
Even the very best all-digital effects can't compare with actually blowing something up or even having a guy in a rubber suit. Those raptors in the first Jurassic Park were guys in suits, and they were scary. The T-Rex blowing snot onto the window was a puppet, and it was scary. When the Alien burst out of the guy's chest, the actors' shocked responses were genuine - they hadn't been told in advance what was going to happen. Not as convincing as if they'd been told to pretend something was happening that would only be rendered in later.
 

bitflipper
Watch the first Jurassic Park and the newest installment back-to-back.
 
Watch any of the first three Star Wars movies and the 4th one (Episode I) back-to-back.

Ouch! These suggestions sounds painful.
 
But your observation is interesting. I may have to eventually give one a go. I am curious now.
 

Yes I agree to a certain extent, and horror movies are a good example. The Exorcist, The Omen, Nightmare on Elm Street (budget of just $1.8 million compared to $26 mill for the abysmal CGI remake) all made the most of the techniques of the day.
 
However, when you watch something like the 'Helm's Deep' section of 'Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers', that's where CGI really comes into it's own, just astonishing.
 
I hated 'Jurassic World' btw, they forgot all about having characters you can care about, and...a story.

bitflipperEven the very best all-digital effects can't compare with actually blowing something up or even having a guy in a rubber suit. Those raptors in the first Jurassic Park were guys in suits, and they were scary. The T-Rex blowing snot onto the window was a puppet, and it was scary. When the Alien burst out of the guy's chest, the actors' shocked responses were genuine - they hadn't been told in advance what was going to happen. Not as convincing as if they'd been told to pretend something was happening that would only be rendered in later.
 

I wonder how much of this is technological and how much is just good film making. 
 
Today they want to show off what they can and it always seems to be "more, more, bigger, more". 
With analog special effects, the directors had to carefully edit a scene to get the maximum reaction out of what was possible - IOW they had to do their job.

Was looking at another web site and the same topic came up. It had a link to this YouTube video that discusses the very topic. Seems relevant ot the discussion at hand.
 
"Why CG Sucks (Except it Doesn't)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=442&v=bL6hp8BKB24
 

yorolpal
Thanks MP...I was fixin to have to track that vid down and post it. The problem is most folks have been watching CGI for the last few years and not even knowing they were:-)

You make a good point ol' pal. My buddy has a son that's in the movie and TV business. I was visiting and watching a tv show that he worked on and his comments really took me aback. He was pointing to things on the screen and telling us what was real and what was CG. I couldn't believe it. In most of the shots over 50% was CG. He took me through a tutorial on his laptop where he started with 8 actors and turned them into a swarming horde. I was gobsmacked. If somebody wanted to frame you and had the skills, you could be seen to do almost anything.
 
Once you go through it with a pro, it becomes almost scary how much power there is to create a ton of fiction from a spec of reality.

craigb
So THAT'S what's been wrong the last few years! My life has been rendered in bad CGI... 

In my case it's the lead actor. He's a total prima donna who shows up late looking all disheveled, always wants something or other, thinks every scene is about him and then forgets his lines - when he even bothers to read the script.

yorolpal
Wait...Craig is real???

Kind of ties the Ex Machina and Robot threads together, doesn't it? 

I understand this is why the next Avatar sequel is taking so long...fed up with the expense of CGI, they're actually taking the crew to Pandora to film on location. Unfortunately, it's a 30-year journey using current propulsion technology. Sigourney Weaver may not appear, as she will be 90 by then.

...that this is yet another reason, why Americans have a hard time with foreign film!

And the reason this particular American seeks out foreign films.
 
Each country still has its own conventions, but they're all a little different from one another. What I especially look for is multi-cultural cross-pollination. When, say, China takes on an American genre such as the Western. Great stuff often ensues! It'll be just enough like a traditional Western to feel familiar, but will almost certainly take off in an unexpected direction with complex plot twists that are the hallmark of Chinese cinema. Ditto for horror films from Thailand or science fiction from Russia. I'm waiting for a Korean musical; that should be spectacular.

bitflipper

...that this is yet another reason, why Americans have a hard time with foreign film!

And the reason this particular American seeks out foreign films.
 
Each country still has its own conventions, but they're all a little different from one another. What I especially look for is multi-cultural cross-pollination. When, say, China takes on an American genre such as the Western. Great stuff often ensues! It'll be just enough like a traditional Western to feel familiar, but will almost certainly take off in an unexpected direction with complex plot twists that are the hallmark of Chinese cinema. Ditto for horror films from Thailand or science fiction from Russia. I'm waiting for a Korean musical; that should be spectacular.

Another example of analog/digital ... the music by Mozart survived and we still listen to it!
 
For those differences, you really want to watch Godard, and his silliness. It's fun after a while because you know after a while he does not care, and he is having his fun with critics and film "ideas". The earlier stuff is best for me (2 or 3 things/weekend/alphaville/a bout de soufflé) ... I have not seen his Mozart film (just arrived) and his King Lear is one of the weirdest things ever, not to mention the casting. I like the French making fun of Americans! It's overboard! The Italians are not good at being funny because they already are! You must see Fellini's Roma and the fashion show at the end! Bombastic!
 
Dang, now I have to load more foreign film reviews ... I only have 500 of them total, and only 1/4 of them are up. I have been redoing them, and have to upload all reviews for the IMDB.

Hi,
 
Some more analog/digital cheap bologna! In film! (Because the discussion in music is redundant, boring.) In this case, this is how "analog" (old), has defined some things that "digital" (new) is telling us is different! It's all very literary, you know!
 
1. In film you can see a lot about the setting that Hollywood -- specially!!! -- hides. For example: You would not be able to shoot a film/play indoors. Why? The lighting in a square room and roof, was a bunch of candles, and/or a bowl of oil burning. These lights would be on a pedestal of some sort, so they do not get bumped around. These also offer some warmth, and with no heating, most of these rooms would have tapestries hanging on the walls ... which means that these are easy fire traps and now you know why Glauce died checking out a new dress from Medea ... it was not the misogynist idea that Medea had poisons and other magicks in the dress. The nativity scene would not be visible with a couple of candles, which makes the story a bit weirder to believe!
 
2. Food, for the most part, would almost always be served at room temperature, which means that some of those feasts on the huge table, would have some wilted lettuce!
 
3. Kissing. Hollywood, created the shot/crossshot/shot/crossshot/sideshot/shot/crossshot concept of the kissing mentality ... and we still don't know how to kiss, and many times lack individuality because of it. The camera switching points of view, in actuality is confusing, btw, since it would be the point of view from THREE different people, each one of the kissers and a voyeur on the side. Thus, kissing becomes a seriously stupid counter point to the story many times, and in fact, Robert Altman, used to make sure he would counterpoint these ideas on kisses, simply to show people they did not know the difference, but his "kisses" were "impersonal", one reviewer once said! So you had to have the "convention" in order to have "personal" kisses!
 
4. Inability to sit still. One of the strongest ideas in any David Lean film, or any Akira Kurosawa film, is their ability to sit the camera and just watch things go by. It actually creates a nice effect that otherwise, shows us how impatient we have become, and how unable to sit still we have become. While, for many, it may seem boring, in the end, there is a lot one can do with this, and Akira Kurosawa shows us in RAN that these valleys and distances are a war general's heaven! Well, nowadays we don't need no generals ... we use other things for that! But the point of the observatory eyes, is lost!
 
5. Generally, American films are known to simplify the story, or make it look like there is a story, simply to create a blockbuster! And this gets added to what has become known as "action", as in faster paced moments on the screen, to make it look like things take place faster and non-stop, a lot more than we know, or can possibly understand. The "action" becomes the story. Too many European films are still influenced by the ravages of war, although the 80's and 90's in the 20th century saw a lot of those films disappear. It was replaced by the revolutions at the time, and all nationalities were not exempt. So, in this case, serious history, interfered with life, so harshly, that it still lives in one form or another. America's history and influence? Ask the blacks and the Indians about it! They are still not individuals in film, but mostly stock characters!
 
6. Let's make believe. Hollywood is known for its sets. Europe is known for its history. Akira Kurosawa? In many cases, no sets at all. So Judy Garland gets the blue and pink scrim, and we think she's a star. A warrior gets a blank screen, and we don't think he is an idiot! (Kagemusha). Later, Akira used full single color to show that he could do Bertollucci better!
 
Bit ... get the film "Visions of Light" ... it is about cinematographers and it is totally amazing and insane and exciting. And you get to see film in a completely different light, and also to know how some folks think. It DEFIES, and TRASHES, completely, the idea of "analog/digital", since it won't matter ... it's the people working with the items, that matter, and what they do with it. Highly recommended film for everyone here, but it is a perspective on film, that we do NOT have on music.
 
Writing things like this, here, is something I would like to do in music, but it is much harder to express, because musicians are notoriously bad at opening up their expression. Film, is much more anarchistic, and individual in that process, than most music! They will get self-conscious and defensive when they see literary criticism of their work. Film, is much more universal, than music, in this respect.

jamesg1213

Moshkito
 
1. In film you can see a lot about the setting that Hollywood -- specially!!! -- hides. For example: You would not be able to shoot a film/play indoors. Why? The lighting in a square room and roof, was a bunch of candles, and/or a bowl of oil burning. These lights would be on a pedestal of some sort, so they do not get bumped around. These also offer some warmth, and with no heating, most of these rooms would have tapestries hanging on the walls ...
 

 
Mosh, I've read this paragraph 3 times and still have no idea what you're talking about. What rooms?

Padded ones naturally. 
 
HTH. 

jamesg1213

Moshkito
 
1. In film you can see a lot about the setting that Hollywood -- specially!!! -- hides. For example: You would not be able to shoot a film/play indoors. Why? The lighting in a square room and roof, was a bunch of candles, and/or a bowl of oil burning. These lights would be on a pedestal of some sort, so they do not get bumped around. These also offer some warmth, and with no heating, most of these rooms would have tapestries hanging on the walls ...
 

 
Mosh, I've read this paragraph 3 times and still have no idea what you're talking about. What rooms?

why would you do that to yourself????*
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*I didn't read it once...