After seeing this movie last night, I felt overwhelmingly compelled to either fight valiantly to the death in an effort to slaughter the Persian army or make a Wikipedia edit regarding the flick. One seemed a little more reasonable... and so here we are. I decided to slightly revise and add to the last part of the introduction section of the article. I wrote about how the elaborate CGI backgrounds and highly stylized visuals are the beginning of a new generation of movie making. I had heard this idea from various news sources and after seeing the movie myself, I couldn't agree more, especially in light of the significant cost savings of computer animation and the mind blowing battle scenes that resulted from this technology. This new cost effective production method is surely the wave of the future. Unfortunately, my revision was soon edited out as I was charged with talking from my point of view without having any solid references. Well, I guess that's life on Wikipedia, I won't take it personal (even if you do think your a tough guy, know-it-all wiki-editor). However, I do feel my addition was beneficial to the article, I just wish I could have had more solid, supporting evidence. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is not a conventional encyclopedia but rather a more practical, realistic store of pertinent information on a topic. Though my opinion may seem biased without references, the issue I brought up is surely of importance to the movie in terms of its impact on American cinema. Check it out:
"Additionally, while the film has spurred significant controversy and may suffer from a lack of proper characterization, it is truly groundbreaking in the sense that it may very well drastically alter the landscape for future movie production. The movie's spectacular visuals, as initially evidenced by the trailers, were a major factor in the movie's very impressive opening and, ironically, were much cheaper than filming exclusively on location. The stunningly beautiful CGI backgrounds utilized in this movie may replace the more costly physical settings that were typical of previous films of this nature. While these CGI effects are not completely new or unique, they certainly represent a new, more comprehensive, and sophisticated use of digital imagery than ever seen before and may usher in a new age of cost effective, technologically enhanced film making. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=300_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=114819991
2 comments:
Hey there...As an actress and a filmaker , i have several points of view.Movies which are animated,using the new technology and there are several types (I am no expert and i am not an annimater)are interesting but can not bring what a great actress and actor brings.As a filmaker I can see how this could bring a story to life that would otherwise never be told due to financial restraints.I want to make friends here, so blog me back. Crimson
I agree with you completely that animation is certainly not a valid substitute for human acting. I do appreciate the added dimension that a great actor/actress brings to a film, but in this particular instance, the acting wasn't the reason I went to see the movie. So all I'm saying is that in specific circumstances, CGI is a a very effective, cheap way to make an entertaining film. Thanks for your comments though, take care.
Post a Comment