- CGI is changing the way movies are being made (<--which isn't the actual thing I learned), but some believe they shouldn't be judged the same way as traditional movies (ones with sets and props and stuff).
- Conversely, others believe that just because they are made differently, they shouldn't be judged differently if they yield the same result. If they have the same emotional impact, can they really be considered different from one another?
- Technology is "changing the definition of cinematography and that the core principles remain intact". It changes how movies are being made and it is changing the skills and talent needed to make them.
- I personally believe that they should be judged separately pretty much for the same reason that there is a separate award for best male and female actor. They're both the same (human/cinematography), yet they are clearly different.
- I believe that they should also be separated because I feel that CGI provides more creative freedom than traditional movies. Fantastical tales of humans floating around in space just can't be achieved through traditional means. Children and tigers coexisting would be so extremely risky, that CGI proves to be the safest option. In my opinion, CGI has an unfair advantage over traditional cinematography.
Curiosity
How much longer might traditional cinematography last? How long before technology completely changes how we crank our films?
No comments:
Post a Comment