OliviaBurgin

Contributing writer for The Artifice.

Junior Contributor I

  • Articles
    0
  • Featured
    0
  • Comments
    3
  • Ext. Comments
    3
  • Processed
    0
  • Revisions
    0
  • Topics
    1
  • Topics Taken
    0
  • Notes
    1
  • Topics Proc.
    0
  • Topics Rev.
    0
  • Points
    27
  • Rank
    X
  • Score
    18
    Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.

    Latest Topics

    7

    Is the future of film entirely animated?

    Analyze the increasing use of CGI and visual effects in films and the extent at which they are taking over from real practical footage. In some movies, the only "real" things you see on screen are the actors, and nowadays they are often warped by visual effects. The popularity of large-scale fantasy-action movies means that practical effects are fast becoming a thing of the past, and this has caused many people to question whether in the future, all of film will be made on a computer once visual effects become to foundation of film production.

    • A great topic choice! Reminds me of how Sir Ian McKellan really struggled with filming for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey because of the sheer amount of green screen instead of communicating with real actors in real environments. Here's an article for reference: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/20/the-hobbit-gandalf-ian-mckellen-almost-quit-acting – Camille Brouard 5 years ago
      1
    • Not if the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild, camera manufacturers, and indie filmmakers have anything to say about it. – Jonathan Leiter 5 years ago
      0
    • I guess it's always a matter of how far into the future. But I don't see it happening for a long while. This seems to specifically focus on fantasy/action etc, but there are a lot of movies out there just about "life" with more common real settings. – Tatijana 5 years ago
      0
    • I think some of it depends on the economics and some of it depends on the type of film being made. Mad Max: Fury Road, for example, prided itself on using very little CGI, although it wasn't /entirely/ free. – Winterling 5 years ago
      0
    • There are plenty of people out there, thousands in fact, who just like to shoot stuff with a camera. And plenty of other people who would like to act in front of that camera. Those people may have a liking for certain pieces of animation, whatever they may be. But they wouldn't give up what they like to do in order to make films entirely in animated form, even if they still got to hold a motion-capture camera stick, and act on motion capture stages. – Jonathan Leiter 5 years ago
      0
    • I definitely don't think so...or I hope that's not how it is! In my experience, people actually tend to be bothered by the use of too much CGI. I don't know if that knowledge reaches the ears of the directors and produces of movies, but there may be enough complaints for movie-makers to stay traditional and forgo the use of CGI. – Dominic Sceski 5 years ago
      0
    • I have thought about this as well. I don't know if you've seen The Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies, but there was a clear shift. In LOTR, you could tell so many extras were equipped and filmed, which, although expensive, made the films so much more real. In The Hobbit, on the other hand, you did not need a magnifying glass to tell that most of the characters had something digitally manipulated about them. – Medievalist13 5 years ago
      0
    • Wow, what a fascinating thought. Its worth considering, though, that in every new era of animation the old animations look cheesy...I was personally also very disappointed that the Hobbit films moved away from old-fashioned prosthetics. It took away from the very raw feel of the LOTR series. – sophiacatherine 5 years ago
      0
    • I would also take a look at The Mummy (1990s) interview with the director. You might find some of his points helpful. – BethanyS 5 years ago
      0
    • This transition will definitely have more to do with the epic and large-sized films with a fantasy or sci-fi angle than it will your Oscar-bait annual dramas. I think anybody could agree that one day we may see a Terminator or an Alien film where most of the screen is filled with CGI. But at the same time, no one is going to take the time or front the money to digitally animate the majority of something like "Suffragette" or "Whiplash." Films like that live and breath off of real sets, real actors, real lighting, and a cheap and inexpensive bottom line. So there's no economical reason to do them in motion capture, and no story driven need. The characters are regular humans. I do think there will be a gradual growing interest in de-aging certain actors, or bringing dead actors back to life with the approval of their estate. But even that would become a major contended issue within the actor's guild if it was allowed to become such a big trend that more recent actors have less ability to be cast if the producers are always going for 25 year-old Marlon Brando, 32 year old Dustin Hoffman, and body doubles or voice-impersonators able to recapture their performance. – Jonathan Leiter 5 years ago
      0
    • I think that the future of film (blockbusters) is full of CGI. With the latest blockbuster hit Jurassic World, the most and only notable thing about it was the CGI, and people bought into it and loved it. Hollow of story, characters, and soul, CGI appears to be enough to satisfy people now. – luminousgloom 5 years ago
      0

    Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.

    Latest Comments

    Once Upon A Time has always been problematic, and its creators rely on the excuse that it is based in fairytales and folklore that they are modernising. I don’t think they understand that in order to modernise something, you have to…well…modernise it. Perhaps in order to avoid being called anti-feminist, the writers believed that they must create “strong female characters” which are so often absent in classic fairytales, and it seems the only way they can think to do this is by giving them positions of power and making them cold, ruthless and therefore villains.

    There’s a lot wrong with this show, and as much as it could be brushed off as something just a bit fun and quirky for young audiences, the themes within are certainly not always child-friendly, and even if it was just for family viewing, all the more reason to be conveying a better message about “strong women”. This show has a glaring absence of LGBT representation, and the people of colour in the cast almost always end up miserable, dead, or evil. The creators have been given numerous opportunities to change these things about their show and yet are clear on the direction they wish to take it in. I say that’s fair; it’s their show, but the viewing figures will continue to go down unless they do something, and there’s only so much of Lana Parrilla that you can show before you run out of ideas.

    Once Upon a Time and the Villainization of Women

    As the world becomes more tolerant I think the media has to adapt to keep up with its audience’s views, however I’d still count most popular TV as slightly behind the people they’re trying to reach. Transgender representation is not hugely abundant, but it’s there, and it’s a start. Things are clearly getting better a little bit at a time.

    Transgender Characters on Television: Quality vs. Quantity

    I agree with the general conclusion, as artistic license must be exercised when adapting. FIlm and literature are two entirely different, although not incompatible, modes of expression, and there is a world of difference between visual depiction on a screen and the abstract, non-linear and unrestricted world of the imagination. There is no way of making the two forms translate completely into one another because that isn’t how the human brain works. Filmmakers have to do their best with the raw plot material that a novel provides.

    I also think that occasionally, taking license and not only distilling but also altering the exact detail and plot of a novel can often improve on the content. This is approaching the hazardous territory of “which is better: the film or the book”, which I am trying to avoid. However, I would like to say on behalf of film adaptations that, despite the common answer being “the book is always better”, I have seen adaptations where basic plot ideas and 2D characters have been taken and expanded upon, thus creating a film that gives more than its source material. Neil Gaiman’s “Stardust” is a short and thought-provoking (but not particularly serious) example of magic realism. The 2007 film adaptation directed by Matthew Vaughn stayed true to the characters and general plot, but expanded and worked the material into a fantasy epic that, although not a recognised masterpiece of cinematic prowess, is a huge-scale, imaginative, enchanting fairytale that I firmly believe should become a family classic. There are other examples of a filmmaker realising a novel’s sometimes unfulfilled potential and expanding and elaborating on it to create something wonderful.

    How 'By the Book' Should Literary Adaptations Be?