Filmmakers lost in the world of 3D animation and special effects

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the contrasting perceptions of iconic films like James Cameron's "Titanic" and "Avatar," highlighting a nostalgia for classic filmmaking and a critique of modern cinematic trends. Participants express a longing for the emotional depth and storytelling quality of older films, contrasting them with the perceived superficiality of contemporary blockbusters that rely heavily on CGI and 3D technology. While some argue that "Avatar" is a visually impressive but ultimately average film, others defend its impact and lasting appeal. The conversation also touches on the commercialization of cinema, suggesting that studios prioritize profit over artistic integrity, leading to a proliferation of formulaic and subpar films. The debate extends to the use of 3D technology, with opinions divided on its effectiveness and potential longevity in the industry. Overall, the thread reflects a broader concern about the evolution of film and the balance between technological innovation and storytelling.
  • #51
Old people complaining about the new world and ranting about how good the "good old days" were. Ah yes, good old technicolor and 20 MHz computers that cost millions of dollars.

Leptos, I think I'm not that old, I'm about 20+. Perhaps, I'm but who cares.

When Titanic came out I was a kid. I still fell in love so much terribly. Well, it was a kind of platonic one! It was Kate, my first Hollywood love.

Ishtar reminds me of some other good desert movies. I have always enjoyed movies filmed in Morocco, desert, or wilderness, in general. Hideous Kinky, Sahara (1943), The Sheltering Sky...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
nismaratwork said:
I'm with DaveC on this; the depiction of the various classes in the ship and every other element of the ship and journey was most prominent even if the love story is what people took away from it at the end. One thing I did enjoy was the accurate depiction of steerage, 1st class and so forth... very well done. I also enjoyed the accuracy of the sinking according to Dr. Ballard's well respected views. I don't think that made it a good movie, but it was TITANIC, not "DiCaprio and Winslet get it on".
Historically accurate?

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/titanic-1997-film-/historical-inaccuracies.html

This source dares to disagree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
ZQrn said:
Historically accurate?

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/titanic-1997-film-/historical-inaccuracies.html

This source dares to disagree.
I would not call those historical inaccuracies; I would call those barely more than nitpicks.

I think they addressed the issue of discouraging the mixing of classes pretty well. It was pretty clear that segregation was enforced. Of course, the main character managed to circumvent it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
ZQrn said:
Historically accurate?

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/titanic-1997-film-/historical-inaccuracies.html

This source dares to disagree.

DaveC beat me to it, but I wasn't claiming that it was a documentary, and even then what you've cited don't amount to much. I stand by my earlier statement, although I'll admit the "I want to draw you nude" line is probably neither accurate, nor advisable. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
I seem to remember a lot of the attention given to the film was in relation to the way the ship sank. They had recently confirmed several theories as to how the ship took on water and broke up, and they attempted to portray this accurately in the film.

It is ammusing to me that a movie that was ahead of its time with the use of CGI effects looks almost animated by todays CGI standards. I wonder how long before someone decides to "digitally enhance" this movie and re-releases it. They could totally change the look of the film without doing any new shooting. It seemed like half the movie was screaming "this is a big damned boat, and we didn't even build a model in a bathtub!"
 
  • #56
Pattonias said:
I seem to remember a lot of the attention given to the film was in relation to the way the ship sank. They had recently confirmed several theories as to how the ship took on water and broke up, and they attempted to portray this accurately in the film.

It is ammusing to me that a movie that was ahead of its time with the use of CGI effects looks almost animated by todays CGI standards. I wonder how long before someone decides to "digitally enhance" this movie and re-releases it. They could totally change the look of the film without doing any new shooting. It seemed like half the movie was screaming "this is a big damned boat, and we didn't even build a model in a bathtub!"

I would bet they wait for an anniversary of the film's release, and they will make a FORTUNE.
 
  • #57
Pattonias said:
It seemed like half the movie was screaming "this is a big damned boat, and we didn't even build a model in a bathtub!"
Except that they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(1997_film)#Effects

There was
- a 45-foot miniature of the whole ship,
- a 65-foot mini of the stern, and finally
- 744-foot long model of the port exterior (at 87% of the full-sized ship, it can't really be called a miniature :wink:).

...and the bathtub held 5 million gallons.
 
  • #58
nismaratwork said:
I would bet they wait for an anniversary of the film's release, and they will make a FORTUNE.

In the re-release presumably the iceberg will shoot second
 
  • #59
mgb_phys said:
In the re-release presumably the iceberg will shoot second

:smile:
 

Similar threads

Back
Top