The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
From a review of Final Fantasy movie on another website:
The "Final Fantasy" animation team is so good that it's finally opened the world of computer animation to a troubling rhetorical discussion -- a discussion about whether spending millions of dollars to create a photorealistic animal, mineral or vegetable is worth the trouble when you could just go pick up a camera and shoot a REAL rock, mediocre actor or plant and have it look exactly the same -- for 1/100th the cost. After all, wasn't this in some ways the inevitable end result of all this CG photorealism R&D? To create something utterly mundane using the most expensive rendering tools available? (It's a discussion best left to wiser technical philosophers than I)
The "Final Fantasy" animation team is so good that it's finally opened the world of computer animation to a troubling rhetorical discussion -- a discussion about whether spending millions of dollars to create a photorealistic animal, mineral or vegetable is worth the trouble when you could just go pick up a camera and shoot a REAL rock, mediocre actor or plant and have it look exactly the same -- for 1/100th the cost. After all, wasn't this in some ways the inevitable end result of all this CG photorealism R&D? To create something utterly mundane using the most expensive rendering tools available? (It's a discussion best left to wiser technical philosophers than I)
That's a good posting, much enjoyable reading.
For my opinions see the "Digital Actors" thread...
Can you imagine a film of WFR?
That would *have* to be CG. There's no way any actors are good enough to play the parts.
Except maybe Sean Connery as Zedd?
That would *have* to be CG. There's no way any actors are good enough to play the parts.
Except maybe Sean Connery as Zedd?
I am the Tarrant wrote:
had a load of boring ponces wandering through fields and stuff,
> then I'd fail to see the point.
ISn't that what Pride and Prejudice is anyway? :-)
had a load of boring ponces wandering through fields and stuff,
> then I'd fail to see the point.
ISn't that what Pride and Prejudice is anyway? :-)
Also you can make digital actors do anything with no risks involved (including eat their own arms!?!) and "film" it from any view point, there are no weather, height or lighting restictions or anyhting like that.
I'm all for it. Providing its used effectively. If they re made Pride and Prejudice or something and just had a load of boring ponces wandering through fields and stuff, then I'd fail to see the point.
I'm all for it. Providing its used effectively. If they re made Pride and Prejudice or something and just had a load of boring ponces wandering through fields and stuff, then I'd fail to see the point.
The thing with this is. It's final Fantasy. It is a game which is internationally renound for outstanding CGI graphics. To ignore the possibilities which Square posses, and the hardware of the GSCube supplied by Sony (rumoured to be used for this film), would be a sacrilage to the Final Fantasy series. When you see the film/trailer with some of the creatures which are being fought, then it would look stupid having actors runing around in front of blue backgrounds fighting, wouldn't it?
It's a good point, but no doubt someone will argue that digital actors are better than real ones as you don't have to worry about illness, getting the makup right, re-takes etc etc.
From a review of Final Fantasy movie on another website:
The "Final Fantasy" animation team is so good that it's finally opened the world of computer animation to a troubling rhetorical discussion -- a discussion about whether spending millions of dollars to create a photorealistic animal, mineral or vegetable is worth the trouble when you could just go pick up a camera and shoot a REAL rock, mediocre actor or plant and have it look exactly the same -- for 1/100th the cost. After all, wasn't this in some ways the inevitable end result of all this CG photorealism R&D? To create something utterly mundane using the most expensive rendering tools available? (It's a discussion best left to wiser technical philosophers than I)
The "Final Fantasy" animation team is so good that it's finally opened the world of computer animation to a troubling rhetorical discussion -- a discussion about whether spending millions of dollars to create a photorealistic animal, mineral or vegetable is worth the trouble when you could just go pick up a camera and shoot a REAL rock, mediocre actor or plant and have it look exactly the same -- for 1/100th the cost. After all, wasn't this in some ways the inevitable end result of all this CG photorealism R&D? To create something utterly mundane using the most expensive rendering tools available? (It's a discussion best left to wiser technical philosophers than I)