Light ROM 4/Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso/text/maillist/1996/031596.doc/[e-mail] _Tue Mar 19 15:50:18 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-04-02 | 4KB

Received: from e55.webcom.com (e55.webcom.com [206.2.192.66]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.5/8.7.5-MZ) with ESMTP id PAA03076 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:50:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by e55.webcom.com with SMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA291078624; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:50:24 -0800
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:50:24 -0800
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: [e-mail] (robert hood)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Reboot
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:

> > Personally, I think Reboot is the absolute neatest show on television.  It
> > does with computer animation exactly what I think CGI should be used for:
> > to bring the impossible to life.  It is *extremely* well done, with
> > outstanding character animation, beleivable characters, intriguing plots,
> > etc.
>
> Looks like I'm going to draw a lot of flack for this one, but I wasn't
> impressed by Reboot at all. A couple of weeks ago I tuned in Saturday
> morning to watch Hypernauts, and after it was over I left the TV on and
> Reboot came on. Although I'd heard a lot about it, it was the first time
> I'd seen it. The complete lack of lighting combined with almost non-
> existent texturing left me pretty cold.

Sounds like you're looking for realism...

> > While effects done on seaQuest and S:A&B are stunningly realistic, and
> > greatly enhance the shows that employ them, I am constantly reminded of
> > something said by one of the old Warner Bros. animators (was it Fritz?):
> > If it can be done in real life, then it isn't animation (I'm paraphrasing).
> > He was, of course, referring to cartoon animation, but I think the same holds
> > true for CGI.  If CGI spaceship is almost indistinguishable from a real model,
> > then the only advance you've made is in your show's budget.
>
> !?!?   WHAT?
> Have you ever tried shooting real effects? Have you ever been tempted to
> shoot yourself in the head at 4:30 in the morning because:

You're missing my point, Eric.  Certainly, CGI has made the process of
effects more *efficient*, and that has largely been responsible for the
current boom (and saturation, but that's another argument) of CGI-based
effects in the biz.  But what it has done is replaced an older, mechanical
method for another, more-efficient one.  However, since I'm not currently
in the business, I can afford to be abstract and purist about it.

It is simply my argument that "efficient" CGI effects have advanced more of
the *science* than the *art*.  Both Reboot (unrealistic) and Toy Story
(realistic) have advanced the *art*.

Render me gone,               |||
Bob                         ^(===)^
-------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------------------------------------
Bob Hood, President | All governments suffer from a recurring problem:
Virtual Visions,Inc.| Power attracts pathological personalities.  It is not
Tel: [phone] | that power corrupts, but that it is magnetic to the
FAX: [phone] | corruptible.  Such people have a tendency to become
                    | drunk on violence, a condition to which they are
[e-mail]    | quickly addicted              - Frank Herbert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------