Hello everyone.
I am third year student at a film studies course so I thought to do my third year written project on, What impact CG and 3d Animation have on live action films and the way filmmakers make movies these days with the use of CG and Animation . So I really need your help if anyone has any interesting books on that subject that I can read and draw my own conclusions. (Any websites about the subject would be good too). I am trying to find out if CG or Animation have affected filmmaking processes like directing, cinematography, editing and if it is just the visual content that has been improved or if there is a change in the other aspects of filmmaking. I also hopefully would have a philosophical debate in the essay if at the end cg and 3d animation will replace live action films (If it looks real it must be real, right?) I Believe that eventually maybe in 200 (Who knows) years filmmakers will be able to make movies from just one computer or perhaps the whole filmmaking art will completely change and the audience will be able to live his own story in the film. Any books that talk about this kind of philosophical debate (or similar) would be nice too.
I was reading the other day (I don’t remember where) that CG have changed narration and narrative in contemporary cinema but I am not sure really sure how this can happen.
Like I said before I only want to find if anyone knows any books about the subject of the project so I can make my on conclusions.
Thanks

if it were me, I would write about how much bad stuff CGI has done to film, that now all they wanna do is make big action thrillers and comic book adaptations and just want to make $$$, I would also point out that 2001: a space odyssey STILL holds the benchmark for most realistic special effects, even over this Matrix and Star Wars **** that just doesn't have anythin to it. That's my opinion.

Does 2001 really hold that claim? I've got to see it again now... I remember it being realistic, but I just assumed it wasn't THAT good.

I think SOME of the CG in LOTR (i know what you'll say HDK ) was extremely good (read photorealistic), and some was merely normal.

The new star wars movies suck, but that is not related to the CG, its because the writing is dry. CG can be used effectively and ineffectively. Robert Rodreguiz uses it great, because he know what are the limits. It brings down the budget of his film tremendously. 2001 is a good movie, but the special effects don't really hold up any more. The visuals do, like when he is inside HAL. That's beautiful. But movies like Event Horizen and Chronicles of Riddick (Weather you like the story or not) look pretty good too.

Hill Dawson Kane: ok i see your point but i dont believe you are comptletly right there beacuse there are movies that its just isnt posssible to make without the use of CG plus i think it gives the artist the freedom to express himself better. E.g. This is not the best example i can remember but oh well its fresh in my mind remember LOTR the first movie were Frodo falls down and throws the ring up and with a strange camera angle the camera follows the ring where it fits into his finger.. ! Well Space Odyssey is still a great film and the techniques used there are awesome but it would pointless to do that today.. as for the money they always wanted to make money.

Ryan Gomez: I agree with you on that visual effects can be used effectively or not, although i dont see any vision in Rodriguez films.

Anyway thanks for posting but I still need to tell me if you know any books about the subject i mentioned above

Cya

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nucleo,

2001 kicks *** in the same way psycho still does. The revolitionary films of the 60's by far still kicks the *** of any other renaisance in cinematic history

However, if you look at LOTR, no matter how much you scorn at the films, i believe, having now been to many of the filming locations, and been able to under stand how much special effects work they did on the landscapes, would not have been possible without cgi.

but modern Holywood Crap, the special effects do nothing for me, there is no ast in the special effects, art being not only how the cgi stuff looks, but its relevance etc.

The effects in Riddick weren't that good. I've done enough CG to be able to recognize bad effects, and often figure out what is wrong with them. Not enough to actually do them myself, mind