It means you see some of the best acting, directing, design, and writing. If you want solid storytelling with no CGI, consider going to the theater. Devote a small chunk of your time to investing in a solid story. Revisit something from when you were younger. Remember a time when tales weren't bogged down by CGI.
And that's a massive shame for viewers of all ages. That means we're unlikely to get a proper animation anytime soon. It would be a great thing for film fanatics if there was a better mix of traditional animation and new CGI sadly, the latter is less labor-intensive (far from easy or care-free, however) and still pulls in the big bucks. They hold a special place in many people's hearts. While there's nothing wrong with Wreck-It-Ralph, Frozen, or Big Hero 6 (which is particularly wonderful), there's something special about the old Disney animations. In fact, the last one was 2011's Winnie the Pooh and before that, 2009's The Princess and the Frog. Since Toy Story in 1995, Pixar Animation Studios became a subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios, and actual 2D animations have become few and far between. Fantasia, the longest-running animated feature from the studio, is a whole different kettle of fish. I mean, think of the man-hours that went into Pinocchio, The Lion King, and Mulan. While we're on the theme of Disney, the vast majority of us grew up with films steeped in love. But when every character is capable of defying gravity, what's the point of Pan's levity? It means there's a lack of jeopardy and plausibility. Peter can fly, okay? That's a major theme of any interpretation, but here, he's struggling to fulfill that expectation. A lot of it, despite general narrative problems, looked pretty great… but audiences couldn't help but feel some detachment.
Pan was incredibly selective when it came to CGI, however – so much so that it received a nomination for Outstanding Achievement in Visual Effects at the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts Awards. Disney's 1953 Peter Pan proved that such an environment wasn't restricted solely to our imaginations. Pan (2015), the latest effort to create a film franchise out of the boy who never grows up, asked us to believe in Neverland and all the beautiful impossibilities that entails. You have to suspend your disbelief to a certain degree, but a few basic laws of physics still have to apply for us to invest in a world. Surely Harrison Ford could have rustled up a more accurate Jabba using some MDF. We only mean the so-called "Special Edition" released for the 20th anniversary which shoe-horned in a scene with a young Jabba the Hutt threatening Han Solo. Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope: What is this sacrilege?! Oh, put the pitchforks down.But was anyone really convinced by Scooby himself? Or those monster things that didn't even turn out to be Old Man Jenkins? It should have been more like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. He was offered a main role, but turned it down after hearing this pesky little stray would be involved. Scooby-Doo: Where did it all go wrong for this 2002 film, based on the highly-popular cartoon of the same name? Many would no doubt scream "SCRAPPY-DOO" continuously for three hours (certainly Tim Curry would.The pair are rendered so badly, it makes Sylvester Stallone look almost realistic by comparison. No, sorry, this was actually in the 2003 film. The Matrix Reloaded: Keanu Reeves goes face-to-face with Hugo Weaving in this video game foota - wait.H2O has never seemed more realistic, apart from in every other movie ever.
Basically, Pierce Brosnan plays James Bond as he's copy-and-pasted onto a tsunami swelling across glaciers. Die Another Day: We're calling this a damp squib because it's about water and we're trying to make this section even more cringe-worthy.
0 kommentar(er)
