There's someone who is firmly rooted in the Class system in India, and is probably to old and outdated to even understand what "Social Media" is, never mind what it implies.
The world is changing at an exponential rate, and old-think like this has had it's days numbered and spray painted in neon on the virtual wall. Just pray that this tidal wave doesn't end up killing like that tsunami a few years back..
Hi Drew,
Yeah, got that. Good point.
My assumption though is that in 2011 it HAS to be a lot easier to do CGI than it was in say, 1982 when Tron was released.
Pixar was originally all about software and hardware before Lassiter finally got Jobs onboard with the idea for a movie. I know that there are software platforms for CGI, there was a lot of talk about the (was it called "Massive") engine that Weta used for the LOTR series. So in general, if an underfunded filmmaker wanted to use CGI, he at least has a shot at it and making it reasonably good, with available software packages, and does not have to hire a big CGI studio to do it. Just an assumption and the point of my "We have the technology" line.
I actually read positive reviews about Serenity, saw it and liked it very much, THEN grabbed Firefly after I figured out the background to the movie production. I describe it to friends as Hans Solo starring in True Grit.
From Wikipedia:
Serenity won film of the year awards from Film 2005 and FilmFocus. It also won IGN Film's Best Sci-Fi, Best Story and Best Trailer awards and was runner up for the Overall Best Movie. It also won the Nebula Award for Best Script for 2005, the 7th annual 'User Tomato Awards' for best Sci-Fi movie of 2005 at Rotten Tomatoes, the 2006 viewers choice Spacey Award for favorite movie, the 2006 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form and the 2006 Prometheus Special Award.
(The Nebula and the Hugo are the real deal for Sci-Fi)
It wouldn't be too hard to write a sequel, Wash would be missed more than Book.
But the movie is definitely a must see if you haven't, beats hell out of the junk sci-fi from the last few years IMHO.
Fans of Firefly, the old Joss Wheadon Fox Sci-fi show that was fan-driven into a movie a la Star Trek TOS, will understand this argument. That was a (damn good) story driven show/movie with limited and low cost CGI, but still managed to innovative. I remember reading somewhere (OK don't kill me, but I did read it years ago) that the Serenity movie was the first to use a virtual camera style that moved around a lot giving an effect almost like a hand held camera. Have noticed that style of CGI in many movies over the last few years, and I suspect that CGI in general is not as expensive as George Lucas would have us believe. There is probably good software solutions out for that industry, pop in a model and manipulate the shot. Why not, "we have the technology..."
Once everyone gets RFID chipped, you could get name info as you see them, and tag the name with comments, so next time you see that a-hole in a crowd, there would be a bubble over her head displaying "A-HOLE"
Useful, too bad you can't do it with car drivers already..
The future is bright.
Slashdot Mirror
There's someone who is firmly rooted in the Class system in India, and is probably to old and outdated to even understand what "Social Media" is, never mind what it implies. The world is changing at an exponential rate, and old-think like this has had it's days numbered and spray painted in neon on the virtual wall. Just pray that this tidal wave doesn't end up killing like that tsunami a few years back..
Hi Drew, Yeah, got that. Good point. My assumption though is that in 2011 it HAS to be a lot easier to do CGI than it was in say, 1982 when Tron was released. Pixar was originally all about software and hardware before Lassiter finally got Jobs onboard with the idea for a movie. I know that there are software platforms for CGI, there was a lot of talk about the (was it called "Massive") engine that Weta used for the LOTR series. So in general, if an underfunded filmmaker wanted to use CGI, he at least has a shot at it and making it reasonably good, with available software packages, and does not have to hire a big CGI studio to do it. Just an assumption and the point of my "We have the technology" line.
I actually read positive reviews about Serenity, saw it and liked it very much, THEN grabbed Firefly after I figured out the background to the movie production. I describe it to friends as Hans Solo starring in True Grit. From Wikipedia: Serenity won film of the year awards from Film 2005 and FilmFocus. It also won IGN Film's Best Sci-Fi, Best Story and Best Trailer awards and was runner up for the Overall Best Movie. It also won the Nebula Award for Best Script for 2005, the 7th annual 'User Tomato Awards' for best Sci-Fi movie of 2005 at Rotten Tomatoes, the 2006 viewers choice Spacey Award for favorite movie, the 2006 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form and the 2006 Prometheus Special Award. (The Nebula and the Hugo are the real deal for Sci-Fi) It wouldn't be too hard to write a sequel, Wash would be missed more than Book. But the movie is definitely a must see if you haven't, beats hell out of the junk sci-fi from the last few years IMHO.
Fans of Firefly, the old Joss Wheadon Fox Sci-fi show that was fan-driven into a movie a la Star Trek TOS, will understand this argument. That was a (damn good) story driven show/movie with limited and low cost CGI, but still managed to innovative. I remember reading somewhere (OK don't kill me, but I did read it years ago) that the Serenity movie was the first to use a virtual camera style that moved around a lot giving an effect almost like a hand held camera. Have noticed that style of CGI in many movies over the last few years, and I suspect that CGI in general is not as expensive as George Lucas would have us believe. There is probably good software solutions out for that industry, pop in a model and manipulate the shot. Why not, "we have the technology..."
Women are Aliens. My wife can spend 3 hours in the Linen Department at Sears. Nuff said.
Once everyone gets RFID chipped, you could get name info as you see them, and tag the name with comments, so next time you see that a-hole in a crowd, there would be a bubble over her head displaying "A-HOLE" Useful, too bad you can't do it with car drivers already.. The future is bright.