You know, I'm not sure I agree with his fundamental point.

Whether a special effect is good or not doesn't rely on the technology involved - it relies on the effectiveness of the *design*, and the style in which that design is carried through. It's why Knightmare still looks great today - we're talking 1987 puter graphics, and yet it still looks wonderful. By the same token, something made with the latest technology can still look awful, if the design and style isn't there.

I'm not sure the state of technology has *ever* had much to do with longevity.

Or, to pick up a thread on G&T - Jurassic Park. 1993 CGI, and it looks pretty much flawless - because it's executed so well.

If a 2005 blockbuster film looks crap, I think that's a problem with the design and execution - *not* the technology. And looked crap when it was released, too.

Totally, John. I completely agree. It's all in how you shoot and use the effects.

One of CGI's biggest problems has always been directors who, in the words of Jeff Goldblum, get so excited about the fact that then could, they forget to ask if they should.

Please - no more impossible camera angles! You shoot an effect right, combined with doing it well, and it works.

Also, there IS a level of belief-suspension. Just like we know people are acting, we know that bloke didn't get slashed apart and that ship isn't really in space. Otherwise how would we concentrate on the story?!

> "today's special effects are almost universally generated on computers"

Maybe JOINED by computer. But generated?! Come on. Miniatures, live action stunts. bullet hits, breakaway props. Just because these are old effects, doesn't make them unspecial. Not every FX shot is a space ship or a monster. And just because you use a computer for wire-removal it doesn't take away from the guy slipping off a high building.

> "yesterday's jaw-dropping movies are today's kitschy crap"

He says this like genre cinema is ALL about the FX. Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, The Matrix (the first one)...these are all kitschy crap now, are they? We've decided to take aganst movies for their of-the-time FX - Alien, Blade Runner, Back to the Future, Planet of the Apes, Dawn of the Dead... (He then uses LOTR1 as an example. Oh yeah, because as the tech has moved on, we're already rejecting that movie as crap now, right?)

He seems to be missing the fact that EVERYTHING is of its time. So what if the FX date? Like the costume, make-up, acting, design, writing and direction don't? EVERYTHING is of its time. How can it be anything else?

> By Andre on Wednesday

I can no longer spell my own name. Fuckwit.

John H is on the money. CD's comparison between LotR 1 & 3 highlights what crap he's spouting - maybe if you held up images side-by-side you could see a difference but it doesn't mean that Fellowship isn't by far the better film - with far "better" effects, by any reasonable definition of that term I'd argue.

>He seems to be missing the fact that EVERYTHING is of its time. So what if the FX date? Like the costume, make-up, acting, design, writing and direction don't? EVERYTHING is of its time. How can it be anything else?

I, I...love you, Andrew. I wouldn't want you to go anywhere not knowing that.

> I, I...love you, Andrew. I wouldn't want you to go anywhere not knowing that.

Awwwww. :o)

Incidentally, the consensus (and my own opinion) seems to be that Mr. Doctorow may know a great deal about copyright, but he seems to be somewhat ill-informed when it comes to film. Here are some letters off of Locus Online that respond to his article.