The use of computer animation to enhance movies has been on
a sharp upward trend as the technology has developed. The sheer cost of hiring
thousands of extras, not to mention orchestrating them into a coherent whole,
would have prevented much of the modern battle extravaganza during previous
decades.
It is interesting to
consider the idea of an infinite army of characters. In previous incarnations
of film there wasn’t the same feeling of the multitude and infinite nature of on-screen
entities. Having the capability to easily stretch the size of the field of view
beyond all sides of the frame, allows for creation of a new experience for the
viewer. This infinite nature creates in the viewer the feeling of awe, and often invokes
images of insurmountable power. Before the age of computer animation, films
able to utilize massive scale depictions were few and far between. It is now
commonplace to create such epic landscapes as a Greek battlefield, a horde of
Orcs, or duplication of the same character, which stretch on endlessly into the
distance.
What happens when the paradigm shifts again? Conceptualize the possible coming era of
anti-CGI movie production with retro stunts and manual camerawork. Where the
magnificent and inconceivably large becomes mundane through overuse, we may
touch upon an age of digital regression. Just because it is possible to create
a massive army of CGI warriors, doesn’t necessarily mean it has the same
authenticity as production value done using actual human beings. Regardless,
the central theme of pop cinema is the utilization of cutting-edge
computer-aided graphics; a theme that doesn’t seem to be going away anytime
soon.
I already mentioned this in class last week, but my interest was piqued by your idea of "digital regression" (not to mention "pop cinema"). I do think some of the more intriguing recent writing on new media has dealt with this idea of "media fatigue," though you also seem to be aligning the trend with currents in art and/or music that emphasize standardization, flashy gimmicks, and ease of consumption? Perhaps Horkheimer and Adorno should be paged!
ReplyDelete