Why do people worship digital?

[Thirteen]

There seems to be a big marketing push over the years to convince Joe Meatball and Suzie Creamcheese that anything is better as long as it is digital. I think it is such a have, in my experience digital is fine as a control system, where it usually excels, but is poor in most other areas. Now George Lucas is trying to pressure every cinema in America to convert to digital formats. Motion picture film looks far superior to any digital format, but corporations are actively trying to kill it in order to replace it with their "2 bit" technology.

Digital television and radio is as far as I can see going to be a bit of a disaster. Those living within a few miles of the broadcast tower and who have a line of sight will be very happy, the rest will likely stop using the system at all, I bet it kills free-to-air stations all together. When you get further away from an analog signal it begins to degrade, but is still watchable. With digital, the signal will just be trash, so the majority of the population will have to go to cable or satellite in order to watch anything IMHO. Just as digital clipping has absolutely no information in it whatsoever, digital broadcasts will not behave gracefully either as soon as the "real world" of reflections and distance and interference have their say..

So along with grainy fatigueing audio, digital is now going to give much of the population substandard TV and radio as well.

I must say I am totally over the so-called "digital revolution", I have yet to see one piece of content in any format that is an improvement over that which I enjoyed before digital became god. It may be more compact and easy to deliver, but at the cost of reduced quality, rampant theft of copyrighted material and a flood of poor quality material made by people sitting in front of computers playing with software.

My big realization yesterday was when I was repairing a current model "synthesizer" (read box of DSP's with a keyboard screwed to the front), and I thought "Why would you spend so much money on this, when it sounds like a plug-in?" Apart from the reduced latency, if I wanted something that sounded brittle, thin, over processed and generic why not buy a cheap plug in or VSTi, and save my money? They sound the same anyway. Admittedly there are several excellent DSP keyboards on the market, but they are the exception in my experience.

[otto ruiter]

Digital television and radio is as far as I can see going to be a bit of a disaster. Those living within a few miles of the broadcast tower and who have a line of sight will be very happy, the rest will likely stop using the system at all, I bet it kills free-to-air stations all together. When you get further away from an analog signal it begins to degrade, but is still watchable. With digital, the signal will just be trash, so the majority of the population will have to go to cable or satellite in order to watch anything IMHO. Just as digital clipping has absolutely no information in it whatsoever, digital broadcasts will not behave gracefully either as soon as the "real world" of reflections and distance and interference have their say..

So along with grainy fatigueing audio, digital is now going to give much of the population substandard TV and radio as well.

I have to disagree with your humble opinion regards dtv reception. In my experience dtv gives a much better picture than analog, even at considerable distances from the transmission point. I live in the blue mountains, and have no difficulty receiving dtv signals from both Sydney and Wollongong, with an indoor aerial. I can't say the same for analogue tv.

otto

[chris p]

I have a long answer to this. Here's the short version. You know about the Luddites, the guys who went around smashing steam mills during the industrial revolution? Mostly, they were skilled artisans who produced top quality work, and whose livelihood was threatened by the possibility of mass-produced, cheap, inferior product. No longer would a carpet be a luxury and an object of beauty, every working-class Tom, Dick and Harry could have a [digital] carpet. Sure, not of the same quality, luxury or [audio quality] as the handmade [analog] ones, but heck - it would do for them on their cold stone kitchen floor [or bedroom studio]. It made carpets available to the masses, empowered them to be carpet-owners.

And here's your answer - the market is not about quality at any cost. In fact, cost is far more critical. There will always be a niche for the artisan work, but it will be niche. Ask Rick how many vinyls he's mastered on that Neumann lathe. Low cost and ease of creation, duplication and distribution [and digital rules all of these] count far more than quality. Technology has been very effective in pulling the rug out from under artisans in very many fields, not just our own. So like the Yorkshire mill owner, we have the choice of embracing the revolution at the sacrifice of artisan notions, or else accepting that we are now marketing quality in a niche environment. Its not the death of quality at all, but it is a recognition that quality is not for everyone - especially the MP3 generation.

[Thirteen]

Hey Otto, happy NY and all that. That's interesting, I have heard mixed reports, definitely that the picture quality is great, but some people complaining that the picture is either there not, with no middle ground. I assume that the signal is being broadcast from the North shore still, so if you are getting it in the mountains that's a good distance.

[Thirteen]

I have a long answer to this. Here's the short version. You know about the Luddites, the guys who went around smashing steam mills during the industrial revolution? Mostly, they were skilled artisans who produced top quality work, and whose livelihood was threatened by the possibility of mass-produced, cheap, inferior product. No longer would a carpet be a luxury and an object of beauty, every working-class Tom, Dick and Harry could have a [digital] carpet. Sure, not of the same quality, luxury or [audio quality] as the handmade [analog] ones, but heck - it would do for them on their cold stone kitchen floor [or bedroom studio]. It made carpets available to the masses, empowered them to be carpet-owners.

And here's your answer - the market is not about quality at any cost. In fact, cost is far more critical. There will always be a niche for the artisan work, but it will be niche. Ask Rick how many vinyls he's mastered on that Neumann lathe. Low cost and ease of creation, duplication and distribution [and digital rules all of these] count far more than quality. Technology has been very effective in pulling the rug out from under artisans in very many fields, not just our own. So like the Yorkshire mill owner, we have the choice of embracing the revolution at the sacrifice of artisan notions, or else accepting that we are now marketing quality in a niche environment. Its not the death of quality at all, but it is a recognition that quality is not for everyone - especially the MP3 generation.

So true, quality is a relative thing I guess, so if you all you have seen is video then you don't miss film. The big issue for me is less about the delivery and storage of the media than the media content itself - with all of the technology that digital puts in our hands, the quality of the content that is produced with it has not improved at all other than having a lower noise floor. Certainly it has not helped musicians to come up with better tracks, more the opposite I think. anyway, that's my Luddite rant for the day. ;-)

[walding]

Say yes to a real life ambition, say yes to our hopes and our plans
Forget about your indecision, lets get the beast off our land
A tree that can grow no longer, a beach that has got no sand
I would pay out a kings ransom, if we could just understand
Got your last meal, filled up with pesticide
Hamburger chain third world infanticide
Got robot car your jobs will disappear
Its the politics of a brand new year
Manhattanization is coming, open your eyes if you dare
Carry us on to the crossroads, come to your senses and care

16 million, I cant hear you at all

Some say thats progress
I say thats cruel

You may be safe in your hemisphere
But theres so much junk in the stratosphere
We got our eyes on the firmament, hands on the armaments
Heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments

I wont deny it, can we survive?

Some say thats progress
I say thats cruel.

Back when the garret wasn't hog tied.

It seems whoever said "give me convenience or give me death" understood the coming digital age very well.

Unfortunately it seems that quality doesn't really matter when it comes to the masses.

[heathen]

Ahhhh and I thought after reading the topic it was going to be in relation to "The analog myth" in the latest issue of AT, which after reading I thought I'm going to buy more analog gear just to be different and difficult to work with. :)

With all things digital I find it's not the medium it's the digital processing which screws things up, with audio anyway. I think that so called 5% improvement is everything, especially when your skills are up to scratch anyway. In the article the writer mentions a grand for every 5% improvement with analog gear, well if you're spending 5 grand that's 25% improvement, which I believe to be about the correct difference in quality. :) Rick would probably spend 30 grand for a 2% improvement. Anyway improvment is where it's at and everything seems to be going backward, go figure.

I hav'nt watched enough HDTV to really know yet, where I am in Sydney gets a bit of a null spot for digital tv and I'm pretty close to the transmitter, will have a better antenna soon which should fix it.

When it works I get no issues and it's clear, but when it craps out it's screwed.

[heathen]

Also I notice sometimes digital movies jitter or some weird thing when the camera is moving quickly or there is a fast action scene, that really gives me the craps.

[heathen]

I have a long answer to this. Here's the short version. You know about the Luddites, the guys who went around smashing steam mills during the industrial revolution? Mostly, they were skilled artisans who produced top quality work, and whose livelihood was threatened by the possibility of mass-produced, cheap, inferior product. No longer would a carpet be a luxury and an object of beauty, every working-class Tom, Dick and Harry could have a [digital] carpet. Sure, not of the same quality, luxury or [audio quality] as the handmade [analog] ones, but heck - it would do for them on their cold stone kitchen floor [or bedroom studio]. It made carpets available to the masses, empowered them to be carpet-owners.

And here's your answer - the market is not about quality at any cost. In fact, cost is far more critical. There will always be a niche for the artisan work, but it will be niche. Ask Rick how many vinyls he's mastered on that Neumann lathe. Low cost and ease of creation, duplication and distribution [and digital rules all of these] count far more than quality. Technology has been very effective in pulling the rug out from under artisans in very many fields, not just our own. So like the Yorkshire mill owner, we have the choice of embracing the revolution at the sacrifice of artisan notions, or else accepting that we are now marketing quality in a niche environment. Its not the death of quality at all, but it is a recognition that quality is not for everyone - especially the MP3 generation.

Well said Chris.

[Chinagraf]

I love digital tv, but the one thing I hate is the noises when it drops out. At the studio the ST box sometimes drops out and it makes that horrible clicking sort of horsey giddyup sound. Not good with the volume up.
We had a Chinese duty free store open up next door and they put a satellite dish on their roof so I'm thinking of climbing up and splicing onto it. I hear strange noises coming from that place late at night and wonder what they are doing in there.

[musikwerks]

Digital is the best thing that has happened to TV.... ever. Years ago I would have to worry about losing quality going down a generation or two by doing analog passes via component inputs and outputs on a Beta SP machine. Then Digital Betacam came along, then HD and 2K. If I had to go backwards I would not be able to do the work I do today.

Heath, that jitter you see is not caused by digital tv... It's an artifact introduced in principle photography (more often than not on 'analog' 35mm film) as a result of lens and shutter speed combinations and is particularly noticeable on fast paced action. It is commonly referred to as motion blur.

Film is a progressive medium, where 1 image frame is made up of only 1 image. Television, on the other hand, is interlaced, whereby one image frame is made up of two fields. Although progressive scan is appearing a lot more these days on video shoots, the majority is still shot interlaced. The problem you're referring to can also be made worse by interlaced images going through cheap 'progressive scan' plasma's or LCD's which often add additional motion blur due to the way they sample and hold the image which is different to the impulse method employed in CRT monitors.

Thirteen, you said "I have yet to see one piece of content in any format that is an improvement over that which I enjoyed before digital became god."

So you're discounting every film with visual effects in the last, say, 10 years? Much of what you view in cinemas today owes it's very existence to the digital revolution. A recent example is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Think it was shot on film? Think again. Digital.

There's so many things that could be said of digital and it's benefits for film and tv. It's not going anywhere. Best learn to deal with it.

[Linear]

I agree with thirt on the digital tv thing. it's great when it works, but unlike analogue tv, when it doesn't work it's unwatchable.

i have run a long line from the antenna to downstairs, and unfortunately interference from the router makes the signal useless. you flick it to analogue, and at least you can still watch. turn the router off and all is good. means i have to choose between internet and tv, and most times internet wins out (tv is sooo 20th century...)

it's kinda like analog vs digital storage debate - you can almost always replay an analog tape no matter how knackered it is (with care and a bit of work) - scratch or damage a CD or hard drive and your stuff is gone forever.

Chris

[Linear]

<snip>

So you're discounting every film with visual effects in the last, say, 10 years? Much of what you view in cinemas today owes it's very existence to the digital revolution. A recent example is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Think it was shot on film? Think again. Digital.

There's so many things that could be said of digital and it's benefits for film and tv. It's not going anywhere. Best learn to deal with it.

I'd say yes. CGI has RUINED films. as a big star wars fan, i can't bear to watch the last instalment. garbage. give me puppets and models anyday.

CGI = great for beer ads etc, bad for films and special effects.

good example is that disaster of a movie, australia. why the fcuk do you have to CGI the outback??? it's not like it's not accessible. CGI = laziness in film making.

that 'CGI moment' in a film completely ruins it for me.

Chris

[heathen]

Hey Kris, yeah I thought it may have been the actual cameras, cheers for clearing that up, it's a bloody annoying issue.

Linear yes I agree very much with what you say, I don't like CGI either gimmee the original "Thunderbirds" any day.

Another thing that really really gives me the severe shits is film audio these days, now I don't know if this is deliberate or not but why the hell are they so dynamic, quiet dialogue is sometimes almost unintelligable compared with the loud music parts and sound fx, I find myself constanly having to adjust the level while watching a film which annoys me no end.

Now I never had this issue watching old films, I don't know whether it's the plugs everyone uses in film causing a lack of sound density in the lower volume passages, as plugs compared to analog always lack density in the sound, to me that is, or whether people just are'nt paying attention. Dynamics in music are good, dynamics in film sux if it's too severe.

Also adds farout they are either so loud and harsh compared with all other program material or so annoying that you just have to use the mute button regularly. There should be regulations against this in tv broadcasting.

[Sammas]

...you must consider the bigger picture.


How old is analogue tv? It ain't going to get any better.

Digital tv on the other hand hasn't been around all that long at all... and strangely enough, Australia is lagging quite a ways behind a lot of countries when it comes to digital transmission of anything. Perhaps its partly due to the size of our country and the comparative lack of people.

How long do you reckon it will be until your phone, TV and internet connection is piped into your house via one nice little fiber-optic connection?

[heathen]

How long do you reckon it will be until your phone, TV and internet connection is piped into your house via one nice little fiber-optic connection?

C'mon Sammas that won't be till next century in Aus. :)

[Linear]

I don't dispute the quality of digital TV at all, it's great. Especially HD.

It's the transmission that's the problem, intermittent digital TV is absolutely unwatchable. Really low quality analogue TV is still watchable, albeit annoying.

I reckon we all need to get off the mindset that new = better. even though 35mm film isn't perfect, i don't think it gets any better as far as film-making is concerned (extrapolate that to 2" tape for music too). Professional analogue formats give back more than what you put in - kinda like sprinkling fairy dust on the capture. Digital gives back exactly what you put down = boring.

Chris

[musikwerks]

But Heath, there are no dynamics in modern music!

As for this....

"CGI = laziness in film making."

Try telling that to the thousands of people who pour thousands of man hours into any CGI on a film.... and see if you leave the building walking on your own feet. That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Chris, you have no idea of the tools available in the digital film making realm. Even if you acquire on 35mm.... you just don't know what you're talking about.

I'm withdrawing from this conversations lest I say what I'm really thinking.

[Linear]

But Heath, there are no dynamics in modern music!

As for this....

"CGI = laziness in film making."

Try telling that to the thousands of people who pour thousands of man hours into any CGI on a film.... and see if you leave the building walking on your own feet. That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Chris, you have no idea of the tools available in the digital film making realm. Even if you acquire on 35mm.... you just don't know what you're talking about.

I'm withdrawing from this conversations lest I say what I'm really thinking.

No, tell us what you think! I'm interested to know, really. And it's nice to be able to have a discussion without flamewars. I'd love you to prove me wrong.

Anyway, I don't mean lazy for all the people that have to actually do the work. i mean laziness on the part of director/producer/cinematographer. rather than work at getting the shot they want, they just CGI the scenery in later.

so many times i've watched a film where something was unnecessarily CGI'd - something that ~could~ have been captured in reality. It's alot like how records are being mauled these days - rather than spend the time to get a good take in the first place, 25 crappy half-arsed takes are used to comp 1 good take because it's possible, and because digital technology makes creative people lazy.

There you go, I said it. Flame away!

Chris

[Thirteen]

Boy, I didn't realize what a big subject this was when I had my little rant...

Maybe we should move onto something safer, how about Mac Vs.PC? :-)

[heathen]

Boy, I didn't realize what a big subject this was when I had my little rant...

Maybe we should move onto something safer, how about Mac Vs.PC? :-)

C'mon it's a cool discussion, no flame wars. I just agree with Chris again though, does'nt mean CGI is'nt great for what it can do, but as Chris said it's a lot of the time un-necessary when a good take just needs that little better performance or effort capturing the performance.

David Attenborough can do it, the camera work and audio in his docos are superb.

[tunetown]

Might be safer to talk about politics and religion.

I like digital TV. I like digital cameras, but I'm not shooting art. I like not dealing with tape machines anymore.

Unfortunately, analogue is last year..... Digital is next year....

Hopefully this medium will keep evolving.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers

[heathen]

But Heath, there are no dynamics in modern music!

Mostly yeah I agree with that for sure. Well most anyway, I usually try to leave a lot of dynamics where they should be, more now than ever.

[musikwerks]

Heath, regarding TV ads... there are rules. Completely unenforceable rule but rules nonetheless.

www.assg.org.au/pdf/OP48.pdf

Chris, I agree that Star Wars is a bad example of CGI for the sake of CGI. But there are so many instances where CGI is invisible and/or essential to the story. Would you have watched Lord of the Rings with puppets and models? If so, would it have been as epic? How would Gollum have come across if it was just Andy Sirkus in a gimp suit? How would you have illustrated the size difference between Gandalf and the Hobbits when in real life they stand about the same height?

Crouching Tiger, Hero and House of Flying Daggers would all have looked pretty naff if the wires and harnesses weren't digitally removed and the armies in Braveheart would hardly have looked like as menacing lined up across the fields. What about Aslan or Mr Tumnus in the Narnia movies? Would you prefer it if they were just dudes in suits?

You talk about getting it right on set but (using Australia as an example) how do you suppose you would yell "CUT" and then go over to the stampeding herd and ask them to do it again for the close ups and please, could you stop a little bit closer to the cliff edge this time??? You don't. You use CG cows.

It's not lazy for a director to opt for CGI enhancement of any scene. How do you know that something *could* have been shot for real? Were you there? In my experience, if a director opts for a VFX enhancement it's either because it's a) not possible physically b) dangerous to the cast and/or crew to try it or c) prohibitively expensive to sit and wait for some natural phenomena that may or may not materialize. You could be shooting scenes days or weeks apart and have no way of controlling the weather or light. In CG land you do.

In film and TV, digital technology does not make people lazy. It opens up a realm of possibilities that were previously impossible. At the end of the day any tool can be used or abused but if a tool is able to enhance the story and bring people into the world in which it is set then it's a good thing. You can gripe about it it all you want but it's not going to change. If you don't like it, turn it off.

[heathen]

Heath, regarding TV ads... there are rules. Completely unenforceable rule but rules nonetheless.

www.assg.org.au/pdf/OP48.pdf

Chris, I agree that Star Wars is a bad example of CGI for the sake of CGI. But there are so many instances where CGI is invisible and/or essential to the story. Would you have watched Lord of the Rings with puppets and models? If so, would it have been as epic? How would Gollum have come across if it was just Andy Sirkus in a gimp suit? How would you have illustrated the size difference between Gandalf and the Hobbits when in real life they stand about the same height?

Crouching Tiger, Hero and House of Flying Daggers would all have looked pretty naff if the wires and harnesses weren't digitally removed and the armies in Braveheart would hardly have looked like as menacing lined up across the fields. What about Aslan or Mr Tumnus in the Narnia movies? Would you prefer it if they were just dudes in suits?

You talk about getting it right on set but (using Australia as an example) how do you suppose you would yell "CUT" and then go over to the stampeding herd and ask them to do it again for the close ups and please, could you stop a little bit closer to the cliff edge this time??? You don't. You use CG cows.

It's not lazy for a director to opt for CGI enhancement of any scene. How do you know that something *could* have been shot for real? Were you there? In my experience, if a director opts for a VFX enhancement it's either because it's a) not possible physically b) dangerous to the cast and/or crew to try it or c) prohibitively expensive to sit and wait for some natural phenomena that may or may not materialize. You could be shooting scenes days or weeks apart and have no way of controlling the weather or light. In CG land you do.

In film and TV, digital technology does not make people lazy. It opens up a realm of possibilities that were previously impossible. At the end of the day any tool can be used or abused but if a tool is able to enhance the story and bring people into the world in which it is set then it's a good thing. You can gripe about it it all you want but it's not going to change. If you don't like it, turn it off.

Better not mention films like Zulu, anyway yeah Lord of the rings is fantastic, very well done.

[Linear]

Heath, regarding TV ads... there are rules. Completely unenforceable rule but rules nonetheless.

www.assg.org.au/pdf/OP48.pdf

Chris, I agree that Star Wars is a bad example of CGI for the sake of CGI. But there are so many instances where CGI is invisible and/or essential to the story. Would you have watched Lord of the Rings with puppets and models? If so, would it have been as epic? How would Gollum have come across if it was just Andy Sirkus in a gimp suit? How would you have illustrated the size difference between Gandalf and the Hobbits when in real life they stand about the same height?

Crouching Tiger, Hero and House of Flying Daggers would all have looked pretty naff if the wires and harnesses weren't digitally removed and the armies in Braveheart would hardly have looked like as menacing lined up across the fields. What about Aslan or Mr Tumnus in the Narnia movies? Would you prefer it if they were just dudes in suits?

You talk about getting it right on set but (using Australia as an example) how do you suppose you would yell "CUT" and then go over to the stampeding herd and ask them to do it again for the close ups and please, could you stop a little bit closer to the cliff edge this time??? You don't. You use CG cows.

It's not lazy for a director to opt for CGI enhancement of any scene. How do you know that something *could* have been shot for real? Were you there? In my experience, if a director opts for a VFX enhancement it's either because it's a) not possible physically b) dangerous to the cast and/or crew to try it or c) prohibitively expensive to sit and wait for some natural phenomena that may or may not materialize. You could be shooting scenes days or weeks apart and have no way of controlling the weather or light. In CG land you do.

In film and TV, digital technology does not make people lazy. It opens up a realm of possibilities that were previously impossible. At the end of the day any tool can be used or abused but if a tool is able to enhance the story and bring people into the world in which it is set then it's a good thing. You can gripe about it it all you want but it's not going to change. If you don't like it, turn it off.

Interesting points. I'll try and keep it brief for the sake of brevity ;-0

Firstly, I wouldn't put wires and harness removal in the same CGI league as artificial beings or replacement scenery. Take the missing leg from Dan Taylor (Gary Sinese) in Forrest Gump - couldn't have been done any other way and a very clever use of CGI.

Secondly, CGI can be used really well. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind was a great example of this. During that film you knew there was CGI, but it managed to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

Sadly, most CGi in films is blatently obvious, distracting, poorly done and mostly excruciatingly painful to watch. I'm sure technically it's really clever, but as a film consumer I can't stand it. I also don't think that for the most part, we've seen amazingly groundbreaking cinema (ie nothing that hasn't already been done pre-CGI)

Chris

[no-fi]

Secondly, CGI can be used really well. Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind was a great example of this. During that film you knew there was CGI, but it managed to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

but then again, Michel Gondry can also use puppetry and weird props made from paper mache and still make absolutely amazing art. So no wonder he also uses digital fx well... that man is bloody talented!

but yeah... I just find there is way too much random CGI in movies nowdays. And it puts me off most of the time, too - Yes it allows really cool subtle things you could never shoot, and it's great for that, but I do think directors get lazy hacking together a scene digitally when they could have just made it well to begin with. And I think it allows for really over the top DISTRACTING effects that might look awesome from a technical point of view, but are really just taking away from the point of view of the story.

Take the opening scene from blade runner for example - absolutely beautiful work, made from hours and hours upon hours and hours of painstaking labour, and not a computer in sight! if that scene was to be made these days, it'd all be digitally rendered. and it'd be much more flashy with all sorts of close up zooomy things.... all perfectly reflecting rays of light from all the perfect light sources zooming about in the virtual space too..... and it'd be nowhere near as good.

I can't comment on star wars episodes -2 though to 0, because I never watched them. the trailers all looked crappily "gee whizz" computer rendered enough that I have no interest whatsoever in seeing them ever.

[Martin]

another point is how quickly the resolutions of the digital format are increasing by... in 20 years will people write about the first 10 years of the 2000's and how we found our feet as far as digital broadcasting

i'm happy to take a bit of a back seat with it, sure i'll spend the day recording/mixing things that will end up on the digital tv, but i've more important things to do with spare time like go for a blast through the national park in full high definition inside the helmet!

thats all...

[Thirteen]

I know it's Philistine to say this, but as much as I enjoy films like "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" and "A Series Of Unfortunate Events", where the CGI is amazing and really makes the films visually striking, (all credit to the army of programmers that did it), what I really appreciate CGI for the most is that it allows quirky, relatively low budget shows to exist at all, such as "Lexx" and "Farscape" which would never have been made without it.

What originally led me to post this thread was the observation that the consumer is being led to believe that "Digital" is always better. Just like when a company want's something to be perceived as healthy, clean and well designed, they put the word "Swedish" in the name of the product, when I go into Harvey Norman now, everything had a sticker with the word "digital" on it. (Used to be that the sticker said "digital ready").

Maybe the negative reaction to CGI comes from Hollywood blockbusters that are totally FX driven. I would bet that it will be an interesting comparison between watching the original "Day the Earth Stood Still" with it's great acting and other worldly atmosphere, and comparing it to the new version, which (if the trailer is anything to go by) will be like watching a realistic animation, where they just couldn't help throwing in scenes of destruction on the scale of a Japanese giant robot cartoon. The original movie relied on Michael Rennie's other worldliness and a great script, the new one will be a wooden Keanu standing in front of a blue screen and dialog replaced by CGI of cities being destroyed, Tsunami's and crazy atmospheric FX.

They are remaking "Forbidden Planet" as well, yikes. There also is a huge flood (pardon the pun) of movies this summer about armageddon. So prepare for lots of movies with a few actors and some dialog being used as an excuse for a whole bunch of visuals of giant waves crashing over the top of the Himalayas.

All respect and credit to the engineers who make this amazing CGI stuff, but no respect at all to the corporations who have put acting, plot and dialog into the position of being a "necessary evil" in the film making process.

[heathen]

Yeah reminds me of "The Time Machine" the original was great the new 1 I could'nt watch it. Still it's the audio in films which really annoys me more than anything.

Watched an old Clint Eastwood movie last night and did not have to adjust the volume once.