h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
In any print, radio, or television advertising for a new film, in a addition to the standard MPAA rating for a film, there should be a fraction representing the ratio of time/money spent developing the screenplay to the time/money spent on computer generated asteroids, animals, Jar Jars, etc. This would
provide a fair litmus test to the quality of that film.
James Cameron's Avatar @ Coming Attractions
Wanting photorealistic CG, Cameron dropped it when he saw the $300 million plus budget. But with FX becoming cheaper each year, will it get made? [mrkillboy, Nov 22 2000, last modified Oct 04 2004]
Dogme95 vow of chastity
An extreme form of your proposal. Whether or not the amazing quality of many Dogme95 films actually has to do with this, or more with the raw talent of its directors and actors, isn't clear to me. [jutta, Nov 22 2000]
||But would this really be applicable to completely CG'd films such as A Bug's Life or Final Fantasy, or movies that REQUIRE extensive CG to be realised, such as Gladiator, Titanic or James Cameron's infamous "Avatar" project?
||I think your ratio may need a little fine tuning, yakub.
There are many films with no computer effects at all. Surely they are not infinitely good?
Also, the system could be abused by certain directors/producers who script films themselves. Kevin Costner, for example, could improve the apparent worth of one of his films, by paying himself an inordinate sum for an inferior script.
||Lemon: There are some who say this has already happened.