Anyone else sick of CGI?

I'd give that movie a pass on excessive CGI, since it's designed to look like the original comic books, which were severely monochromatic with the occasional splash of color.

BTW, does Frank Miller even have to show up to get director's credits on these films, or are the original comic books, which are followed so faithfully they could be said to be the storyboards of the films, enough to establish directorship?

 

she looked fabulous! Sream of joy?

 

I believe Rodriguez has said the current film had Miller on the set every single day, and he's credited as co-writer and co-director. Rodriguez likes and respects Miller enough that he quit the Directors Guild when they initially didn't want to allow him to be credited on the first Sin City. George Lucas also had quit the DGA back in 1980 after the credit dispute on Empire.

 

His then-wife brought us sandwiches! Very nice lady.

 

We had "Tora, Tora, Tora" done on computers, it was called "Pearl Harbor".

 

I just watched OHMSS tonight and it really hit home what great camera work there was.

 

It's strangely appropriate that you mention Children of Men in this thread because those long "unbroken" shots were accomplished through use of computers stitching shorter shots together. It's certainly a stylistic choice (Zemeckis did this in Contact as well) but I can't say that I found it to be very effective in this particular film as a means of storytelling. There's a tension in actual unbroken long shots that I haven't felt with the computer stitching, just as there is a feeling with practical visual effects that doesn't exist in most CG effects work.

 

The human element is missing. The tension and relief comes from human imperfection, I think: knowing something usually can't be done (so much could/should go wrong), and the sense of awe when it is accomplished. CG is straight up cheating (boring too) so there's no impact.