In what ways does Mellencamp challenge the arguments regarding virtual technologies and immersive experiences put forth in Scott Bukatman’s “Zooming Out”? For Mellencamp, what happens to narrative in the digital age? In what ways is The Matrix a gaming rather than a traditional film viewing experience?
According to Baudrillard, what is the "hyperreal"?
Mellencamp challenges Budkatmen’s argument of the narrative becoming subservient to the technological immersion techniques of recent sci-fi cinema. Even though one inhabits the film suggesting a type of interactivity and immersion, Melloncamp argues that it still is just vision, and we remain in the dark compared to videogames, which is arguably the opposite. For Bukatmen these narratives “are not revolutionary; they are playfull”, but Mellencamp disagrees by addressing how the digital era of hypertext and interaction questions and brings forth new structures of narrative. For Mellencamp the narrative in the digital age is still confined to the conventions of cause and effect logic, however, they inevitably change over time such as in revolutionary steps; now it playful ones as Bukatman suggests.
ReplyDeleteThe hyperreal is the text that takes on life with no origin. Much like Harroway’s idea of the cyborg it is an illegitimate creature with no history. The sovereign difference between the symbol and what it represents is torn. The laws of reality are imbedded in the special effects, rather than what than how the special effects were achieved. According to Baudrillard it is a “map that that no longer perceives the territory, no survives it”. This map Baudrillard speaks of is where the battles are fought and one rather than being the tool to conceptualize the battle.
Nicholas Lawrence 319
Mark Semke, 301
ReplyDeleteMellancamp argues that The Matrix is a totally submersive experience, drawing the viewer into its complicated world with style and finesse. It is described in the essay as a "hybrid, mutable object-simultaneously old and new, physical and emphemeral, real and virtual, analog and digital." (p.84) The special effects in the film are critical to the movie, used to move the narrative and the story, a rare thing in today's entertainment environment. The narrative in the digital age is altered, and the moviemakers must incorporate new technologies and advancements in special effects into the story which, if done right, can create a truly interactive and rewarding viewing experience.
The Matrix provides a almost video game like experience in that it makes you feel like the character of Neo, experiencing what is happening to him vicariously. Much in the same way that you "are" the character in the video game, The Matrix creates a virtual world in which "we are whom we believe we are."
The hyperreal is the inability of the conciousness to distinguish fantasy from reality. Any successful special effects laden film should help to play with this notion, and take the viewer to a place that they were not expecting.
According to Mellencamp, modern cinema draws too much attention to the technology and special effects within the film which takes away from the importance and necessity of the narrative. Gone are the days when special effects were used to enhance the experience rather than provide one. In the digital age of today, film cannot surpass the visual experience and move into interactivity, though there is an extensive use of new technologies, which degrades the narrative. One film, according to Mellencamp, does however surpass this boundary more successfully than other films - The Matrix. Through its futuristic yet visually modern story, the viewer explores “alternative reality” from the perspective of the main protagonist, Neo, in an almost interactive video game sense. Many scenes are filmed in a first person perspective, suggesting a visual method of interactivity, i.e. when Neo awakens in the “real world.” The film’s effects are revolutionary and beautiful, and compared to other films effects are used as a means to enhance the experience rather than provide.
ReplyDelete“Hyperreal” is a philosophy that bridges the gap between the real and the fantastic. Within the film media, hyperreal exists as the ability to draw the viewer into the cinema and experience the film with as much immersive reality as possible. If the film maintains a believable story and moderately limited effects, the proposed experience can be successfully real.
Dave Myszewski - Film 319
Challenging Budkatmens’s argument, Mellencamp believes that special effects in modern filmmaking take precedence in filmmaking. One such film that is pulled from the contemporary selection of film that debunks this is that of, “The Matrix”. This film as Mellecamp describes is a film that uses the film’s special effects to further the story rather than overtake the narrative of what is trying to be presented. Mellencamp also proclaims that in our time period, the special effects are essential in giving the film a connection to the audience, and with the example of, “The Matrix”, the story is propelled by effects not driven by them.
ReplyDelete“Hyperreal”, is a term, which correlates with the illusion of reality done by special effects in science fiction films. Most notably in, “The Matrix”, which used this, “Hypereal” term to execute groundbreaking techniques in transporting the audience to another place. For example the scene in which Neo, the main character, dodges bullets as they fly past him is a perfect example. Reason being that the effect is so convincing to the eye that reality becomes fantasy, and creates another reality. This creation gives the viewer a world to inhibit and thus gives the viewer sense of realism, when in fact there is none.
Mellencamp challenges Scott Bukatman’s reading of the role that technological advance in the digital age has affected change in the real world. Markedly, Mellencamp uses the Wachowski film, The Matrix to prove his point. To Mellencamp, films like The Matrix are not simply playfully-immersive as Bukatman would like to describe them, they are “cultural signposts of change”. Both Mellencamp and Bukatman describe the role the technology and special effects have had in changing the way that narrative is dealt with. Using the example of The Matrix, the draw on computer gaming is evident in the long corridors that characters escape from, or the agents that die only to return over and over again. To Bukatman, narrative has systematically been replaced by special effects, degraded to the point where the special effect itself becomes the entire draw to the film. Mellencamp’s view differs here; he sees special effect and the fantastic spectacle of film to have changed the way that we see narrative in film. Its clear to me that as time has changed and we have become more familiar with technology, become more immersed in it and have been given access to knowledge on an international scale, its only reasonable to say that the global consciousness has changed. We have come to expect different things from film, as we have all fundamentally changed. After all, even special effect loses its novelty over time.
ReplyDeleteAlicia Cruz 319
Mellencamp argues that although a film is made to have an interactive feel, it still isn't like a videogame. In a film, we can do nothing but sit there, though we may feel like we are experiencing it. In videogames, we influence the story moving forward. In the digital age, narrative is affected by special effects. This does not mean that the film is ruined, but enhanced. The plot needs unknown technology to move forward and without special effects we would not see this unknown technology. Although the Matrix is really not like a videogame, it can feel like one. The story follows Neo the whole time. A lot of the time we see what he sees. When he is transported from the fake world to Zion we essentially live what he lives. That scene is clearly part Neo's hallucination so we are seeing something only he can see. This reminds us of a videogame where everything is from our character's perspective. But it isn't a videogame because we can't influence it and because we things from other points-of-view sometimes.
ReplyDeleteThe hyperreal is a mixture of fantasy and real life. Technology seeps into real life so much that they are interconnected. In science fiction, technology usually plays a big part and without it the story would not be the same. This is a fusion of extreme technology and ideas and our normal reality. Together, reality has become altered.
Julianne Arnstein 319
Jon Elliott
ReplyDeleteFilm 319
If we closely examine both the Mellencamp article as well as the Bukatman one, we see that they’re opposite ends of the spectrum. Bukatman argues that the use of special effects in films takes away from the narrative of the story being told in films. Mellencamp argues that films like the matrix have “special effects not primarily used for “razzle dazzle.” On the contrary, they move the narrative and tell the story, which is rare.” (CR 267) I agree with Mellencamp on this argument, to some extents special effects and visuals does take away from the narrative, but for films like, back to the future or the matrix, special effects are necessary to have to make the story complete.
The narrative is taken to places it has never been in this digital age. It expands our imagination and understanding of how the story works. It is not lost as Bukatman would say, but it is reworked, reshaped, and recycled into something new and creative. The matrix has a lot of video game qualities to it that can relate to today, and even many years ago when virtual reality was a science fiction fad. We identify with the protagonist Neo and out ourselves in his shoes, we step into this world that is complexly virtual, nothing is real, much like a computer game. The only thing real is the effects the game does to the user, for example, if you bleed in the matrix, you bleed in real life, much like if you stare at blinking lights in a computer game for a long time, you get seizures, I know of no seizure causing films in the traditional experience.
Bukatman argued that virtual technologies in films “provide a release from casual structures like narrative.” This means that a film’s narrative and special effects don’t interact with each other, or could even be mutually exclusive. Mellencamp disagrees with this argument, positing The Matrix as an example of how special effects and the narrative of a film can be tied to one another. In The Matrix, the special effects are the narrative. Without them, there would be no story to tell. Further, Bukatman argues that the “immersive experiences” encompass a film itself along with online advertisements and computer games. Mellencamp disagrees because he feels there is a large difference between the “spectacular, kinetic events of big-budget… sci-fi spectacles and… of two-way interaction that computers involve.”
ReplyDeleteIn the digital age, narrative and special effects are inextricably linked. Also, the lines between game and film are blurred. In The Matrix, many of the scenes and mis-en-scene of the film are closer to the traditional video game than a movie. An example is in Trinity’s opening sequence where “its space and tone are just like the graphic architecture of a computer game with its telescoped corridors.” Further, the camera angles in the film suggest that the audience is in Neo’s place – quite like a video game.
The “hyperreal” is what we project onto the real world to make it more “real.” For instance, a detailed map of a region takes the place of the actual region in our minds. (The way I see Baudrillard’s “hyperreal” is like a model of the solar system. When I think of our solar system, rather than seeing the actual solar system, my thought goes directly to the cheap plastic model of the planets I had as a kid.) Baudrillard’s argument also encompasses the fantasy in our own world – for instance Disneyland, which “is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest [of America] is real, when in fact [all of America] is on the order of hyperreal.”
Sandra Figueira - Film 301
Mellencamp writes, "I think there is a huge difference between the spectacular, kinetic effects of events like big-budget, big-screen sci-fi spectacles and the interactive, everyday, and ongoing subjectivity of the computer and of the two-way interaction that computers involve. (Pg 270)" Mellencamp argues with Bukatman by stating that the new digital technologies within the media are not destined to overwhelm the viewers in science fiction flicks, as Bukatman believes. Mellencamp states that narratives and stories of the everyday still pose as much for movies as the stunning visuals in CGI. "The Matrix" offers itself as an example, consisting of an equal amount of action-packed special effects that move the story along just as well as the dialogue, acting, and so forth. Mellencamp believes that narrative plotlines are pushed aside by the enveloping muscle of traumatic spectacles and engagements. As "The Matrix" proves, films can compare to video games, such as how Morpheus addresses Neo by breaking the fourth wall and staring directly into the camera and at the audience. Also, the action within a film can relate to the action in a game where heroes and villains chase each other down in mazes, firing guns, dying, and multiplying to create more difficulty and higher tension.
ReplyDeleteBaudrillard states that hyperreality is the attempted representation of the imagination within reality, but inexplicably becomes a hybrid of the two, forming a non-reality, non-imagination breed between both existences. Disneyland is his prime example, a location personifying cartoons and dreams, yet residing with realities such as adults and rules. "It is no longer a question of false representation of reality, but of concealing the fact that the fact is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle. (Pg 259)"
Matthew Balz
319
It seems that in Mellencamp’s article, there are agreements made with much of what is said in Bukatman’s article but different views on a few of the points being made. The notions of “kaleidoscopic perception” and “terminal identity” are great ways of looking at how cinema could be looked at as a sort of other world that we inhabit, with its own space and important notions at looking at how new technologies in effects are changing cinema. Mellencamp disagrees, however, that the narrative within these technological effects driven films is being subverted. Mellencamp claims that these new effects are changing the way the narrative can be presented to the audience and creating new opportunities for creating interesting ways of delivering the narrative. Especially in a film like the matrix, these effects are essential to narrative. “In one sense, these films are questioning the casual structure of narrative, as well as fashioning new forms, emerging in the digital era of hypertext, hyperlink, and two-way (at least) interaction/participation.” (Mellencamp, 90-91)
ReplyDeleteMellencamp also makes an argument how The Matrix tends to lean toward a gaming experience rather than a traditional film experience. She claims this is due to the sort of first-person nature of story-telling, which is featured in many first person shooter video games. The camera is set in Neo’s perspective or dropped just behind him, and Morpheus even speaks directly to the camera at one point in the film, placing the viewers as a character within the narrative.
Hyper-real is the meshing of the real life and the fantastic, blurring the lines of what is possible and impossible. This is achieved in cinema, and especially in science fiction by using effects to help draw one into the film without being aware of the “unreal” aspects of the experience.
-Alex Sokovich 319
Ron Film 301
ReplyDeleteThe strategy that Bukatman uses concepts from the computer thought and makes conservative arguments for this shift. He has this idea the science fiction ‘plays a significant role in forming subjectivity’ which is a huge part of the Matrix. Mellencamp believes that gap between what is real and what is not has been narrowed. The narrative in the digital ages criticizes new technology but also uses it in a film to entertain us. The film shows how technology can get out of control and kill the human race but also shows it in a way that does not scare the audience.
The Matrix is like a game in that it has a mysterious introduction where the main actor in the film Keanu Reeves has the option of taking one pill that will so him what the matrix is all about and the other pill that will ultimately take him back to world that in Neo’s mind is reality when it is fact just a computer generated memory. This mystery has the set up of a video game but also the computer animated slow motion action that occurs in the fighting scenes. Baudrillard concludes that hyperreal basically prevents one from distinguishing the differences between what is real and what is fantasy. This done by ‘an irradiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere’ which means it closes the gap between fantasy and reality.
Mellencamp mentions that the Matrix(1999) moves through different mediums, implying that there is a difference between forms of media and it is not just simply screen space as Bukatman states.
ReplyDeleteMellencamp disputes Bukatman’s use of the term immersion used in an older context, “as recent virtual realities that have made irrelevant the distinction between the virtual and the real.” She also points out the difference between spectacular big budget events and the everyday ongoing subjectivity of the computer. The big budget events stay focused on vision, while everyday computer interactivity is more tactile. Mellencamp also points out that in the Matrix the special effects drive the narrative, instead of a narrative existing for the awake of special effects, which is often the case, especially according to Bukatman. Finally, the Matrix is like a game in that it is kaleidoscopic and interactive in the choice it gives the audience regarding the red or blue pills. It is also game like in that it is a fantasy world of graphic design.
According to Baudrillard the hyper real is “the product of an irradiating synthesis of combinatory models in hyper space without atmosphere.” It is referring to simulation that is not based of “charted territory” it is real but without origin or reality, so “hyperreal.”
joe steigerwald 319
While Bukatman talks about how technology and visual effects are more of a creative expansion of the traditional cinematic experience, Mellencamp argues that these technologies are more crucial and important to the cinematic narrative. Films like The Matrix make the technology and visual effects experience central to the plot of the film; they are central to conflict between reality and virtual reality in the film. He also states that this integration of technology and filmmaking is an important part of the evolution of cinema. For Mellencamp, as we continue to become more and more integrated into the “digital age”, the technologies and visuals need to be part of the cinema in order for us to believe the narrative. Narrative needs the visual effects in order to survive. Why The Matrix is more like a gaming experience is partly because of it pure investment into adrenaline inducing action and effects and partly because the story deal specifically with the control of virtual space. This is because we follow the main character (Neo) as he is trying to learn how to play the game (The Matrix system), and eventually as he completes the game by defeating Agent Smith. The “Hyperreal” relates to the special effects and stunts in films such as The Matrix through it’s ability to present impossible situations in a realistic way, in a way that we cannot tell the border between the real and the visual effect.
ReplyDelete- Toby Staffanson - Film 319
Clarissa P. Ramos
ReplyDeleteFilm 301
In “Zooming Out: The End of Offscreen Space” Bukatman views the correlation between new media and science fiction. Bukatman creates and argument while he “refers to John Belton’s analysis of technological spectaculars in which ‘plot is replaced by audience envelopment. In large-format events, the causal chains of narrative are displaced by a more participatory, bodily engagement”. Mellencamp expresses how films such as The Matrix, Run Lola Run, Existen2, and Being John Melodic “are questioning the casual structure of narrative, as well as fashioning new forms, emerging in the digital era of hypertext, hyperlink, and two-way (at least) interaction/participation. For Bukatman, they are not revolutionary; they are playful” (91). When viewing The Matrix, there is a sense of a gaming experience which differs from the way that the audience would view traditional films due to the impact of Japanese animation and comics on computer gaming. Throughout The Matrix, the viewer is able to disregard the traditional, every day life and approach a world of fantasy. “In the twitch, or click and shoot games, we can charge through mazes firing at the bad guys who suddenly confront us, die and then multiply, our goal being to get through various levels of difficulty” (92). After “dying” multiple times, the gamer has the ability to persist in attempting to complete the game and with repetition and willpower, can ultimately win the game. It is apparent that The Matrix signifies a gaming technique in the beginning of the film when Trinity charges through the hotel “turning corners only to meet agents, the set design, its space and tone are just like the graphic architecture of a computer game with its telescoped corridors, a labyrinth of halls leading to cavernous rooms” (93). Baudrillard defines the “hyperreal” as something that is not real any longer. Instead it is “the product of an irradiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere” (170).
Mellencamp sees us as much more willing participants in our subjective experiences with technology. While on one hand he agrees with Bukatman’s assessment that technology is an immersive science, he questions whether or not ‘immersion’ is a good term for these new genre’s of expereince. He argues that there is not enough distinction between the ‘real’ and the ‘virtual’ experience, essentially pointing out that Bukatman’s assessment may be both too broad and, outdated. He says there is a palpable difference between the big budget movie experience, and the one on one interaction computer and video games offer.
ReplyDeleteMellencamp offers that in this day and age, narrative is becoming simultaneously being deconstructed, and resurrected in newer, more subjective and accessible forms. In The Matrix, for instance, the camera angles and movements are very similar to ones one might experience in video games; sometimes confining the subject to narrow corridors, obscuring the adjacent rooms. Additionally, the special effects are not merely showy, but essential to the viewing experience. Without them, the audience would be left guessing at what kinds of things the fabled matrix might include.
The hyperreal, as Baudrillard describes it, entails a reality with no confines of history or origin. This enables titles and places such as “Disneyland” wherein there is no real interaction with one’s surroundings save for the public restrooms.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor Mellencamp, the question of immersion, “a key term for gamers, digital thinkers, and virtual reality builders,” cannot still be easily placed into an older context in which Bukatman’s argues - needing to be updated beyond the perceptions and references of turn-of-the-century urban industrialism. (90) He also argues that there is “a huge difference” between big-budget movies and the two-way interactions involved with computers – one being visual and the other being tactile. According to Mellencamp, revolutionary new structures of narratives are emerging from “the digital era of hypertext, hyperlink, and two-way (at least) interaction/participation.” (91)
ReplyDeleteThe Matrix is more of a gaming than traditional film viewing experience mainly because of the relation between the protagonist and the audience along with the structure of the narrative. Often the film takes place from the subject's perspective – “a position of first-person subjectivity… where we are on a quest, or holding the gun, where we are the main character searching for truth.” (86) In terms of narrative, it is similar to an adventure game where “we make our way through a fantasy world of graphic design by creating and developing a character as we go, picking up clues” and increasing in difficulty. (92) When the movie starts, Keanu Reeves’ character is just simply the dull Thomas Anderson. After a little while he transforms into Neo – the computer hacker – and then eventually into the “the One.”
According to Baudrillard, hyperreal is “the product of an irradiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere” (170) along with “the generation by models of a real without origin or reality.” (169)
Joseph Michals - Film 319
Mellencamp questions whether "immersion, a key term for gamers, digital thinkers, and virtual reality builders, can so easily be placed into an older context, without acknowledging its updated forms and effects" that make the distinctions between reality and virtual reality irrelevant. Mellencamp things that there is a huge difference between spectacular and and everyday; 'the first events focus on vision while the second ones are more tactile'
ReplyDeleteThe narrative becomes limitless having no boundaries or restraints from history or origin. The boundaries that narrative would conform to are essentially rubbed from white and black lines into a grayish blur.
What makes the matrix more video game like than movie like is the filmmaker's decision to have the matrix be in binary (the end) as well as having "players" (main characters) learn how to do things in a spit second; for example trinity learning how to fly a helicopter in seconds, this is comparable to 'unlocks' in video games.
Mellencamp's argument essentially is the opposite of Bukatman's of last week. Here the argument is that technology and special effects have the ability to add to the story or narrative as opposed to take away from the narrative (as Bukatman argued last week). The comparison between video games and cinema is that the later is considered something we observe (watch/experience) while the former we have some control over the plot/characters. The Matrix combines these elements, not that we have control over the events but that we experience them in many the same ways we do in many video games. There are shots that show the screen in much the same way many first person shooter games are "filmed."
ReplyDeleteThe term "hyper-real" combines elements of "our" reality and elements of a fictional one. This combination of the two is extremely convincing and helps the viewer become more immersed in the movie. The prime example is Disneyland, an actual place in physical reality dedicated to cartoon characters and their "imagined" reality.
Mellencamp challenges the arguments regarding Bukatman’s ideas on virtual technologies and immersive experiences in numerous different ways throughout his text. He uses The Matrix as in example of how his ideas are different from Bukatman. Bukatman discusses how science fiction films are incorporating more and intense special effects which eliminates and creates a simple narrative. Whereas Mellencamp refers to the narrative in The Matrix as “central” and “fashioning new forms…and narratives in which conventions of cause-effect logic, like reality itself” (90, 91). Disagreeing with Mellencamp Bukatman refers to narratives in movies like The Matrix as playful. In the article it states that special effects in the digital age are helping enhance the narrative which disagrees with Buktaman that narratives are being dulled down due the special effects. The Matrix seems to be more of a game then a tradition film, because the audiences are put into the virtual computer world of Neo and we are absorbed into his world. The reason it is not a video game because we are unable to control the outcomes of the movie and the actions Neo partakes in.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Baudrillard a hyperreal is “the product of an irradiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere” (170). In similar terms it is the imaginary real. In The Matrix humans are unable to actually send their bodies into a computer world, but we can hack into computers and use computers by knowing the proper knowledge to use computers. The Matrix is using hyperreal by instead of having a movie with people sitting at their computers it sends them inside a computer world, creating an imaginary real.
Alex Moehn, 301
Mellencamp disagrees with the idea that special effects draw away from the narrative and make it less important to the film. Bukatman seems to think that if a film had special effects it isn't really a film as much as someone just "playing" and doesn't take the piece seriously it seems. Mellencamp argues that in these films he chose to discuss that the effects are linked to the narrative and help to guide it along. The viewer is not distracted by the effects as much as drawn into this world more. Mellencamp also discusses how the Misenscene is very similar to computer games, specifically the way the hallways and corridors are designed to look. Baudrillard's definition of hyperreal is "the product of an irradiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere". Which I need to reread the chapter to fully understand this.
ReplyDeleteMellencamp challenges the arguments regarding virtual technologies and immersive experiences in Scott Bukatman’s “Zooming Out” in his text. He questions weather it’s appropriate for Bukatman to use the term “kaleidoscopic perception” and “terminal identity” when referring to the movie the Matrix. Mellencamp argues that that the narrative within these technological effects driven films is being subverted. He talks about the visual effects in this article, he states that special effects in the digital age are helping enhance the narrative which disagrees with Buktaman that narratives are being dulled down due the special effects.
ReplyDeleteMellencamp then argues that the Matrix is more of a gaming experience than a traditional film viewing experience because we view the events and narrative similar to what gamers view video games as. It’s more of a first person viewer game that you experience while playing video games in a first-person shooter. There’s also attention directed right to the camera when Morpheus looks directly at the camera, depicted viewers at part of the game.
Quentin Hughes
Film 301
Mellencamp believes that these new virtual experiences and effects make it possible for the for narratives to actually function as a film. He sites The Matrix as one of those films, without that technology to achieve the effects in the film the narrative couldn't be conveyed. No longer are the effects a spectacle that is some sort of break from the story, but in the "digital age" are required to help tell the story. The Matrix can be seen as more of a video game in that it uses a lot of point of view camera angles, but at the same tiime you are still just the viewer because you have no control on his actions. Hyperreal is basically our ability to imagine something such as the Earth but the image that we imagine could be something superficial like a globe or possibly a map rather than a real view of the Earth.
ReplyDeleteBukatman views things like ride-films, games and theme park rides as extensions of the narrative world that allow the viewer to inhabit the world of the narrative. Mellencamp sees things like computer games to be more of an interactive experience, allowing the player to participate in an interactive role rather than being just a passive viewer. The Matrix uses digital technology and special effects to separate the “real” world from the matrix in the film, when we see that this “real” world takes place outside of what we know and consider to be real, we are able to view our world differently and accept the impossible actions of the film’s characters as possible.
ReplyDeleteJoshua McClain Film 319
ReplyDeleteI am torn on this issue in the Science fiction realm. Mellencamp obviously loves the new addition of computer generated images into films, and realizes that they have their place in the narrative. Some stories would not be able to be told if it weren’t for CGI. There are obviously examples on both sides where CGI ruined the movie and where it added just the right believability to the situation. Bukatman would have a serious case if he brought any Star Wars film made after 1990 to the table and said that CGI takes away from the narrative. CGI is a tool and it needs to stay that way. Mellencamp tries to allow the movie to play out and not be distracted by the special effects. It will only be a problem if people refuse to suspend their disbelief. As far as narrative in the digital age is concerned, it has a myriad of ways of growing. For this movie specifically, the Matrix, The Wachowski brothers wanted to make a film that existed in many formats. Anime, film, computer RPGs, and video games. If you have played the game enter the matrix you will realize that you learn even more about the story in the game and the Wachowski Brothers consider that game part of the narrative. It even explains why the oracle is a different lady in the second movie. Multi-media movies are very successful and even bring out a sub-culture of people ready to dive into it and play in it.
Actually i think it is outstanding post. Thank's a lot for your post. celebrity interviews
ReplyDelete