Ridley Scott On The Dangers Of Digital Special Effects

Ridley Scott talks about the dangers of digital special effects and how it "very often takes the fear factor" out of films.

CONNECT WITH AFI:
http://facebook.com/AmericanFilmInstitute
http://twitter.com/AmericanFilm
http://AFI.com/members

AFI FACEBOOK APP:
http://apps.facebook.com/afiytapp/

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• ridley
• scott
• AFI
• American
• Film
• Institute
• 100
• years
• 10
• top
• ten
• hollywood
• movies
• movie
• los
• angeles
• alien
• blade
• runner
• gladiator
• free
• tony
• thelma
• and
• louise
• sigourney
• weaver
• cyborg
• cat
• Necronomicon
• digital
• special
• effects
• fear
• real
• ilm
• industrial
• light
• magic
• domain
• interview
• talk
• talking

[MuninRaven]

I think Ridley is one of the very few long standing directors that really understands CGI and it's place in film making. When I was growing up in the 80's, it was usually Ridley and Cameron that were pushing my imagination buttons. Having seen the films these two directors have made in the last 15 or so years; I see Cameron continually go for money shot after money shot , while Ridley always seems to embrace current tech in a very understated and thoughtful way.

[FlyingSpanners]

Give this man a medal!

[5tateOfEmergency]

the man is right...i honestly haven't been scared by a movie since 'The Excorcist'

[Intestified]

Very true Mr. Scott.

[justincgs]

Why can't you idiots post the entire interview and not jumble it up in a bunch of pieces!

ASSHATS!

TOTAL

For that very reason I won't subscribe nor visit the channel again!

[SciFiGuy93]

I think there are both positive and negetive things about CGI. The positive thing about it is that you get movies with great special effects which make them really Awesome ! The negetive thing about it is that some people want to see movies that were made the old-fashioned way.

[CCGdude09]

i wish george lucas can hear this

[AVATARdemon113]

@xaxie1 But he doesn't completely thrash CGI like Cameron, Micheal Bay and JJ Abrams etc. He could if he wanted to, but he's artisticly selective about it. He couldn't have set a film in Ancient Rome without having the amazing views of the Coloseum in all it's former Glory (even if it was oversized).

[firstworldproblem]

This is why digital projection itself is taking some of the emotion out of a cinema experience, because it's making everything a computer generated image in some way. It used to be that CGI creations were put onto celluloid, and were somehow entering our messy analog world, and at least having that amount of gravitas. Now it's the other way around, as our flesh-and-blood counterparts recede into a massless gleam of numerical contrivance. Works for the small screen but not big.

[deyoungparker]

Why aren't more people talking about this? CGI is awesome. It's so many great things. But SCARY isn't one of them. It's ruining horror films. No matter how perfect the detail is, the human brain knows digital when it sees it. And when the brain knows it's just looking at pixels, it's not scary. Even bad old effects - crappy fake blood, weird latex masks - still had a creepy, unsettling effect because it was still tangible. It was still physical. I hope there's a backlash soon.

[xaxie1]

@MuninRaven

Although I must say Robin Hood and Gladiator had quite abit of CGI, although I prefur Gladiator 10x to Avatar

[ThePaperCreator]

@xaxie1 Noo he is saying CGI is good but maney people use it too much. They depend on it too much. That's what I think he was saying in my opionon.