Where do we draw the line?

As we are talking about hyper-hybrid animation and films that rely entirely on visual effects to achieve their look, where do we draw the line as what is animation and what is not? Visual effects have become a part of every film, with replacing backgrounds, removing objects, and fixing everything in between, how sacred is film at this point? Have we reached a stage where everything is animation once again?

Comments

  1. I've also been wondering where the line is drawn between animation and live action. So many films are almost entirely animated, but a few actors on screen make it a "live action" film. Particularly with the new Lion King film--there's literally no live action elements in that film. It should be called the CGI Lion King rather than live action. Just because it's a different kind of animation doesn't mean it's not animated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Madison that the line has become so blurred, now more than ever. Even looking at Marvel films, people consider it live action yet half the costumes and weapons are done in post production. But what separates Iron Man from the Polar Express? How does a film done in CGI with real actors differentiate from Robert Downey Jr in a green suit?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bratz: Rock Angelz is the movie I didn't know I needed

The New Spider Man!