[rollei_list] Re: Scanning
- From: Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:53:37 +0200
I would say that in my opinion, creativity thrives where there is limitation,
be it artficially imposed or a simple fact of life.
Take away the limitations, and you take away the need for people to think
differently, to change paradigms and to put together existing knowlege in new
and unique manners.
Avatar might have been a marvel for the senses, but the storyline/plot sucked.
Just my opinion :-)
Thor
On 17. okt. 2011, at 07.58, David Sadowski wrote:
> When I talk about the limitations of film vs. digital, what I had in mind was
> the difference between filming the original King Kong in 1933 and redoing it
> in the 21st century.
>
> All sorts of effects are easier to do today, and there were many shots in the
> original that were hard to do and took a great deal of time and effort.
> Whereas today, they can pretty much put anything up there on the screen.
>
> But if I had to choose, I would prefer the 1933 Kong over any remake. And
> that is because despite the limitations of film, or perhaps because of those
> limitations, people back then had to work harder and be more creative.
>
> Today there are a million options, a zillion choices. Sometimes having too
> many choices makes you less creative.
>
> Same thing with Buster Keaton. What Keaton did in the 1920s is nothing short
> of amazing, despite the limitations of what he had to work with in terms of
> film technology.
>
> But that doesn't mean we can't be creative today in other ways- look at
> Avatar.
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
