Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Henry W Jones
The Star Wars pics were just to make a point about what Vic said about CGI. Not so much to talk about Star Wars.
|
Yeah, but you could have made the point - which was tangential to begin with to what Vic was saying, since what he does isn't models isn't anymore than it is CGI - with some Indy photos, is all. (And Sharkey's point about the origin of the first photo, though expressed indelicately, is well taken.)
Moving right along...
It strikes me that the really interesting portion of the Armstrong interviews with regards to the merits of on-set work as opposed to CGI is this:
Quote:
THN: What is the most satisfying aspect of working as a stuntman or coordinator?
VA: The greatest fun is the creativity and originality. Every golf course is 18 holes with so many par fours and so many par threes. The lay of the land all has its own character, and I like to think of that in terms of action, let the location suggest what’s going to happen. We know what we need story-wise out of a sequence but the actual turn of events will be dictated by the location. In the end, coming up with something original is very satisfying.
|
Spielberg, as numerous behind-the-scenes accounts indicate, was a master at coming up with bits based on what was on set or on location. Armstrong's commentary here suggests that a stunt coordinator works the same way to a considerable extent, in concert with the director or not. The drawback of CGI shooting when it involves non-physical sets is that it takes away this part of the creative process. Obviously, stunts require a certain degree of planning anyhow, especially when there's insurance matters or things that would need to be re-set if they go wrong (as Vic expresses in the horse-tank jump anecdote), but there's still going to be some further room for inventiveness with real sets and real stunts.
