All right. I just always join the battle in defense of CGI because it's the greatest thing to happen to movies since sound (which was also derided) and people are so ignorantly contemptuous.

The whole point of clowns is that they pre-date television cameras — they look like that because they have to "read" as humans with recognizable characteristics and facial expressions from hundreds of feet away, across a circus tent. So everything about them is insanely exaggerated — because they have to be funny from…

1) I think you mean increasing lack of purity.

Conspicuous absence of Mike Nelson. Not even mentioned!

An extremely high proportion of spouses/partners who are at sci-fantasy movies on dates and aren't familiar with the onscreen material are female.

That's actually very funny.

We're getting into the semantics of "real."

Which seems strange to me because (as someone who's done some professional CGI work) the animated X-wings and the animated Tarkin are absolutely the same philosophical and technological approach to cinema: in both cases, you're using a computer's understanding of light and physics and surfaces and optics and film…

But (and, thanks for continuing the discussion reasonably; I appreciate it especially since this topic makes people so crazy) — but, this is how we get there, isn't it? As in all those other examples — cars, computers, airplanes, painting, architecture, music, anything: civilization exists because people don't say,…

You're crazy

Respectfully, it still seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Fair and valid. Please read my post below (or above) — response to "GAC" about CGI people and arbitrary distinctions (which starts "Look, damn it…").

Look, damn it…it's "distracting" when the DeLorean goes through Marty and Doc while they're standing in the Twin Pines Mall parking lot and they're not casting shadows or reflections. It's "distracting" when you can see the matte line around the Starship Enterprise. It's "distracting" when you cut to the Emerald City…

The gender-specificity was unnecessary; I admit this. I just meant, spouses or significant others who go along for the movie night (or sit on the couch watching LOST or whatever) but have no idea who anybody is or what's going on in genre fiction.

I deliberately didn't say anything about Leia, for that reason.

But either way, it means you're sitting there with your arms crossed (literally or figuratively) going No, no, no, no! which kind of guarantees that you're just never going to buy it no matter how well they do it, right?

READ THE ARTICLE

If she said "Van Helsing" that means she recognized him as a specific '70s actor, which means she knew it wasn't actually him. I'm talking about the wives-and-girlfriends who (much more typically) don't know who anybody is or what's going on (in any geek material) and who therefore completely missed that there was…

Your second statement kind of invalidates the first, doesn't it? You're saying it's a "sin" which is pretty close to saying it's objectively impossible; no matter how much they improve it, you won't approve.

Don't you think you're maybe overreacting a little bit?