Hyperreal sucks

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
21

Two-and-two-thirds thoughts here:

  • I very much liked the original render of Big Buck Bunny, and am annoyed that it is now hard to find. Even though the re-render might be “technically, improved,” you should never make unavailable what people have come to know and love.

  • To that end, I reveal that I am old enough to remember “the Star Wars movie.” A 35mm print exhibited at a theater which had three aisles of seats – every one filled. (The crawl said: “STAR WARS,” with no mention of “Episodes.”) Importantly, this was non-computerized(!) special effects technology, the likes of which no one on earth had yet seen before. The film was magic, and actually was included in the national film archives. But, George Lucas couldn’t leave the damned thing alone! He chopped the story-line to pieces, including gratuitous special effects, causing Han Solo to meet Jabba the Hutt (which he never did …) "not once but twice." And thereby utterly ruining a theatrical experience for me.

  • I walked out of the “Disney versions” of Star Wars, and will pay no more attention to it. Ever. Glad that George has cashed your four-billion dollar check – and no I don’t miss his “kids and kiddie creatures,” or, “God Help Us All, Jar-Jar” – but I don’t think you got your money’s worth.

  • A few years ago, I re-watched a 35mm print of Raiders of the Lost Ark, on the side-wall of a movie theater in Nashville, TN. And, as I watched the “noticeable red-shift” of that film stock, and for the first time noticed how costume and set designers of the day (necessarily, of course …) compensated for it, I experienced yet another sense of deja vu. The color scheme, although not “photo-realistic,” was to my eyes much more dynamic. I remember it. And, seeing it once again, I remember having somehow lost it.

1 Like
22

Yeah, -realism is not only boring but since reality is full of flaws (which make evolution & diversity great) aesthetically pleasing works are rare because they’re simply hard to achieve. First, one must master quite a wide variety of skill yet still, after all, the probability of it landing in the uncanny valley is extremely high. Well, even classical Greeks practiced naturalistic realism for ~ 50 years and quickly moved on to stylized with ‘idealized’. Also, one of the most important things we learned through understanding our existence and experience is the character - that which shows none is as if it doesn’t exist.

PS
Ancient Egyptian culture still holds the record for the most popular and longest lasting style.

Disclaimer: “To take with a grain of salt.”

PPS
We live in ‘hyper-real’ most of the time of our lives so, if it would please us or we’d enjoy it so much we probably wouldn’t feel the need to create, design, stylize… our memories into spectacles. :slight_smile:

23

Hyperrealism

not strict interpretations of photographs, nor are they literal illustrations of a particular scene or subject. Instead, they use additional, often subtle, pictorial elements to create the illusion of a reality which in fact either does not exist or cannot be seen by the human eye

The word you’re looking for is ‘photorealism’, which is what a lot of CG strives for.
If you just really like adding ‘hyper’ to words, okay I guess.

2 Likes
24

Hey, talking of which, are all these BACK catalogues online? On streaming? ie. if I was a kid of today, can I see the 1992 B&TB? And everything else?

25

there is a cg version of roadrunner, funny you picked this for making your point :wink:

3 Likes
26

Yes, well, I think they’re doing CGI because it’s an excuse to make the old but tried and true IP sell again. If they wanted to have cinemas show Lion King again in its original form, superior though it may be, nobody would come. A new shiny CG version though! They’ll go even if just to make sure they don’t like it, lol.

So in the end it’s not about which style is actually better, it’s about which style can sell tickets.

1 Like
27

I would go so far as to say this is just…completely NOT TRUE in several non-American, non-Western countries. Tons of people here in India watch old movies simply BECAUSE they’re old, yes it’s true. I’ll put this here, but that’s not all - :rofl: There are people like this in AMERICA too!
(this would be more true at HOME rather than the multiplex, of course.)

1 Like
28

Not disputing that there are people like that at all. But their numbers are incomparably low against how many people will go out to see a new version of their beloved old IP.

29

I remember I wasn’t so picky as a child. Could enjoy almost all content.

30

That is a question of style only for people that are not used to variety, diversity.
Disney’s hyperreal remakes are done to sell tickets because risk is minimized by a known story. Risk of disappointment is limited for everybody. But that is relative to the story, not the style.

Photorealism style is just a justification to sell a remake.

The Princess and the Frog was a worldwide success. And it was done after a series of 3D animation movies. In fact, it happened when people were becoming sick of seeing only 3D animation movies like you can be sick of only Marvel’s blockbusters.

Nobody wants to live in a desert made of one thing.
If you do something that is rare : that will attract a bunch of curious people.
If by some aspect, it is appealing : its reputation will grow.
But in a world full of distraction, there is always a risk that what is good stays unnoticed.

Big Studios are investing lost of money and they want that money back.
So, they are minimizing risks on some projects and taking a little bit more of them on other projects because there are still humans in this world.

In success, there is a part of work, a part of audacity and a part of luck.
And often, in commentaries, part of luck is neglected.

If artists, makers don’t take into account the desire for diversity, despite their potential of success : we would live in a terribly dull world.

And children don’t care about beauty.
They can look at last Pixar movie, one day and a really ugly 3D cartoon of the 90’s, the next day.
Anything is a discovery for them. They have absolutely no taste, yet.

Rejection of animation or 2D style is just a question for adults and teens, old-enough to have preconceptions.

1 Like
31

er - how would today’s kids be familiar with the original version??

32

I get US BET on my internet here, and they show Fresh Prince of Bel Air from THIRTY YEARS AGO! A mainstream broadcast US TV channel.

33

Yeah, my kids liked the new Lion King as they have no concept of nostalgia.

34

Hyperreal or not, it galls me that Disney is held up as the epitome of animated film…

1 Like
35

Who would you rather…?

36

The Japanese anime industry.
Granted they produce a lot of shit, but hidden in the flood of garbage and mediocrity are many diamonds and gold nuggets that far surpass what Disney is able to do.
Disney is the epitome of the wrong notion in the west that animated media is for children and for children only.
I think that is an absolute retarded idea and it should be rejected.

37

I suppose then it is more of a condemnation of the entire animated film industry than Disney specifically, however, just about any of Hadao Miyazaki’s films might qualify, being less puerile, less misogynist, less guilty of harmful stereotypes, more creative, more imaginative and don’t talk down to children like they’re a bunch of idiots. Ghibli movies are also stylistically quite diverse.

38

Not yet…

Every year, or even every month, sees more and more ideas, jokes, and concepts added to one or more of these categories. I would not be surprised if his films like Spirited Away get “canceled” before the decade is up.

39

Hyperreal is an art style that can be used to make good or bad art. And good or bad is personal preference. I know a lot of people like talking animal cgi & a lot of other people have different interests.

40

Well, not that many. And it sort of doesn’t happen anymore, it’s rather gone down the drain in recent years IMHO.