Technology
Which posts fit here?
Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
Denouncing the pursuit of verisimilitude is a novel response to hand-wave CGI. Are you this philosophical when a movie does spend a million dollars, to make two unrelated actors look exactly the same? Should audiences be happier if a no-budget sci-fi film has cardboard displays? It's cute, certainly. But when a central complaint is that people will notice generated elements and object to low quality, I think they're gonna notice literal cardboard.
Films are photographs. That's why The Social Network didn't just say the Winklevii were twins and expect people to pretend. Movies are a visual medium, whereas theater is mostly heard. Like how television has viewers but theater has an audience. You can Dogville it, and people will roll with that, but anything that looks fake is more commonly a technical failure than a stylistic choice.
So yes, you can tell people the tin can is a spaceship... but they'd rather be shown. The preference for showing over telling is so ingrained that it's cliche. Nobody needs to announce 'we lay our scene in fair Verona' when you can put the mediterranean coastline onscreen, and then cut to a cobblestone village where people have pointy shoes. Folks will get it. They'll get it on a level deeper than narration, or an overlay reading "Verona, Italy, 15° E, 40° N, June 17th 1435, 0700 hours." They'll get it even if the aerial shot of the coastline was bought as stock footage. Or rendered, in one way or another.
Your lack of media literacy is wild, film is entirely a honest fabrication of obvious fakes, that is the basis of cinema, the fundamental concept of the movie screen being itself simply a fake window that is honest to you about the speculative nature of the world revealed beyond.
Movies don't convey impossible things by actually creating them, they present destabilized artifice from perspectives that invite us to see the mundane everywhere as a facade disguising something quivering underneath.
You almost make a coherent point here but then you topple your entire logic.
The first lesson you learn as a writer is to show not tell and the first lesson you learn as an artist working with video is that to tell is actually something that is desperately hard to avoid doing with a video camera because at the heart of it that is all moving images can do moment to moment, unlike words untethered from direct sensation.
Thus the true skill of an artist working with photographs or video is how they continously subvert the tendency of images to exhaustingly tell instead of show.
This is kind of a basic aspect to an exploration of movies as art....?
Whether it be documentaries having to grapple with the inherent paradox of the production of the documentary affecting and telling upon what it is attempting only to honestly show a picture of, or movies about fictional things having to constantly avoid the catastrophe of the audience only attending to the literal quality of the thing presented to them scene to scene, it is all the same existential question.
Yeah imagine if I had the media literacy to describe an establishing shot's form and function, even if it was borrowed or fabricated. But as someone who's never seen a movie before, I could never suggest costume and set dressing conveying expectations beyond their literal imagery.
What are you doing?
Yes, professor, how and why I show an elephant will matter more than 'hey look, an elephant.' But in order for my intent to matter, when showing an elephant, I do require the ability to show an elephant. A depiction can't mean anything unless it happens. If I just tell you to use your imagination, that's not a movie, that's a book.
These tools let you show basically anything at basically no cost. What you want and why is your own problem. The premise, the message, and the edit are still entirely human art. This only replaces the part where real photons bounce off a fake building and look real enough on a sensor. (Or the part where a guy fakes that in Blender.)