If Picasso had painted a version of his imagination of what the Mona Lisa was, and if he'd then claimed that this was the Mona Lisa, and given it that name, and people looked at his version and said the way he'd got those different sized eyes and huge grin was so much better than Leonardo's, people who like Leonardo would probably feel pissed off that discourse about Leonardo's work was now defined wholly in terms of comparison of the two pieces. And that's granting that Picasso was a genius.
But that doesn’t address what Goljerp said. Jo, you might have an easier time of this if you imagine that we}re talking about a movie made from some other book, one you’ve read and enjoyed, but don’t have a strong emotional attachment to.
I’m a visual person, right? Not everybody visualizes what they read as they read it, but I do (and I frequently get annoyed at authors who don’t give me enough cues to build an accurate mental map of the scenery in which their action is taking place, so that I imagine one landscape, and then find a later bit of action that breaks the scene I was building). I’ve got a pretty darn good visual imagination.
The guys doing special effects for movies, they usually have pretty good visual imaginations too. Often different from mine, but just as good. When I see special effects in a movie, I’m looking at someone else’s visual imagination, and even if it’s not what I imagined reading that scene, if it’s still good, it’s interesting to me. It’s another interpretation of the work. The sets and design for Blade Runner are far better than anything I’d have imagined if I’d read How Androids Dream... before seeing the movie. (But Dick isn’t a very visual writer.)
And even in cases where the special effects are what I imagined, they’re still worthy of respect. I was amazed at the preview for the first Harry Potter movie — most of it was as if someone had taken photos of what the inside of my head looked like while I was reading the books.
I’m just as sick as everyone else is of movies where the only thing the producers paid attention to was the special effects, but I don’t think special effects themselves are worth dismissing. A badly-written movie with good special effects is still better than a badly-written movie with bad special effects (except for mockery value). Special effects are, in themselves, a form of artistic expression, and should not be dismissed, any more than visual arts in general should be dismissed. And Goljerp’s statement is dismissive of special effects in general.
My problem with special effects in general is that I only notice them if they're bad -- if they're good, then they're real. Like in one of the Star Trek movies there's a woman who turns into a big cat, and it's very well done as an effect, and I remember thinking when she did it "Ah, that's why they cast someone who can't really act for that role, there probably weren't a whole lot of werecats applying!" I did know two seconds later how stupid that was, but anyway.
I don't know if I have a visual imagination or not. I see things. But I certainly don't have visual creativity like you -- Zorinth does.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I’m a visual person, right? Not everybody visualizes what they read as they read it, but I do (and I frequently get annoyed at authors who don’t give me enough cues to build an accurate mental map of the scenery in which their action is taking place, so that I imagine one landscape, and then find a later bit of action that breaks the scene I was building). I’ve got a pretty darn good visual imagination.
The guys doing special effects for movies, they usually have pretty good visual imaginations too. Often different from mine, but just as good. When I see special effects in a movie, I’m looking at someone else’s visual imagination, and even if it’s not what I imagined reading that scene, if it’s still good, it’s interesting to me. It’s another interpretation of the work. The sets and design for Blade Runner are far better than anything I’d have imagined if I’d read How Androids Dream... before seeing the movie. (But Dick isn’t a very visual writer.)
And even in cases where the special effects are what I imagined, they’re still worthy of respect. I was amazed at the preview for the first Harry Potter movie — most of it was as if someone had taken photos of what the inside of my head looked like while I was reading the books.
I’m just as sick as everyone else is of movies where the only thing the producers paid attention to was the special effects, but I don’t think special effects themselves are worth dismissing. A badly-written movie with good special effects is still better than a badly-written movie with bad special effects (except for mockery value). Special effects are, in themselves, a form of artistic expression, and should not be dismissed, any more than visual arts in general should be dismissed. And Goljerp’s statement is dismissive of special effects in general.
From:
no subject
My problem with special effects in general is that I only notice them if they're bad -- if they're good, then they're real. Like in one of the Star Trek movies there's a woman who turns into a big cat, and it's very well done as an effect, and I remember thinking when she did it "Ah, that's why they cast someone who can't really act for that role, there probably weren't a whole lot of werecats applying!" I did know two seconds later how stupid that was, but anyway.
I don't know if I have a visual imagination or not. I see things. But I certainly don't have visual creativity like you -- Zorinth does.