Daenerys Targaryen to face the Terminator

[Zombie_Babies]

Which is a pity.

But if we're going to engage in an honest critique of an artistic expression, we should do so like the actual critics do. You don't hear pros saying a movie sucks because its SFX have been outdone by the march of technology.

That's not what went down. One guy said he didn't like the movie for multiple reasons - one of which was the FX. It wasn't some treatise on SFX of the time, it was a simple explanation. It developed into some oddball uber exploration of what SFX were and are cuz some people simply couldn't accept what was said for some reason.

Basically it was an offhand comment. It was presented as a regular viewer would present it and not some critic. Going past that is delving into a wholly different discussion that has little if anything to do with what was being discussed.

 

[Kramodlog]

Yes & no.

SFX are technology & engineering with aesthetic repercussions. Sure, modern CGI may look better- though there ain't no guarantee (I always thought the American Werewolf in London werewolf looked better than the one in the sequel)- but criticizing SFX that couldn't be any technically better on their aesthetics alone is, at best underinformed critique, if not outright unfair.

Are the space battles in nBSG or Bab5 more realistic than in the old Flash Gorden serials? Without question. Is it fair to criticize the serials' SFX for not looking as good as BSG? Absolutely not.

It is as fair as saying that some books or stories have not aged well. Rossum's Universal Robots did not age well compared to say A Brave New World, even if R.U.R. was very popular at the time. Now it is a curiosity because of what it brought to sci-fi.

Some films have aged well, some have not. It is not a question of fairness, just simple fact. Saying technology wasn't great explains why the film didn't age well, but it does not contradict the fact that it did, and it certainly does not adress all the other critiques I adressed the film.