»hey kids«

hello fellas and not fellas (ladies i suppose),
just saying hi-ho, joining up to round up some opinions from you people to write in my dissertation - doing it on CGI in film with the basic gist being - does it ruin narrative? (focus being on the matrix trilogy) what do you guys reckon - i think The matrix 1 was very good and thought provoking etc etc, and this was enhanced and made better by the use of bullet time and computer imaging - think though that the last 2 were not so good - the narrative was far too reliant on CGI stuff - was wondering if anyone had an opinion - plus trying to find out exact dates etc of when each screen play was written (by the Wachowski bros no one else - not too bothered about other ppls ideas and that sofia bird - although may touch on her - not really a important part of the study) so that i don't talk bollox about how i think its too relyant on computer imaging when it was written years ago! - thanks guys!

do you specifically mean the question of did the fights ruin or interupt the plot?...if so then i would say no

if you look at the matrix as many do...in being representative of a struggle of an oppressed people then essentially the fights are merely representative of actual physical struggle in the form of protests and riots etc

i think in this respect then it is the fights in reloaded that are most representative of that aspect of the narrative and in particular the fight between neo and smith (The burly brawl)

the 2 key parts to any struggle...word and action...the narrative being the word...the fights being the action

i dont know if this is what you are after but good luck with your discertation

You come for the action...

Yet you stay for the dialogue and storyline...

thanks for the replys, you are helpful to my project, but am still very stuck - was thinking at first of doing a Matrix trilogy vs. Lord of the rings - one having been written long before the emergance of Computers let alone computer imaging to enhance film, and one obv. not - ie the matrix.

what do you think? good arguement? i think it is, but theres not a great deal you can do with this - they are similar in some respects, but so different in others

My main argument for the study is - has the use of CGI in film become such a regularity that it has taken away from the traditional movie going experience of seeing a ‘truly good’ story that relies on the narrative alone, and not the need for parts of this narrative to be reliant on computers to make the look of the film (and indeed major storylines within the film) plausible. And since the emergence and widespread use of computer generated images for effects and later, characters themselves.

Has it become common place to be more reliant on visuals rather than just storyline? and is this the reason why studios agree to make films like LOTR and the matrix more often than visually simpler films which do not rely on CGI? because this is what people want? or because this is an age where computers are common place and has become accepted by the audiences as the norm.

aah this is actually making my head bleed! am so confused and slightly scared. damn independent studies, damn them to hell!
claire
appretiate all views about this, need first hand opinions to put in my study as primary research source.