Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My first thought too. The articles basic premise is something like:

"People don't like the new film, but the old film may contain more CGI than they thought, so they're wrong."

Who would come up with such a premise unless they were in a corner, and being paid?



On the Internet, pretentious people make ignorant comments all the time, for free. The author of the OP quoted Miller for paragraphs, where Miller explained in detail how he combined practical and computer effects, why he felt the practical effects were valuable because they kept the movie within the bounds of realistic mechanical physics, well, the digital effects improved the overall color and remove small practical objects that are necessary for effects but didn't belong in the fiction. After all that, the OP wrote one sentence completely mischaracterizing the extensive quoting, because the truth didn't fit his thesis. I'll give him credit at least for presenting the evidence that he's trying to ignore.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: