rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - A Completely CGI Film About Isandlwana/Rorke's Drift ?

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:29 pm

Even the recent remake of "King Kong" used a human actor (Andy Serkis) to create the giant gorilla's physical mannerisms and movements.

Ah, King Kong. None of the remakes was as good as the 1933 version ...

Sad

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:52 pm

Denton/CJ,
I'm not sure what you mean by "the historical way", but if it means "essential to our understanding of history" then appearance is indeed usually irrelevant. It makes no difference whatsoever to our understanding of the battle of Rorke's Drift or its place in the Anglo-Zulu War whether Chard was blond or dark, short or tall, thin or fat (white, yes - but race is a different issue). "Recognising" his likeness in a portrait, photo or film is a totally superficial matter, again irrelevant to historical understanding. You don't need to know what he looked like to interpret his actions on the day, and interpretation is the business of serious historians. If you need a lookalike to tell you who is playing whom in a dramatic representation, it's probably best just to read the end credits. As for CGI animation, I said nothing about the need for "stars" to provide voices, just human actors; no film yet has used a purely electronic simulation to create a human voice. The cost of making or renting props, costumes, etc, is usually matched by the cost of digital animation.

Paul,
You're right there!

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:08 pm

Sheldon

What a truly unusual, not to mention bizarre, take on the necessity of knowing/not knowing what historical figures look like. Confused

Of course a person's physical appearance has nothing to do with their actions - where did I say that ?

My point is, for a film or documentary, to do justice to the participants, and their descendants for that matter, you have to show them as near to how they looked in the Anglo-Zulu War 1879 as you possibly can.

I'm really not understanding what it is you're so annoyed about in your posts.

How you feel the need to do this, in what was stated as research into this type of film-making (CGI), for a feasibility study, in the use of this method for a future Isandlwana/Rorke's Drift film, evades me completely.

Why object to something that doesn't even exist ?

Or, for that matter, ever will.

C.J.

PS. BTW it is Coll.

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:24 pm

Denton Van Zan wrote:

I look upon it as research for a feasibility study ... I'm really keen to get this book on the process used to create a fully-CGI movie, in the view of how it could be used for an Isandlwana/Rorke's Drift film.

Coll. Please.

Last time I checked, you were looking into the feasibility of getting a 900-foot statue of Durnford on horseback set up in Hyde Park ...

Wink

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:37 pm

Coll (as I realised it was,
It was the "reasoning" behind your proposal that I objected to, not the non-existent project itself. I just wonder what kind of "justice" you think would be done in creating exact facsimiles of historical personages (as if our knowing what they looked like made a damn bit of difference to understanding who they were and what they did), and what on earth you think could be learned from such an exercise - other than, of course, knowing what they looked like... (I also wonder just how many of the participants could actually be reconstructed from surviving photographs, but that's by the by.)
My real exasperation is with (a) your extreme literal-mindedness ("Eureka! Chard was ginger! This changes everything!") and (b) yet another iteration of your favourite theme, the prospects of a new film about the 1879 battles, which you seem to have been pursuing for as long as I've been visiting this website. You're right in one respect: it ain't going to happen. Isn't it high time you moved on?
Sheldon

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:44 pm

Sheldon

Hello good sir, and please excuse the effects of a few drams. (weekend and all that)

Anyway, to business.

Firstly, the fact I'm continuing to get posts directly from you, is actually quite significant, as in, somehow, good or bad, I've got your attention.

The first paragraph of yours, we'll miss, as you (sort of) agree with anyway, methinks.

Therefore, we are left with the second paragraph.

Hmm. Yes, having Chard as he was at the time, rather than a surf-dude, with blonde hair, chewing gum, etc., would be a start.

As for '...the prospects of a new film about the 1879 battles...', that is what I, maybe many of us enthusiasts crave, as it has been, what, 31 years since 'Zulu Dawn' ?

Definitely, time for a new film.

I'm willing to 'move on' to said new film, it is you who seems 'stuck' in the now, rather than the future - Why is that, I ask myself ?

Could it be that you are a modern-technology objector, who wants to remain in times past - technicolor and all that ?

I'm moving on - you aren't.

C.J.

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:59 pm

Coll,
Re. my first paragraph, I can't imagine where, or on what, you think we agree; please enlighten me. Your comment about Chard suggests that you still haven't understood what I'm saying - perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my "Eureka" joke?
On the second paragraph, I'm not AGAINST a new film, I simply accept that it won't happen, for all the reasons that I and others have given you over the years - too expensive, not a big enough market for it, etc, etc. I know all too well what you crave (it would be hard to miss your wishful thinking) but what you or I feel about CGI is beside the point. Barring the intervention of a multi-millionaire Zulu War buff, there will be no new film on the subject - accept it.
Sheldon
PS That last sentence was not an invitation to nominate likely investors from the Sunday Times Rich List.

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:12 am

Sheldon

Trust me, I know exactly what sarcasm is, but you are missing the point about the necessity for accuracy.(within reason)

Again, I've also accepted a new film will not happen, but how does that stop us talking about it ?

I've been talking about a feasibility study,whereas you are talking about it not being feasible, therefore, doesn't that mean we all now know your opinion ?

Why go on huffing and puffing, as if it was in progress ?

I think you're safe, as I don't know any multi-millionaires.

Alcohol is taking hold now, if you post anything else, I'll respond to it (late) tomorrow.

C.J.

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:45 am

Interesting comments, Sheldon. My thoughts perhaps belong on a new thread or even in off-topic, but I'll go with them here for the nonce.

You've obviously made a vocation of the study of film and you're very good at what you do, so I surmise you've made it an avocation as well. Where do you see cinema headed in this Brave New World of CGI? It seems to me that movies like "Avatar" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" have shown that movie actors no longer are required to look the parts they play. Or for that matter show up on the set (if there even is a set beyond a green screen a la "300"). Do you see a day coming when Fatty Arbuckle could costar with John Belushi and Jack Black? 'Cause, God help us, I believe it's coming! It's a simple matter of quantifying the mannerisms and the voices--those subtle nuances which make an actor a personality (but still able to be rendered in a BIG database of zero's and one's nonetheless)-- and just plugging them into a plot line. The technology is almost there, if it isn't already. Imagine actors who never age and won't even have to get out of bed to star in their next box office hit! I'm not apologizing for or defending it, but I am expecting it. And soon... Thoughts?

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:50 pm

Saw,
Hard to predict where cinema's going, except that digital technology will play an increasingly important role. But what people forget is that human beings are still needed to use that technology creatively (programs don't write and apply themselves), both behind and in front of the camera. The fact that CGI characters don't look exactly like the actors playing them doesn't mean that actors weren't involved in creating them. They still have to turn up somewhere, sometime!

Coll,
If there is a point to your argument about accuracy, beyond an obsession with accuracy for accuracy's sake, now is your time to make it. Otherwise my irritation with your speculative fantasies is caused by having heard countless variations on the same thing from you for what seems like decades, and they're growing increasingly tenuous and repetitious. Give it a rest.

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:08 pm

Sheldon

I'm really concerned about how you feel that somehow you hold sway over what is and isn't discussed on this particular forum based on the Anglo-Zulu War 1879.

Films related to this campaign will always be getting discussed, whether by myself on this forum, or by others on other forums.

Are you so sarcastic and critical to people on other similar forums ?

I know my views about this and other film-making procedures appear to meet with your disapproval, but how does that change things ?

Is it a case of, because you've said it, that is the way it'll be from now on ?

You've also got your book, selling in the thousands I'd imagine, about how 'Zulu' was filmed - 46 years ago - I've not published anything, so why are you telling me to 'give it a rest', when the fact is many thousands know of you and what you say ?

If you can predict my posts, which is easy to do, please don't read them, as your criticism and sarcasm gains nothing, except causing me to question the authority you appear to have assigned yourself on this forum.

I've been provoked, mocked and criticised regularly since coming back a month ago - it is as boring now, as it was when it first started.

C.J.

PS. BTW the way, with you disclosing your age a couple of years ago, I realised you were about the same age as myself, so please don't be talking down to me like a foolish youth.

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:20 pm

Coll,
Rest assured that I wouldn't dream of patronising someone because of their age! I pretend to no authority on this or any other forum (most of its regular contributors know far more than I do about the Anglo-Zulu War) and speak only for myself when I ask you to cease and desist from sheer boredom at hearing the same old story trotted out time and time again. If others would like to rush to your defence or shout me down for my apparent arrogance, I will happily shut up about it. In fact, I will do so anyway, as I've said my piece about this issue and any further discussion on the matter would be mere tit-for-tat.
Sheldon

Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:34 pm

Sheldon

Well I'll be thankful for the rest, considering I've got a miserable hangover.

One headache is enough. Sad

From beginning to end of your continuously pointless points, I'm of the opinion, looking back over the topic, that for all you have posted, you have actually said nothing at all.

Conclusion - your aim appears to have been, to disrupt this topic about this specific area, because you don't like it, or apparently, much else of what I said on previous topics.

A nowhere discussion, that only seems to have created a bad feeling between us, which is regretful.

I need nobody to defend me and my views, as I'm very capable of doing that myself.

Nobody will 'shout (you) down for (your) apparent arrogance' - except maybe myself - but who am I to do this, being a mere mortal.

C.J.

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 pm

There is a good possibity of me obtaining the book mentioned in the original topic, for a forthcoming birthday in a few weeks - a couple of days after yours Sheldon, if I remember correctly - so if anyone wishes a review of the contents, I'll add them here later.

C.J.

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:54 pm

Conclusion - your aim appears to have been, to disrupt this topic about this specific area, because you don't like it, or apparently, much else of what I said on previous topics.

That is an outrageous thing to say and completely unjustified. Sheldon has answered your questions with civility. I value his input which has been relevant and precise.

Frankly, Coll, I've had enough of you.

Peter