The Visual Effects Debate - CGI versus Live Action, Spectacle versus Narrative

[ThePandaDirector]

Howdy folks

I'm a film student doing a dissertation on live action special effects in micro budget filmmaking. I'm looking to gauge a general public opinion on a few topics, so if you could answer the following questions, I'd be grateful. Feel free to discuss them in more detail, but for my work I need collective results.

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc?
   
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)?
   
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?
   
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?
   

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'
   
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'
   
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'
   
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters'
   
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak'
   
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'
   
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made'
   

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar?
   
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake?
   
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3?
   
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings?
   

Thanks a lot, if you have answered these you have become a nameless number lost in a large pie (chart) =]

[NinjaBreadMen]

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? nope
   
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? nope
   
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience? they can do, so yes
   
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)? they can do, but less so, so no
   

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' agree
   
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' agree with the statement, though disagree with the sentiment But I'll say Agree
   
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future' disagree
   
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' disagree
   
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak' disagree
   
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers' disagree
   
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' agree
   

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar? Dark Crystal
   
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake? not seen either - pass
   
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? 4,5,6
   
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings? Remasterings (though I'd rather see both and make up my mind based on the differences)
   

Filled it out on behalf of my fiance too, so here're her answers:

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? yes
   
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? nope
   
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience? nope
   
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)? nope
   

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' disagree
   
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' agree
   
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future' disagree
   
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' disagree
   
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak' disagree
   
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers' agree
   
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' agree
   

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar? Dark Crystal
   
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Original
   
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? 4,5,6
   
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings? Originals
   

As a point of interest we both stumbled on

'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'

The question's a bit loaded in my opinion, as it has a negative implication which isn't neceserally intended from the answer. But that's just our feelings.

Hope that helps, and by sure to show us the chart when it's done: I wanna be able to show all my friends and tell them I helped create it

[ThePandaDirector]

Thanks a lot =]

Some interesting results there, particularly the different answer to 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'. I also like that every single person I've asked answered agree to 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' =]

As for 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be', I agree it is somewhat loaded, but it is a statement, i.e. representative of a common expression in the most common manner it is expressed. What it refers to is simply the idea that the enjoyment of visual effects has become inverse to the techincal development - that old tech proved better than new tech. It's part of the same line of thought that there is more "magic" in older films, though some argue that in relation to Golden Age Thinking or simple nolstagia. So I think the statement works in getting an emotional response and seeing how people connect with the subject matter.

Thanks again to both you and your fiance =D

[edonil]

Howdy folks

I'm a film student doing a dissertation on live action special effects in micro budget filmmaking. I'm looking to gauge a general public opinion on a few topics, so if you could answer the following questions, I'd be grateful. Feel free to discuss them in more detail, but for my work I need collective results.

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? Yes
   
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? No
   
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience? When done well, yes
   
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)? When done well, yes
   

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' Yes
   
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' With the rise of easy cgi, yes, because a lot of the creativity from older movies is being replaced.
   
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future' Hopefully not, but I can see that coming.
   
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' Depends on what you mean. Something like Gollum or the characters from Avatar? No. But Episode I Yoda vs. Episode II Yoda? Yes.
   
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak' I would say no.
   
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers' I don't watch many indie films, so I cannot really answer this. Abstaining.
   
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' Absolutely. However, with the rise of the blockbuster, much like you see with mainstream video games, the risks that made the medium what it is are disappearing.
   

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar? Avatar.
   
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Haven't seen either. Pass.
   
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? 4,5,6.
   
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings? Originals.
   

Thanks a lot, if you have answered these you have become a nameless number lost in a large pie (chart) =]

I'm glad to be able to help. Would be interesting to see a discussion on this, because it's one of those things I've discussed with other people. I think in the age of the 'blockbuster', we're seeing a lot of the creativity being pushed aside for guaranteed profits. Even my own medium of choice, writing, you're seeing much the same thing, although certainly differently. Rather than visual effects, you're seeing a high emphasis on either sex (ie, the Harlequin books) or the book is just so shallow that it's practically brainless (much as I can enjoy Black Library's stuff, there's really nothing there...). Which, to me, is so depressing, because narrative is what I love. Honestly, while I haven't watched many indie films, I think they're a great thing for the medium, much like indie comics (Atomic Robo), indie games (Portal) and so on.

[nilus]

Howdy folks

I'm a film student doing a dissertation on live action special effects in micro budget filmmaking. I'm looking to gauge a general public opinion on a few topics, so if you could answer the following questions, I'd be grateful. Feel free to discuss them in more detail, but for my work I need collective results.

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc? Yes
   
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)? No
   
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience? Sometimes Yes
   
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)? Depends on the movie really. If used correctly yet, many time no
   

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films' Disagree
   
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be' Disagree but not in a bad way, in many ways they are superior
   
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future' Disagree
   
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters' Disagree
   
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak' Disagree
   
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers' Agree
   
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made' Agree
   

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar? Dark Crystal
   
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Original
   
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? 4,5,6
   
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings?Originals
   

Thanks a lot, if you have answered these you have become a nameless number lost in a large pie (chart) =]

Okay so my comments.

Its clear that this survey has a very heavy bias. More so as it goes on. The last question are extremely bias and designed for a specific response.

The new Star Wars Trilogy have lots of issues not related to visual effects. Avatar and Dark Crystal are completely different wave lengths. And the Clash of a titan question is a joke.

Personally I believe both CGI and practical and puppet effects can and should be used together. I am a huge fan of Henson productions and I wish they got more work(Farscape is so awesome). I think Filmmakers need to decide to use what is best for the scene and not be guided by nostalgia or by the new cool. Use the right tool for the job.

[ThePandaDirector]

Its clear that this survey has a very heavy bias. More so as it goes on. The last question are extremely bias and designed for a specific response.

It's not personal bias, but rather it relates to the main line of thought of my project, which is visual effects in micro budget filmmaking. I've had people elsewhere saying the questions are too b&w but again, its merely to gauge public opinion and emotional response, while I deal with the complexity elsewhere. To think that I expect objectiveness from the people answering is false, I want subjective and generalised opinion here.

The new Star Wars Trilogy have lots of issues not related to visual effects. Avatar and Dark Crystal are completely different wave lengths. And the Clash of a titan question is a joke.

I maybe should have stated more clearly that the questions relate purely to visual effects in live action films. While I think Toy Story is the greatest trilogy ever made, it's not relevant, nor is a blockbuster film with no visual effects (if there is one).

I have no emotional feelings towards Star Wars, I enjoy them all (looking forward to seeing the originals on the big screen next week though). The 3rd question relates to whether you find the miniatures and costumes of the orignals better than the CGI of the prequels, or the other way round - simply which has better effects, since they're clearly different. The last one is like saying "did you like the change to Jabba the Hut from analogue to digital?" doesn't matter which you choose.

I chose Dark Crystal vs Avatar, because both design and build a world in its entirety, one using a majority of analogue technology (puppets, models, etc) and one a majority of digital. Again its nothing about story or even literal comparison, merely which effect is more satisfying to the individual (which should be indicated by the time they get to that question). In my dissertation I'm covering Avatar in a lot of detail, but then on the other hand Stan Winston (who convinced Cameron to make Avatar) wouldn't have devloped most of his techniques withought the inspiration of Henson.

The CotT question again asks, which does the individual find more satisfying, the stop motion monsters or the digital ones? It's a clear comparison to make and one that causes an emotional reaction which is what is desired from these results. I actually find both flawed, in terms of effects, because as far as the actor is concerned there's no difference.

It's all relating to the impact of the effect, simple questions like "do you prefer analogue or digital?", "do effects reinforce or detract from story?" and "do developments in technology create a hole to patch another?" They're complex questions, naturally people have contradictory views, but by designing the questions to create an emotional response, such as "too right effects aren't like they used to be", "what's the point paying to see a film in the cinema if it doesn't have awesome effects?" or "the new CotT is better, the original is so dated" it gives me simple, collective data to compare with my more in depth findings.

Personally I believe both CGI and practical and puppet effects can and should be used together. I am a huge fan of Henson productions and I wish they got more work(Farscape is so awesome). I think Filmmakers need to decide to use what is best for the scene and not be guided by nostalgia or by the new cool. Use the right tool for the job.

There's a debate about narrative versus spectacle, that to reinforce the narrative effects have to be subtle, immersive, but to create spectacle they have to be highlighted to inspire awe, it's a tough balance to create nevermind maintain.

My personal opinion is that analogue effects are more desireable, because there's more magic, more craftsmanship, and more effort should be made to develop them further. I'm actually extremely critical of most effects - T-rex head in Jurrassic Park is too slow, most latex masks remove all facial expression and cutting between analogue and digital (such as in Hellboy) only highlights how bad both are. I enjoy very few effects, but somehow I love finding out how they were done (LotR is an adequate trilogy with some iconic set pieces, but the making of featurettes are a collective masterpiece). My favourite film of all time is Labyrinth, but some of my favourite effects are in Pan's Labyrinth (I can't imagine the Pale Man in CGI, would have killed it).

I admit I am very cynical towards CGI, because films today look like cartoons, there's no weight to anything and I feel sorry for the actors who have to interact with an invisible ensemble against a blue screen. With characters like Gollum, I think "wow, that's great... wonder how long until it loooks dated". As far as CGI goes I view it like sound design, it should enhance the image, but be resigned to the unsung hero (I didn't realise how much effects are in Del Toro produced Orphanage).

No one's going to produce a real life 14ft Alien Queen anymore, why go to the trouble? You're rarely going to see that kind of inventivenous and authenticity until the day people start developing live action from its current backwards state to a level that can compete with the capacity of digital. But even then, there's some things that will always be digital, which is Ok, so long as it doesn't try and steal the limelight from the story.

But the main subject of my dissertation is visual effects in micro budgeting. Someone mentioned After Effects somehwere. I couldn't help but laugh, because it's true, if there's a guerrilla film using visual effects chances are there's a Video Co-Pilot tutorial behind it somewhere. Unfortunatley that means whenever I see a film that uses cheap CGI I hear "Hi, Andrew Kramer here, for Video Co-Pilot dot com.." but then I get that same reaction from Transformers. My dissertation hardly even looks at CGI, at least practically, because it's already establised with indie filmmakers (and I'm terrible at After Effects). Analogue however, has been reduced to cheap theatrical tricks like blood squirting, etc.

I'm currently building a human powered exoskeleton based on the Skeletonics design, to determine whether a creature like the LotR Cave Troll can be achieved within a £10k budget, in live action. The great thing with reducing weight is you reduce cost while improving reponsiveness, but you have to sacrifice strength which opens up new challenges. For me responsivenes is the key, by putting the human in as much control as possible, while providing something physical for them to manipulate and for others to interact with.

One of the great techniques I came across is the power of moulding and casting your own props, allowing you to create bulk items that would be too expensive otherwise (it's akin to a prisoner making copies of a key). And so by training yourself and your team to create these effects in live action, you are able to add weight to your vision, give the actors something to interact with and in turn something for the audience to connect with. So on one side it links to the democratisation of filmmaking (ironically achieved by digital cameras), but also how analogue effects relate to cost/time/quality in a way that (possibly) makes them a more viable option for expressing certain creative visions than digital. The main barrier I have come across (apart from the fact I don't own £10k) is that most effects require specialisation, from sculpting to engineering, so there's less unity than there is with CGI.

It's an awesome subject to research and debate, I don't really care what people think because it's fun to talk about it either way =]

[Requirement]

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc?
   Yes
   
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)?
   No
   
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?
   Not particularly.
   
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?
   I have never encountered it happening.
   

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'
   From a studio's perspective it would seem that way. From my own, no, I prefer narrative.
   
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'
   Agree
   
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'
   Unfortunately and reluctantly, agree.
   
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters'
   Agree
   
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak'
   Disagree
   
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'
   I disagree with insurmountable, but agree with a divide between studios and indie filmmakers.
   
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made'
   Of course!
   

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar? Dark Crystal.
   
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake? Original
   
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3? Ha! 1,2,3.
   
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings? Typically Originals though I have no inherent problems with Digital Remasterings that aren't pan & scan.
   

Thanks a lot, if you have answered these you have become a nameless number lost in a large pie (chart) =]

Always willing to help out.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 PM ----------

I also enjoy reading everyone's responses.

[ThePandaDirector]

That's the spirit Requirement, nice and simple =] But in relation to effects not adding to narrative, what about effects linked to plot (mostly monsters, but some others)?

Fun fact for y'all though, the statement "If it can be imagined, it can be made" is (as you can see by my signature), an apparent quote by Jack Kine, who was one of the founders of what would later become the BBC Visual Effects Department, who produced the effects for Doctor Who, Blake 7 and Red Dwarf. Jack Kine was an artist and his friend and co-founder was Bernard Wilkie, an engineer - the perfect combination. Though despite being the world's largest in-house visual effects facility, it was closed in 2003. Now I wonder if they imagined that

Funnily enough I would argue that possibly the most visually stimulating film is Tarsem's The Fall, which has almost no visual effects at all (next to no CGI and a few practical effects including one explosion). I saw Bladerunner on the big screeen in blu-ray, seeing it for the first time, but my jaw didn't drop quite as much as seeing The Fall, because with it I knew the locations (all 20-22 of them) were real. There's just something about manifesting one's vision in reality that is so much more inspiring. Saying that most of my inspiration comes from Studio Ghibli =]

[Requirement]

Fair question. I hadn't opened my mind up enough at that point. In my opinion, the entire point of all the visuals, every frame, every pixel, should be to assist the narrative. I can always pick up a book and get a great narrative and a movie is competing directly with that (in a creativity way?) I am a huge reading nerd and find the winner tends to be books (compared to mainstream studio movies that have a budget) because visual effects are used so frequently to cover up the fact there is no narrative (I'm looking at you Transformers) or they accidentally hold the narrative back and I don't find either of those situations to be enjoyable.

[Pierowmaniac]

Howdy folks

I'm a film student doing a dissertation on live action special effects in micro budget filmmaking. I'm looking to gauge a general public opinion on a few topics, so if you could answer the following questions, I'd be grateful. Feel free to discuss them in more detail, but for my work I need collective results.

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc?
   Yes
   
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)?
   No
   
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?
   No (in general, but can do if done right)
   
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?
   No
   

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'
   No
   
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'
   Yes (question could sort of mean two things, I answer technicaly they are not the same)
   
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'
   No (hopefully)
   
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters'
   No (in general, but yes if done right .... Shrek, Woody etc)
   
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak'
   No
   
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'
   Yes
   
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made'
   Yes
   

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar?
   Dark Crystal - overal and puppet effects
   
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake?
   LOL Original, don't even taint the original in the same sentance!
   
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3?
   4,5,6 (but 1,2 & 3 do add to the overal story arc)
   
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings?
   Digital Remastering
   

Thanks a lot, if you have answered these you have become a nameless number lost in a large pie (chart) =]

Must add that to me story is the most important part of any film, and visual effects should compliment the film if and only if required. My favourite film of all time at the minute is 'Inception' which had a brilliant storyline and great visual effects.

[NinjaBreadMen]

Some interesting results there, particularly the different answer to 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'.

Hehe, the real problem came when she saw I'd given preference to remasterings over originals. Her exact words were 'but he ruined them' and while I can understand it's a sore spot for Staw Wars fans, I'm not hugely fussed for them. So I'd rather see what the director decided to change, and trust that they did it for a good reason.

A related example, though not about CGI or effects, is the seemingly needless remake of Funny Games. From the same director/writer, and only a few years after his original German edition, his US effort was made as close to the first as possible. You can see split screen intros on Youtube, where nearly every shot is identicle. That said, I prefer the remake, as it has about 3 noticable changes, which (in my opinion) make it a better film. Maybe he didn't need to make the changes, but I can see why he did.

Sounds like a really interseting study too btw, good to see it's got everyone throwing their opinions into the pot

[ThePandaDirector]

Must add that to me story is the most important part of any film, and visual effects should compliment the film if and only if required. My favourite film of all time at the minute is 'Inception' which had a brilliant storyline and great visual effects.

A lot of people say that, but if you look at box office results, you'll often see films that value spectacle over narrative (Battleships is doing really well in the UK). Directors like Christopher Nolan, Guillermo Del Toro, Peter Jackson, Joss Whedon, etc. are examples of balance between the two. I'm currently reading the Inception "Shooting Script" (not an actual shooting script), and I admire Nolan for trying to ground even the most far fetched effects in reality (the moment when the truck flips over in the Dark Knight is one of the few times I've heard the audience give a collective gasp and then "woah")

I suppose I can't help but think "what if that was live action?" whenever I look at something digital (excluding full digital films). Someone might say "no way is that possible", to which I'd reply "But if it was possible, it would be better right?" I don't think anyone would disagree. Imagine the LotR Cave Troll, exactly as it is, but in live action, or the wide shots of T-rex or a Malifaux film with real life Peacekeepers. I'm fascinated with trying to develop techniques to make these kind of bridge effects (between what is regarded within the capacity of live action and what is not) using accesible and "cheap" resources. The problem there is that certain aspects of quality likely need to suffer, such as strength or polish, plus it takes time. Even so I'm convinced that analogue effects have massive untapped potential and the impact of their successful application would be far greater than anything digital. People want to escape reality, but it's easier when you don't realise you've already escaped

I think the remake of TV show Battlestar Galactica is a brilliant example of effects that can be enjoyed even as they become dated, because they enhance the story and setting, you're not really enjoying the technical aspect, because like I say it becomes dated, but rather you enjoy the narrative effect and even rarer, the narrative spectacle (those large scale conflicts that threaten the lives of characters you care about). I love that show, but then my favourite show is still The Wire, because we all know it's full of visual effects =D

I will say I get far more emotional over remakes of foreign language films, than I do over replacing analogue effects with CGI, but that's a different discussian.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Howdy folks

I'm a film student doing a dissertation on live action special effects in micro budget filmmaking. I'm looking to gauge a general public opinion on a few topics, so if you could answer the following questions, I'd be grateful. Feel free to discuss them in more detail, but for my work I need collective results.

Answer yes/no to the following:

1. Do you watch a lot of films that include large quantities of visual effects - Star Wars, Avatar, Transformers, etc?Yes
   
2. Does the promise of a visual spectacle make you more likely to see a film in the cinema (more likely to see Avengers than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)?Depends on the spectacle, great style, yes. More explosions, probably not
   
3. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to your cinematic experience?Yes
   
4. Do you think visual effects add anything meaningful to a film's narrative (the story)?Depending on context, yes.
   

Do you agree/disagree with the following statements (answer each seperately):

1. 'Spectacle is more important than narrative in blockbuster films'Yes
   
2. 'Visual effects in films aren't what they used to be'Yes, but only that they aren't the same. I love certain old styles of effects, but that doesn't mean new ones aren't effective.
   
3. 'Live action visual effects today are based on nolstagia, digital is the future'Outside of niches, probably.
   
4. 'There is no "soul" in computer generated characters'No, but most of them still fall short.
   
5. 'Live action effects have reached their peak'Probably.
   
6. 'As far as visual effects go there is an insurmountable divide between the studios and indie filmmakers'Probably.
   
7. 'If it can be imagined, it can be made'No, or, rather, it might be able to be made, but cinema might not be the right medium
   

Select one of each:

1. Dark Crystal or Avatar?DC
   
2. Original Clash of the Titans or remake?n/a
   
3. Star Wars 4,5,6 or 1,2,3?originals
   
4. Originals or Digital Remasterings?Case-by-case. Star Wars remasterings were fairly disappointing. Alien remastering was an amazing experience.
   

Thanks a lot, if you have answered these you have become a nameless number lost in a large pie (chart) =]

Good luck!