Hi! I’m the guy who made the video and it’s great to spark off some interest in what CG is and what it does. Some of the issues that have been touched on in this thread are exactly what I was interested in when making the work - sometimes it’s too perfect, sometimes it’s not perfect enough.
I’m really interested in that certain CG feeling that huge teams of CG artists spend huge amounts of time eradicating, all so that the medium can disappear into photographic reality and become invisible. I love all these little traces of the machine in the medium: the cartoonish skin tones, the strange light bounces, lack of friction and perfect geometry are what makes CG not a photograph. Sure, you can eradicate these traces with enough time, enough prodigious talent, enough processor power or enough money and generally people do. The CG industry is focused on the attainment of 1:1 reality and seamlessness. That’s cool and I love hyper-real CG, but the thing I wanted to explore with this film is what CG imagery does when it’s not invisible. Naturally, it starts to fall apart in different ways.
In that sense, I think my film is more a reflection of what CG is than an example of state-of-the-art technique. Are there things that could be improved in the film? Yeah, of course! But if I could go back, I’d probably emphasise those parts rather than hide them!
