Everyone: 'What do you think, Captain Panaka?'

Captain Panaka: 'I think this is a very bad idea, same as I bloody well always do!'

Everyone: 'Oh, fuck off.'

P.S. I suppose I'm looking forward to Pirates 3, if only to find out what happens. 2 was a bit of let down, I thought.

Our brains may know that stop-motion/go-motion or animatronics are 'physically' there, but what all the cg haters on this site cannot seem to admit is that you're also aware every second they're onscreen that the camera is constrained or that the movement is not as free or that the lipsync isn't quite there and so on and so forth. You can't tar a whole technique as being better than another in one fell swoop. I love all the different techniques but at least I'm not so infantile as to make comments about liking a crappy implementation of my fave over some other discipline. Best tools for the job, which is based on context. The thing is that now screenwriters have less creative crutches and can no longer say, "Well we can't achieve that anyway so I'll write it out before I get there" like they used to. So if they want to write new things that have never been seen before in ways that have never been seen before of course the 'fake' alarms will go off. I personally like the mix&match approach, but that's just me.

This goes for things like stunts too. Someone recently in another TB was shitting on some CG thing saying how Indy under the truck was just incredible and seamless (I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the post). Conveniently ignoring the fact that Armstrong kept hiding his face and the angles were contrived to help this (which upsets the flow and consistent nature of the rest of the cinematography), ignoring the obvious dip in the road and the fact that the truck is going s-l-o-w-l-y. Although the clever angle shooting flat-on disguises this as the parallax is negated. Am I saying I like CG? Not necessarily. Am I saying I hate traditional techniques? Nope. And I LOVE that Raiders scene! I'm playing Devil's advocate to try to stop guys like you shitting on one to shine the other.

What about camerawork? We're only just getting used to unbroken cuts and untethered cameras as viewers now (as previously our only yardstick was the motion-simulator ride) and it'll take another decade or so yet, but the same can be said for the original wescams/copter shots being 'unrealistic' or 'playing God' when THEY were introduced. It's all relative. I feel a bit sorry for Weta's Kong guys going after a stylised stagey look based on Gustave Doré (like the original) and being ripped on by talkbackers. Don't make the same old basic mistake that a chemical/photographic or mechanical technique (with their attendant side-effects no pun intended) is inherently superior than any other including digital. And vice-versa of course.

Sorry for ranting at you Streaky but this simplistic/ all black or all white stuff gets my goat and I see it every day here. Sometimes I have to unload a bit like the rest of you. I don't mean to try to belittle you, I just take umbrage (and yes there's no way to say that without sounding like an utter wanker) at the sort of comments you were making, that's all. And folks here tell me to breathe into a paper bag all the time.