You can make a quality period picture with some CGI just like you can make quality vegetarian food with BBQ. It all depends on the ability of the maker.

Charles, we are talking about Allen. He probably thinks CGI was invented by a homosexual.

Mike

Exactly!

So would you agree it's ridiculous to make claims to the effect all films that make use of CGI are inherently bad?

Yes. Good thing I didn't make that claim.

Did anyone claim you did? You said something like...

And BTW I was asking Charles the question, not you.

Send him to the cornfield, Anthony. It'll be a good thing. A REAL good thing.

(It's a Good Life; The Twilight Zone, Season 3, Episode 73)

sure. however, i'd rather have bbq pork than the substitute and i've yet to see a modern digital epic look as good as a david lean film.

You got that right.

Isn't that more a testament to Lean, than anything else. Like you said, doesn't it depend more on the ability of the maker?

Plus it's a bit apples to oranges isn't it, David Lean adapting Charles Dickens' novels is less likely to need the type of special effects adapting Burrough's Barsoom novels would.

And Maybe it was wrong or unfair of me, but I wasn't expecting Lawrence of Arabia when I saw John Carter. I was hoping for something better than Green Lantern, or Cowboys & Aliens and what I saw was no worse or better than the last two live action Star Wars movies. But what do I know I liked the Dino De Laurentiis' Flash Gordon better than the last two live action SW movies. None of which were Lawrence of Arabia either, and I'm just guessing here but I'd bet no one expected them to be. “Sometimes you have to let art flow over you.”

Not that I wouldn't want to see an adaptation of Princess of Mars, that attempted to be near the quality of a David Lean film. I'm just not that hopeful.

Holy shit. You, who can never resist an analogy (no matter how tenuous), call comparing films to other films "apples to oranges." Unbelievable.