To get started today, I wanted to respond to a couple of comments I have received. The first is in response to a comment is from my May 28th blog, the second from the 29th.
I do not think that we will reach a point in my lifetime where computer effects in film will be totally unrecognizable. I think that the human eye is looking to decipher what is real from what isn't. I think this is especially true with images of humans and animals. We know what those things are supposed to look like and we will be able to recognize when they don't look like they should. However, with inanimate objects and events like the weather we will stop paying attention. An apple sitting on a table does not draw as much attention as a person, and the way it appears could vary slightly. Conversely, while we may not believe we are looking at a real tornado in Twister, rain is easily added to movies all the time and no one pays attention to it. I do think that there will come a point where films without computer effects will be be promoted as authentic or real, but with computers making it rain on an otherwise sunny day, I think we will see less and less of these films as time goes on.
As far as your other comment Glenn, I am really not sure whether traditional animation training is better then computer animation or vice versa. I am sure there are benefits to both, that would make hiring someone with either talent a good idea. If I had to choose, I would say that a traditional animation background would be more beneficial in the film making process for creative reasons, but there will always be exceptions.
Sorry for the lack of links today, I really wanted to respond to those comments because they got me thinking. I will be back with more tomorrow. :)