The quickly changing formats for sound, images, and animation have revolutionized the entertainment industry, particularly the movie industry, in ways that were unthinkable a decade ago. Although I think that it's great that technology is easier to access now, and that film makers can expand their horizons in terms of special effects, the transition to digital media has had its drawbacks.
Back when I was a kid on my feeble Windows 98 o.s. I couldn't make images using photoshop, the best we had was M.S Paint. I'm not sure if photoshop was around yet, but if it was it was probably very expensive, difficult to use (I still don't understand the interface completely), and unaccessible to everyday people. Today, photoshop and other programs like i-movie and garageband are a staple on most computers. Gone are the days where the best image manipulation device possible was cheesy looking lines using the spray paint tool. I think that now it's better for people who are interested in music mixing, movie making, and image design to have these tools more available to them. My friend, for example, uses his gameboy to make music on garage band. It's the ultimate mix of analog and digital. However, the internet is home to junk, and a great deal of the creations made on i-movie or photoshop falls into that category. I'm really tired of videos on youtube that parody other videos. It was funny, ONCE, we don't need to see a photoshopped dramatic prairie dog wearing a monocle. The same goes for YTMND websites. And how many times have people photoshopped old pictures to make it look like there's a 'ghost?' Sometimes having technology available to 'everyday people' can have adverse, and annoying, consequences.
Another mixed issue in the analog-digital debate is special effects. Professional movies have come along way in CGI, blue/green screen technology, and even just movie quality in general. Older movies have faded colors and sometimes poorly mixed sound where the music is much louder than the dialog. I really enjoy new special effects in some movies. Pan's Labyrinth, for example, was a visually stunning movie. The effects, alongside a powerful storyline, made it one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. Then, there are movies created specifically to show off special effects. This is where director Michael Bay comes in. Transformers, though great special effects wise, made money only for it's novelty value. With new technology making film production cheaper and more accessible, compelling story lines and strong acting isn't necessary to make a blockbuster movie. Also, I think some creativity is lost with CGI. When Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey, he used new and innovative techniques to match his dream, and the result was stunning. Now, if Kubrick was alive he would make the spaceships and cavemen on a computer with CGI, the Discovery One would just look like another spaceship from Star Wars. It becomes the staple movie maker, and after a while CGI is homogeneous and bland.
I think that we should mix analog and digital. This way movies will still have creative elements, and be able to stun audiences. If directors keep going the way they're heading, actors will be obsolete, why hire them if we can make the ultimate looking CGI actor who doesn't demand a high wage and bottled water? This is an extreme situation, but even so some forms of art are obsolete because of the wave of the future. How many traditionally hand drawn cartoons are still made in the US for example? I, for one, miss hand drawn cartoons and think that CGI singing rats are weird. Digital media has definitely made some great advancements, but it's important to not forget traditional art.
