"Clearly, if we'd had the kind of computer graphics capability then that we have now, the Star Gate sequence would be much more complex than flat planes of light and color"
About this Quote
Trumbull’s line is a sly reminder that technological “progress” is always a moving target, and that audiences tend to judge yesterday’s miracles by today’s toolset. The Star Gate sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey still feels like a portal not because it’s intricate by contemporary standards, but because it’s confident in its own abstraction. Calling it “flat planes of light and color” sounds almost dismissive, yet the phrasing doubles as a defense: the flatness is the point. It’s graphic design as metaphysics, a refusal to literalize the unknowable.
The intent here isn’t self-critique so much as calibration. Trumbull, a key architect of that sequence’s analog wizardry, knows the temptation to retrofit the past with modern CGI muscle. He also knows what gets lost when you do: ambiguity. More “complex” imagery can become merely busier, swapping the viewer’s productive disorientation for a tour of technical features.
The subtext is a quiet argument about authorship. In a CGI era, spectacle is often a pipeline - iterative, scalable, and therefore endlessly adjustable. Trumbull is pointing to a time when limitations forced aesthetic decisions to be bold and final. The context matters: 2001’s visuals were created with slit-scan photography, lighting, and painstaking in-camera experimentation, methods that made the image feel physical even when it depicted the ungraspable. His remark acknowledges that new tools would change the surface, while implying the deeper question: would they improve the experience, or just update it?
The intent here isn’t self-critique so much as calibration. Trumbull, a key architect of that sequence’s analog wizardry, knows the temptation to retrofit the past with modern CGI muscle. He also knows what gets lost when you do: ambiguity. More “complex” imagery can become merely busier, swapping the viewer’s productive disorientation for a tour of technical features.
The subtext is a quiet argument about authorship. In a CGI era, spectacle is often a pipeline - iterative, scalable, and therefore endlessly adjustable. Trumbull is pointing to a time when limitations forced aesthetic decisions to be bold and final. The context matters: 2001’s visuals were created with slit-scan photography, lighting, and painstaking in-camera experimentation, methods that made the image feel physical even when it depicted the ungraspable. His remark acknowledges that new tools would change the surface, while implying the deeper question: would they improve the experience, or just update it?
Quote Details
| Topic | Movie |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Douglas
Add to List
