I didn't say CGI ruins storytelling universally. I said the increased focus on CGI at the expense of storytelling has negatively affected how movies are made. 20-30 years ago you still had good movies and bad movies, some with then-cutting edge visual effects and some without. As visual effects have matured over the years the number of bad movies that rely too much on CGI (e.g. prequels, Avatar) rather than use them to supplement the storytelling in an effective fashion (e.g. Pixar movies, LOTR) has increased. LOTR is a great example of using CGI wisely. Jackson took to filming in live locations and using actors in costumes as much as possible. The story dictated the filmmaking - not the necessity to cram CGI in every frame like Lucas does.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
Yeah, I hope he goes the same way with the Hobbit (although I'm already really worried about it being shot digitally at 60fps)
Hey! I liked the first two Critters flicks. (Have them on Laserdisc.) I even have the Krite puppet that was sold in the back pages of Starlog and Fangoria magazine.
And nobody disses Ray Harryhausen's masterpiece on my watch.
RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!!
Oh wait...wrong Harryhausen movie...
Where were you in '77?
There are good and bad effects of all kinds, and there's also the ethos of "special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story." (Can't quite remember who said that :) )
I'm still amazed at how much I "buy" the character of Gollum; I can't "buy" the Na'vi in the same way. And for all the examples Boost mentioned, you have King Kong, or the original 1954 Godzilla, the original Alien, Carpenter's The Thing, Cronenberg's The Fly...all *good* stories.
TServo2049 said:
There are good and bad effects of all kinds, and there's also the ethos of "special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story." (Can't quite remember who said that :) )
I'm still amazed at how much I "buy" the character of Gollum; I can't "buy" the Na'vi in the same way. And for all the examples Boost mentioned, you have King Kong, or the original 1954 Godzilla, the original Alien, Carpenter's The Thing, Cronenberg's The Fly...all *good* stories.
Exactly. The stop-motion effects in Carpenter's The Thing are some of my favorites. They're so real and organic. Lucas' CGI stands out like a sore thumb and can't hold a candle to those type of more natural effects.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
SilverWook said:
And nobody disses Ray Harryhausen's masterpiece on my watch.
"Jason and the Argonauts" might be Harryhausen's masterpiece, but it sure aint Beverley Cross's (the writer) masterpiece.
georgec said:
Exactly. The stop-motion effects in Carpenter's The Thing are some of my favorites. They're so real and organic. Lucas' CGI stands out like a sore thumb and can't hold a candle to those type of more natural effects.
The FX were actually mostly mechanical/makeup FX, only the beast at the end was stop-motion (and most of that was deleted from the final cut).
Anyway, the point I was trying to get at was that it's not that pre-CGI effects techniques "bring out the best in storytelling." There have always been movies that overly relied on effects instead of story. Pointing to pre-CGI movies that relied on effects at the expense of story does not change the fact that since the advent of CGI, more big-budget A-list Hollywood productions have been relying on effects as a crutch at the expense of concentrating on a good story (with the Star Wars prequels being no exceptions).
Yes, there were films before CGI which relied too much on effects and had weak/poorly executed stories. Remember, my previous Lucas quote is from 1983, only four years after The Black Hole, which was just such a big-budget A-list effects epic with a subpar story.
It just seems more prevalent now than it did then; films in the post-Star Wars, pre-Jurassic Park on the whole tended more to use effects as a "tool, a means of telling a story" rather than an "ends to themselves." Not always to be sure, but as CGI became easier and more cost-effective, and as more summer blockbusters showed that the cheap thrills of effects could distract audiences from a weak story, Hollywood got lazier about storytelling. And that's it, it's not malevolence, it's laziness. Why go through the extra effort of trying to come up with a quality story when you can wow moviegoers with digital eye candy? There's less incentive to focus on storytelling rather than take "the quick and easy path" of churning out a half-assed, unoriginal story and filling the void with more FX. CGI, or more specifically the over-reliance on CGI, enables poorer writing to become more acceptable - it is not the sole reason, as there are plenty of badly written modern movies without effects, but it sure doesn't help.
IMO, the only thing the prequels have contributed to popular culture is Jar Jar now being referenced as a by-word for bullshit...
For the most part, popular culture (thankfully) treats the prequels as one big punchline.
In the season premiere of Psych (which is, admittedly, a geek-centric show), Shawn sneaks into an ambassador's house to rescue a kid's vintage Darth Vader action figure which the ambassador's spoiled brat son stole. (Specifically, a vintage 1978 Darth Vader action figure with double-telescoping lightsaber - remember what I said about this show being geek-centric?)
All of the Star Wars references are to the OT,"I am your father," etc., save one. At one point, the ambassador's son says that the new Star Wars movies are better than the old ones. Gus' reaction: "We are dealing with a crazy person!"
A perfect example of my "prequels-as-punchline" hypothesis.
Cuchulainn said:
IMO, the only thing the prequels have contributed to popular culture is Jar Jar now being referenced as a by-word for bullshit...
georgec said:
The stop-motion effects in Carpenter's The Thing are some of my favorites. They're so real and organic.
just courious...What's the age range on this site?
WhatsMyName said:
just courious...What's the age range on this site?
Ziggy to Frink.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
Anchorhead is older, in years if not in attitude. ;-)
That gives me a good idea...
I have a bad feeling about this.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)