Originally posted by: The Bizzle
One of the bigger problems with CGI is that everyone wants to show off that they're using it in behind the scenes stuff, promotional docs, all that. The tool is getting as much publicity as the movie is. That didn't necessarily happen back in the 80's--the studio wasn't trying to show off all their toys all that much. They were maxing out old tech and old methodology, not innovating new ones. Once you start re-inventing the wheel as far as effects go, people realized you could appeal to the "Bang for the buck" style of hucksterism and make the effects used part of the marketing. "We made this with a COMPUTER!! BUY A TICKET!!" I guarantee you that if an effects movie was released that didn't go into detail about HOW they made the effects, people would stop being so nitpicky about em. but in todays moviegoing climate, there's no way that happens. you have to have the behind-the-scenes video blogs and the special on the dvd and the hook in the movie magazines.
i think the problem with effects-driven movies is not that people are already familiar with the technical aspects, but a problem of transparency. a movie can be drenched in special effects and still not be driven by the effects. it should be driven by the writing, directing and acting... and complimented by the effects. what's happening in a lot of post-"A New Hope" movies is that the effects are either getting in the way of the story, or simply filling a void where the story is weak or absent, so you can't help but twiddle your thumbs and say "gee i wonder how many polygons there are in that computer-generated character" or "i wonder how much money they spent on that effect." if the effect were really doing its job, then it wouldn't be drawing attention to itself & away from the matters at hand. the effect would be transparent. i think the movie studios are much more preoccupied with the "bigger faster & louder" trend (which the george lucas is largely responsible for starting, unfortunately) than the audience is. and to the detriment of the basics: story, character, dialogue, direction, and acting. we all know that Van Helsing sucked, we all know that The Matrix Revolutions and Stealth sucked... they really are just non-interactive video games. deep in their guts, the 13 year old attention deficit kids in the audience know it, too, no matter how eager they are to buy into every overhyped cross-licensed videogame-to-comicbook-to-movie-and-back-again piece of junk that comes along.
but try telling that to the studio executives who greenlighted those movies, and see if they comprehend. their solution is not to give the audience good movies, but to give the audience what it thinks it wants (and ends up being disappointed in, when the movie turns out to be horrible for its lack of story & direction), then blitz the media with advertisements & promo interviews in hopes that they can grab everyone's cash in the opening week before word-of-mouth spreads about its actual (low) quality.
Originally posted by: JennyS1138
A lot of younger fans don't seem to understand that any plot holes or major changes like Vader not being the lead character in the OT are due to changes Lucas made along the way. Like if it seems weird that Leia remembers her mother, they think the mistake was made in Return of the Jedi back in 1983!!!!
In many ways this reminds me of Back to the Future 2 with the alternate reality created by Biff. The entire town has changed and Doc and Marty know its changed, but to everyone else its reality. For the millions who grew up on the OT, Luke is the protagonist who redeems his father, and the galaxy is a realistic, "used future" place. To the kids who saw the PT first, the cgi infested Anakin centered galaxy is their reality.
One of the bigger problems with CGI is that everyone wants to show off that they're using it in behind the scenes stuff, promotional docs, all that. The tool is getting as much publicity as the movie is. That didn't necessarily happen back in the 80's--the studio wasn't trying to show off all their toys all that much. They were maxing out old tech and old methodology, not innovating new ones. Once you start re-inventing the wheel as far as effects go, people realized you could appeal to the "Bang for the buck" style of hucksterism and make the effects used part of the marketing. "We made this with a COMPUTER!! BUY A TICKET!!" I guarantee you that if an effects movie was released that didn't go into detail about HOW they made the effects, people would stop being so nitpicky about em. but in todays moviegoing climate, there's no way that happens. you have to have the behind-the-scenes video blogs and the special on the dvd and the hook in the movie magazines.
i think the problem with effects-driven movies is not that people are already familiar with the technical aspects, but a problem of transparency. a movie can be drenched in special effects and still not be driven by the effects. it should be driven by the writing, directing and acting... and complimented by the effects. what's happening in a lot of post-"A New Hope" movies is that the effects are either getting in the way of the story, or simply filling a void where the story is weak or absent, so you can't help but twiddle your thumbs and say "gee i wonder how many polygons there are in that computer-generated character" or "i wonder how much money they spent on that effect." if the effect were really doing its job, then it wouldn't be drawing attention to itself & away from the matters at hand. the effect would be transparent. i think the movie studios are much more preoccupied with the "bigger faster & louder" trend (which the george lucas is largely responsible for starting, unfortunately) than the audience is. and to the detriment of the basics: story, character, dialogue, direction, and acting. we all know that Van Helsing sucked, we all know that The Matrix Revolutions and Stealth sucked... they really are just non-interactive video games. deep in their guts, the 13 year old attention deficit kids in the audience know it, too, no matter how eager they are to buy into every overhyped cross-licensed videogame-to-comicbook-to-movie-and-back-again piece of junk that comes along.
but try telling that to the studio executives who greenlighted those movies, and see if they comprehend. their solution is not to give the audience good movies, but to give the audience what it thinks it wants (and ends up being disappointed in, when the movie turns out to be horrible for its lack of story & direction), then blitz the media with advertisements & promo interviews in hopes that they can grab everyone's cash in the opening week before word-of-mouth spreads about its actual (low) quality.
Originally posted by: JennyS1138
A lot of younger fans don't seem to understand that any plot holes or major changes like Vader not being the lead character in the OT are due to changes Lucas made along the way. Like if it seems weird that Leia remembers her mother, they think the mistake was made in Return of the Jedi back in 1983!!!!
In many ways this reminds me of Back to the Future 2 with the alternate reality created by Biff. The entire town has changed and Doc and Marty know its changed, but to everyone else its reality. For the millions who grew up on the OT, Luke is the protagonist who redeems his father, and the galaxy is a realistic, "used future" place. To the kids who saw the PT first, the cgi infested Anakin centered galaxy is their reality.
i'm an old fart OT fan who's got "issues" with the prequel trilogy, but not so much of an issue with the anakin-centricity of the prequels. that's fine. although hayden's (as well as most of the actors') acting is quite wooden and the dialogue is abysmal. the focus on anakin furthers the sort-of "oedipus rex"-ish tragedy (minus the incest of oedipus) hinted at in the OT. luke discovers that he's the son of the second most evil man in the galaxy and he's destined to destroy him. well, redeem anakin by destroying vader. that's pretty messed up. the idea of the cruel inevitability of fate, and the parallels running between the two trilogies (in terms of character, relationships, plot), is very greek. there are echoes of shakespeare too (macbeth, hamlet, etc). i do like the fact that there is a classical complexity to it. the problem for me is that lucas didn't have the full 1-through-6 plot worked out from the start, so there's a whole lot of clumsy tying-up of loose ends, like the "oh by the way, i've been chatting with qui-gonn's ghost" and "yoda and chewbacca are BFFs" angles, midichlorians, continuity errors and such. it walks a fine line between being a million times better & smarter than Flash Gordon, and being a dumbed-down worse-plotted Dune.