soljey Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 I'm looking forward to, hopefully, seeing more movies that are driven by the script - and not by special effects that are in just 'cos the studio can do it and have the technology!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 I dont see whats wrong with either or both or why you count yourself as more of a thinking person because you can only enjoy the script. I have enjoyed watching the special effects in movies progress over time, it is after all an art form like no other before it, although yes, obviously a few decent actors and a worthwhile script helps. If visual effects detract from the script for you, why not just read the screenplay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 I have enjoyed watching the special effects in movies progress over time, It is interesting to note now how the role of CGI effects has changed. In the early days the studios would make a big deal of how they were using super expensive hi-tech in their films. Now, because CGI is cheaper than live-action for standard action stuff, they make a point of stressing whenever they've decided to use live action instead of CGI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soljey Posted December 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying there's intrinsically anything wrong with effects-driven movies. I've enjoyed quite a few of them every since seeing Star Wars at the North Star up to the recent Batman movies, etc. But Hollywood seems to put so much into seemingly getting as much effects into the movie that script, character dvelopment is forgotten. Take, eg, Pearl Harbour (although there were some mistakes in historical accuracy). Fantastic effects, abysmal storyline and acting. Hence, the preponderance of superhero movies. Often an excuse just to produce more 'amazing' special effects. So much so that one if often left thinking 'great effects', but not caring what happened to the characters in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 A good example of an intellectually complex film where the effects are used very cleverly is Waking Life. It was made by Richard Linklater before he did A Scanner Darkly (which is also a rare example of the effects being integral to the storyline). Here's my favourite clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy3yD5K0gvE The discussion, coincidentally, concerns film scripts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spencey7 Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 But Hollywood seems to put so much into seemingly getting as much effects into the movie that script, character dvelopment is forgotten. Take, eg, Pearl Harbour (although there were some mistakes in historical accuracy). Fantastic effects, abysmal storyline and acting. Hence, the preponderance of superhero movies. Often an excuse just to produce more 'amazing' special effects.I think you're underestimating the influence of the actual film-makers; "Hollywood" isn't just one company. I am in 200% agreement that Pearl Harbour is a MONUMENTAL pile of crap, but that was helmed by Michael Bay - A main offender in a list of hack directors, people like Brett Ratner, Uwe Boll and Paul W.S. Anderson. On the other hand - again, in terms of films which regularly feature special effects - there are directors like Christopher Nolan, Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson. On the whole, I reckon any film which is "effects driven" should be approached with caution. The Dark Knight - for example - had it's fair share of effects, but was all about the characters and their relationships. I don't think that means it's made by or for people "who have brains", it's just a good film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 If ever there was an example of a film being made just because the studio had the CGI machine sitting there, it's D-War. Easily the worst film I've ever seen.... EVER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 I think the acid test for effects is: if you can watch the film again in 15 - 20 years, and the effects don't look really, really dated and crappy, then yes, it was done properly in the first place. But I'm definitely on the side of a good script - if it's not a good story, it's not a good story. Ah, the pleasures of radio, where the pictures are so much better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeAyBee Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 @Suddenstop - Ah well then you can't have seen "SS Doomtrooper". Poor CGI, poor script, poor acting and straight to video via cable channels. An example of how not to rely on CGI. Personally I prefer a movie with a strong script, a robust plot, and if possible appropriate use of SFX. When the mood takes me and I can't be bothered to think, a good old shoot em up CGI movie does the trick, something like Starship Troopers. Audiences are the same as everyone else - there's dumb people and smart people and average people, and they all enjoy movies of all kinds, CGI, costume drama, complicated plots etc. To describe all movie goers that like CGI'ed blockbusters as stupid and those that enjoy well scripted films as smart is a touch simplistic and possibly even just plain wrong. Sometimes though, the studios do churn out poorly constructed crud purely for financial reasons, and tweak the movies in ways that the film makers don't like but have a contracted responsibility to allow. Ah, whatever. Go see something complicated if you like that sort of thing. It won't mean that you're smart. It will just show what sort of film you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrish Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 Can I just say 'thanks' to EM for the 'walking Life' mention and clip? That one had slipped my radar. Not any more though, top of my Lovefilm queue as of now. thanks again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nederlander Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 ^ If you want a big budget pile of crap then try Doomsday on for size!!! That said, its also one of the funniest films I have ever seen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 Remembering too that any film these days (with the budget) is full of CGI, just maybe not anything you will notice, but set extension, object removal, matte painting. Of course 30s films were full of that too, they just painted on wood and glass instead of digitally....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 A great example of sfx gone wrong was Jaws. They had a big rubber shark... which looked crap, so they cut it out except for a couple of scenes and ended up with one of the greatest monster movie's ever where you never saw the monster. A technique repeated with Alien, the greatest monster movie ever. Less is more. Another example of a great monster which still looks good was the '80s remake of The Thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.