If you're often annoyed, as I am, by the "runaway" use of CGI in the movies today, I'd highly recommend that you read this post on Roger Ebert's blog. As he has so many times in so many ways, Roger hits the nail right on the head.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/08/the_effect_of_effects.html
4 comments:
While I totalyl agree too many movies use CGI now, I think it's mainly a problem of how they chose to use their effects that is the problem not the effects themselves.
A great and recent example of good use is Iron Man; the late great Stan Winston married the practical effects with CGI and I don't think anyone would doubt for a moment watching that film that the suit could fly.
A counter point would be the footage I just saw from Terminator Salvation. Some effects must be put in but McG and his DP had their own specialized film stock created so they could capture a visual quality in-camera instead of doing it in post and the look is beautiful.
Like any tool, the end product depends on how it is used and if it is servicing the piece of art it is making.
I understand what you're getting at. I think that that's what Roger was getting at too. He's not knocking CGI as much as he's knocking the laziness that can occur when a filmmaker chooses to use CGI at the expense of "realism."
For example, I watched "Blade Runner" for the first time this year. The Los Angeles depicted in that film is an awe-inspiring place. I think that one of the chief reasons for this is that, while Scott used some visual effects, for the most part, objects were actually "there" and physical models were actually built for use in the film. In contrast, the visuals of the environments in a more recent sci-fi film like "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," while cool, don't have the same tangible quality that "Blade Runner"'s L.A. does. I love good CGI, but what's most important to me is that the visuals, regardless of whether it's a basic close-up of someone's face or a digitally enhanced overhead shot of a futuristic city, serve the story. That's where I think most filmmakers go wrong. They are more interested in showing off what they can make in a computer, rather than telling the best possible story.
. . . and I never saw "Iron Man." I got sick of hearing how great it was and how much I ought to see it. It totally turned me off.
:) Adam, you're going to miss a lot of good movies if you let buzz get to you like that.
Do I have to give you my "Aduiences can be stupid but not always wrong" speech? Of course the flip side is I have a "Audiences are lemmings and can be totally wrong" speech...
Not necessarily. Look at it this way. I'm not an Iron Man fan in any way, unlike a lot of other heroes. So, I already wasn't that interested, and hearing absolutely EVERYONE telling me to go see it just turned me off. On the flip side, if there's something that I really want to see, like, say, "The Dark Knight," then I'm just going to go, no question about it. (unless something pops up that makes me question my initial desire to see it)
Besides, the movies that I like most lately are usually art-house or boutique films. For example, I'm going to see "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," the new Woody Allen film, on opening night. I bet that the vast majority of my friends haven't even heard of it, much less actually want to see it. This can be frustrating, because sometimes people want me to watch movies that I consider to be a waste of time. Oh well . . .
Post a Comment