Are effects not very special anymore?
CGI. Those three letters are enough to make some movie puritans eat their Harryhausen posters in rage. It can be argued that these digital effects rob movies of their integrity, that what you're seeing isn't actually "there", or that the craft of truly creating special EFFECTS is gone forever. True artists don't have to toil for hours now on super-realistic models and monsters to suspense the belief of the viewer. Just bung in a few ultra expensive computer images and the job is done. Others would argue that, since movies were first filmed, directors have yearned for the latest camera trickery to help get their story across. So surely CGI is just another stepping stone in the same way that stop motion, blue screen and stunt doubles are?
To me, CGI is a GOOD thing, but only in small doses, and only when entirely necessary. What irks me about CGI is when a movie is bombarded with it for no reason. Take the new Star Wars movies (please etc). Did ALL of the non-human characters have to be CGI? Did we ever watch Jedi and think "Jabba The Hutt? Pff - that is so OBVIOUSLY about six guys under there." Of course we didn't. Yet the human beard took it upon himself to make every monster, alien and flying stereotypical Jew CGI - because he could.
For the likes of, say, War Of The Worlds - yes, CGI was necessary (although not every scene - the aliens themselves didn't have to be CGI, for example), but it seems the likes of models and puppets are seen as old-hat, when in reality they can look a damn site more realistic than their computer generated counterparts (they don't look all shiny and weird, for one, check out American Werewolf In Paris and Alien 3 for proof of that).
I guess it's all down to the skill of the director and the effectiveness of the monster created. Compare the timeless chill Bela Lugosi created with his take on Dracula, free from any CGI, special effects (or even fangs in the original) to the feeble over-egging of Van Helsing's effect-laden Dracula. The latter certainly LOOKS better, but it's Lugosi's people will still be talking about in twenty years time. And what about Godzilla? The ultra-sophisticated 98 US remake Godzilla was intensely unpopular with fans, not least for the crap storyline they brought in. He looked "ugly", not "proud, dignified and handsome" like the original. And how are the real Godzilla movies still being made? Bloke in a monster suit smashing tiny buildings - and we wouldn't have it any other way. Or what about the Daleks? In another light the prospect of squawking killer dustbins could have looked pathetic - yet they became some of the most feared and popular monsters in history.
So what do you all think, then? CGI or not? Would you rather see a return to the monsters created by hand, like the creatures seen in Labyrinth, Clash Of The Titans, Star Wars Episodes IV-VI, Ghostbusters and a million others, or do you prefer the more sophisticated approach seen in Godzilla (98), King Kong, Lord Of The Rings and Narnia?
The choice..... is yours.
2 comments:
Not big on westerns, but a definite yaaay (in a manly sort of way, of course) to the other two.
Huge budget car explosion fest action movies don't interest me, nor do CGI-overload movies. Unless there's someone in spandex fighting crime in them, of course.
Ditto on that, Anon. I watched Clash Of The Titans a couple of weeks ago and it STILL looks awesome. Comedy Owl included.
I don't see it happening though. Modern day cinema goers just wouldn't accept stop motion unless the words "Wallace and Gromit" are included. Very sad.
Post a Comment