It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I'm slumming it as the moment and really enjoying old Classic Doctor Who. I bought all the Jon Pertwee DVDs. The effects are, well, downright appalling in places but the storytelling is very good and I find I can put up with the effects.
I'm also not massively into superhero movies, the formulae doesn't interest me. Once it gets beyond a certain level of CGI enhancement, I start just seeing the green screen, totally shatters the illusion.
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
Why so long? Lord of the Rings. Now that had to be long, bacause it came from a great book that spent the time developing the characters, that gave the go ahead to produce long films, keep the punters feeling like they are on a rollercoaster for 3 hours by overwhelming the senses they come out feeling a rush no matter how bad the movie actually is.
This Razor Crest video should cheer you up:
The problems arise when the film becomes about the ‘big CGI scene’ rather than the film. All of the above films are, when you strip away all the special effects, fundamentally good stories. In contrast, something like Avatar was visually outstanding but, under all of the glitz, was a deeply average plot and script.
At the end of the day CGI is a tool to aid storytelling, and like any tool it can be wielded skilfully, clumsily or overused. If it’s used well the audience will be thinking “Wow, how are the Avengers going to get out of this one?” If it’s used badly, the audience will be thinking “Wow, those are some impressive special effects. Bet they were expensive”.
My feedback thread is here.
I'd say that in each genre CGI has enhanced the way directors can tell the stories they want to tell. I find the superhero movies my kids like about as boring as they find the kind of glacially slow, elegaic westers I like. I've always figured it's because we enjoy different genres. They did win me over with Thor Ragnarok though - I thought that was lots of fun.
I'm also hopeful that the more the technology is used, the cheaper and more accessible it becomes, and the greater the creative risks directors will be able to take.
Without going into the pro/con aspect, it is rare that practical effects are seamless. However, they *tend* to be used to the limit of the technology and not beyond. However, probably the scene that most impresses me (still) of the artistry that can be CGI is the small part in Forrest Gump when Lt Dan sits on the side of his boat and swings over the edge. It is perfect, and absolutely could not be done practically.
Another, oft discussed, scene is the steadycam shot in Contact that seamlessly merges two sequences around a mirror that couldn't be achieved without CGI.
And then we have The Scorpion King. Shudder.
The scene was done by matte painting; the alternative would have been to rent or build a massive warehouse and fill it with crates for one scene. Watching it, I wondered why they don't still use matte painting; then I watched a 'making of' and found out that it took the artist 2 months to paint it. These days it would undoubtedly have been done with CGI to (hopefully) achieve the same effect.
http://https//thumbs.gfycat.com/SkeletalDevotedCondor-mobile.mp4