Ever since the Star Wars prequels I've thought story telling gave way to CGI in a major way and we're seeing it more...
Ever since the Star Wars prequels I've thought story telling gave way to CGI in a major way and we're seeing it more and more as bringing fantasy to the big screen has become easier and cheaper through the use of computers. Jurassic Park, Transformers, hell, even mundane non-scifi movies like the Fast and Furious franchise are spending more time hammering out CGI than great stories.
CGI is being used like a crutch in Hollywood, encouraging studios to put out substandard films as long as they can make up for them with a CGI bonanza.
As a reader, a writer and an avid movie goer, the narrative should be paramount in any film or television show. It's the story that sticks with us, that we'll talk about at the water cooler and debate over drinks with friends.
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/avengers-age-of-ultron-cgi-special-effects-1201487125/
CGI is being used like a crutch in Hollywood, encouraging studios to put out substandard films as long as they can make up for them with a CGI bonanza.
As a reader, a writer and an avid movie goer, the narrative should be paramount in any film or television show. It's the story that sticks with us, that we'll talk about at the water cooler and debate over drinks with friends.
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/avengers-age-of-ultron-cgi-special-effects-1201487125/
Comments
John Hardy didn't vote for Abbott, I disagree. Superheroes do have motivations, they're just not explored very well in AoU. Considering the films only, not the comics, we know from Thor that Thor takes Midgard (Earth) under his protection; Captain America is against tyranny no matter what form it takes; Black Widow is trying to redeem herself from past actions; Iron Man is arrogant and believes he's the only way to save the world; the Hulk is, well, the Hulk; and Hawkeye's motivation is, it's his job. The superhero archetype is the person who does right for the sake of doing right. As the Hindu believe, there are many paths to god. In the superhero realm, there are many paths to 'right.'
Jesse Heymann, this article isn't nonsense, it's asking a question all of us should be asking: is a bad movie with great special effects (these days done with CGI) a good movie? And the answer is no. CGI can make movie "magic" but computer graphics cannot tell a great story in and of themselves. And as more studios rely on CGI we've seen a lack of storytelling in these big summer blockbusters.
ikay abuah, I think you fail to understand what I was saying in my original post. You're right, CGI has nothing to do with the actual story, but CGI cannot replace a bad story.
If I'm making a King Kong or robot movie, of course I have to rely on CGI. Its part of the movie, like sound, lighting, etc.
But Hollywood thinks that More CGI= Bad movie
There is no lack of good storytelling. But the larger the scale of the project, the more mistakes you are likely to make.
I'm not saying CGI shouldn't be used in films, what I, and the article are saying, is that the story shouldn't be compromised just because you have a large CGI budget.
You know what, the more I re-read your most previous post the more I think you just don't understand. I AM NOT, nor is the linked-to article, TALKING ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY BEHIND CGI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The article, no any of my previous statements, are talking about the technology. No one gives a fuck about the technology behind CGI except for the people selling it, using it or developing it. For this conversation we are talking about the use of CGI, it's rise as a SFX medium and the fall of good storytelling at the same time. Only a fool would think any of the Transformers movies were good movies. Sure, the first one was entertaining, but the rest? Utter BS. The Star Wars prequels, I think we can all agree, were terrible story telling. Man of Steel could have used less CGI, so could any movie that relied on visual effects over great storytelling.
Or let John Pennington say it on Quora: http://goo.gl/25B6OP
It can contribute to a lack of substance and emotion in writing. Certain movies can become dependant on explosions and supposedly epic scenes which poorly manipulate the art that CGI can be. This can act as a substitute for good quality and thoughtful writing which is often the thing that makes a movie and sadly, which the frequency of CGI use few films manage to get the balance right. Here, CGI annoys people because it is detrimental to the quality of a movies writing content and script which can often destroy a movie entirely. The substitution of CGI over real movie-making technique and emotional, plot driven movies.
All too often I watch a current film (I actually love Disaster Movies!) and I'm so disappointed.
Sharknado is one perfect example of just a horrible movie plot that depends entirely on CGI, (I'm assuming that was what was used), yet has ironically developed a cult following. That's because it was SO AWFUL!
I watched Gozilla recently and actually liked it. Not the best story, but the special effects blended so well into the story line that it was enjoyable. But hey, I'm old enough to remember the original Godzilla movies, so I knew what to expect.
One of my favorite movies based on plot lines is Double Indemnity with Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray. That movie had so many twists and built such anticipation, I was on the edge of my seat.
Films with CGI rarely excite me, so by and large, I avoid them.
Used correctly and with at least a decent amount of judgment it can take something good and help boost it into great.
Sitting around in ones basement pounding a fifth of cheap vodka is just sad. . .and that is what a lot of movies seem to be turning into.
Thats why James Cameron waited decades to shoot Avatar.
The epicness is all part of the storytelling. Some directors do it RIGHT, some do it WRONG. Its their fault, not the CGI tech itself.
Case Study: Dawn of The Planet of Apes v. Transformers: Age of Extinction
Its the director, not the CGI.
Jesse Heymann Hon, this isn't a word.
Look at Michael Bay, or (BLASPHEMY?!) Peter Jackson. He butchered the Lord of the Rings with putting his special effects over the story. I actually fell asleep during The Two Towers, the battle scene was SO BORING.
But then, I am one of those people who doesn't think that there is anything Star Wars beyond the first movie in 1977.
And then you have inept handling by script writers. Re: Black Widow and awesome women in general.
As for Black Widow: she has been portrayed fine in every movie she's been in, especially Winter Soldier. I will agree that women haven't been well represented in the superhero movie genre, but let's face it: these hero movies are made about men, from comic books about men from a time when only young men read comic books. They're covering origins and popular storylines, most of which involve men in the roles of good guys and bad guys. Marvel, specifically, has very little in the way of powerful women they can choose from having licensed off most of their top tier characters to different studios and that's why we're seeing a lot of background characters suddenly thrown into the forefront of the cinematic universe. DC has one superheroine that I can think of that has curb appeal and have yet been able to bring her to the big screen. They tried with the small screen but failed miserably.