Movie/Series making these days tends not to be as fun for the actors, but with an impressive end result. 
This turns into:
CGI in Modern Movie/Series Storytelling
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
Yoused
up
CG has largely become excessive and tedious to me. The immersive experience just gets unpleasant after about 20~30 seconds. Lord of the Rings got to be more than I could take, Harry Potter overdid it only slightly less, and even one of my recent favorites, Cloud Atlas has scenes that make me go for a snack.
Time for me to go back to books, I guess.
Time for me to go back to books, I guess.
Well when CGI first appeared, I hated the stylized versions of it, I hated movies created in warehouses, ie where they made CGI heavy films. A great example of this is Sin City, and even 300. Yet it was Avatar that broke this view for me when CGI became photo-realistic and the only reason I knew it was not real was because of something I did not see on the screen. i love Avatar.
That said, I can still appreciate practical effects such in TopGun: Maverick, those kind of shots have real gravity and make it really impressive, although the story was silly.
Eric
Mama's lil stinker
Completely agree that it's overdone these days, there's a certain realism that's taken for granted and people just tune out to it. If we look back at Jaws, for example, it was much more compelling, you had the real feel of the ocean, the sounds, the waves, boats splashing in the water and that was back in the 70s. Technology has come a long way but it still doesn't translate to true reality on the screen.
.jpg)
Yoused
up
What was that thing about 15+ years ago, Captain Heroic or whatever, where the entire movie was shot on set and then the scenes were all CG'd in?
The thing with both of those movies is they're based on highly stylized source material (Frank Miller, who was very involved in both projects / co-director on Sin City), where the style is as much a part of the story as the narrative (maybe even more so), the aesthetic was very intentional, not really a byproduct of some kind of CGI limitation.
Scepticalscribe
Cancelled
- Posts
- 6,644
- Reaction score
- 9,458
I completely agree with @Yoused:Movie/Series making these days tends not to be as fun for the actors, but with an impressive end result.
Personally, increasingly, I cannot abide the use of CGI these days on movies.
Now, I never much cared for it, but - to me - it creates a world where special effects are allowed to dominate the tale at the expense of proper story telling, which - to my mind - is where plot and character should intersect to provide a compelling narrative. CGI should support this, - and should serve the plot - and not seek to dominate, or be, the story.
The equivalent in theatre is where one greatly admires the set, and discussion of the play is about how wonderful the set design is, while the story, plot and acting draw less attention.
Nycturne
Elite Member
- Posts
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 1,484
Agree. Visual effects are a tool to help sell the story. They are not a replacement for a good story.
That said, there are movies I really enjoy are dependent on visual effects to sell the look of things that are hard to do purely as a practical effect. Arrival is one of my favorite Sci-Fi films of recent years, and the visual effects help sell just how foreign the aliens are.
Early CGI hasn’t been aging well either. Phantom Menace and Lord of the Rings being notable examples. So films from the 90s/00s, ones that rely more on practical effects tend to look better 20 years later.
This is a worthy counter point. That was my first exposure to CGI heavy films and I still hate them as animated visual novels.
CGI capabilities have increased greatly to the point of photorealistic environments. The movie makers like Cameron who take the time and $$, have created amazing things. The Mandalorian created some outstanding sets using digital screen backgrounds In a warehouse.And I’ll concede to @Scepticalscribe the point that in the viewers brain, it’s hard to outdo great practical effects. Top Gun:Maverick is an example of that although it’s story whike I was entertained, was rubbish.
There is a dilemma when the story moves into space or to another planet, you are stuck with models or CGI to fill in the gaps.
Arguably the best examples of CGI are when you not aware of it being such, like a background. Say the bon voyage scene in Titanic. There it’s hard to tell what is real such as the huge ship set that was built, and what was painted in. And for all of the scenes where the ocean could be seen, you are not sure if they are digital or real. That I’m king of the world scene, he could have been up on a prop out on the ocean, or it was all digitally painted in.
Recently I have been watching the reported to be every expensive, Rings of Power series and there are some scenes sailing, not the ones above, and I’ll assume it was digital, but have not researched it to know for sure. Even for above, there is some amount of real frothy water, and then there is the digital curtain that brings the background to life.
Scepticalscribe
Cancelled
- Posts
- 6,644
- Reaction score
- 9,458
Again, I must beg to differ.
When special effects - and, above all CGI special effects - are used, the temptation is to succumb to allowing them to become the story, instead of simply one means of simply telling the story, with the addition of striking visual aids and imagery.
But, the story is what counts. And, what is wrong with asking the human imagination (which works perfectly well constructing scenes in the mind when reading a book) to work when viewing something on a screen?
And, the truth is, I found Titanic risible (special effects and historic verisimilitude notwithstanding), ghastly, sentimental, and - frankly - not remotely credible; that central love story was completely cringe inducing.
Moreover, in stories where you must show another planet, while special effects have their place (but only in support of the story), when their role in the narrative supplants the story, (the first Star Trek movie when STNG and the original Star Trek actors shared a movie screen featured an impressive set of scenes where The Enterprise crashed, so good that they showed it twice; as a visual spectacle, of course, it was magnificent, but as a story - Picard meets Kirk - the story was so banal that it was unforgettable, and a terrible waste of a movie; a great many of the individual episodes of STNG were far better and cost a lot less) they can ruin the story.
And, you don't need special effects to depict another planet; good actors, good characters, a good script, a good story, (and yes, I will concede, perhaps decent costumes) will do the job for you.
To be honest, a movie that broadcasts itself - or advertises itself - on the basis of its special effects is one I know that I can probably safely miss.
Me, I'm old school: I want stories, that is, well told stories, not a spectacular spectacle.
When special effects - and, above all CGI special effects - are used, the temptation is to succumb to allowing them to become the story, instead of simply one means of simply telling the story, with the addition of striking visual aids and imagery.
But, the story is what counts. And, what is wrong with asking the human imagination (which works perfectly well constructing scenes in the mind when reading a book) to work when viewing something on a screen?
And, the truth is, I found Titanic risible (special effects and historic verisimilitude notwithstanding), ghastly, sentimental, and - frankly - not remotely credible; that central love story was completely cringe inducing.
Moreover, in stories where you must show another planet, while special effects have their place (but only in support of the story), when their role in the narrative supplants the story, (the first Star Trek movie when STNG and the original Star Trek actors shared a movie screen featured an impressive set of scenes where The Enterprise crashed, so good that they showed it twice; as a visual spectacle, of course, it was magnificent, but as a story - Picard meets Kirk - the story was so banal that it was unforgettable, and a terrible waste of a movie; a great many of the individual episodes of STNG were far better and cost a lot less) they can ruin the story.
And, you don't need special effects to depict another planet; good actors, good characters, a good script, a good story, (and yes, I will concede, perhaps decent costumes) will do the job for you.
To be honest, a movie that broadcasts itself - or advertises itself - on the basis of its special effects is one I know that I can probably safely miss.
Me, I'm old school: I want stories, that is, well told stories, not a spectacular spectacle.
We most certainly don’t share the same spectrum of standards as what constitutes a good story, but there are instances where our tastes do cross paths.
I mentioned Titanic as an example of outstanding CGI designed to support a perfectly serviceable story, that entertained me. And it was built on a huge practical set, another plus. James Cameron has a talent for telling good stories, good enough to appeal to me and to be blockbusters. In the case of Titanic, the idea of incorporating an expedition exploring the wreck, tied to a love story is brilliant if the goal is to have broad appeal, who wants more than just a disaster film. Compare it to just about any disaster film, which tends to be short on story and long on special effects. There is a reason Titanic is one of the top grossing films, appealing to a very large audience.
Nycturne
Elite Member
- Posts
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 1,484
I think there’s room for both to be honest. Humans are visual creatures, and it’s one reason film has been such a big part of our culture the last century. I do agree with the general premise that visual effects cannot carry a movie on its own, at least not beyond the box office.
I think there’s a difference between writing that simply suffers, versus writing for the sake of the spectacle. Star Trek: Generations (and I’d argue the TNG movies as a whole) suffered from writing woes, unfocused ideas, and actors that were wanting specific things that would be “cool” for their characters to do. The spectacle that was left was a symptom, rather than the root problem, IMO.
That said, Marvel is an annoying juggernaught at the moment. The approach to writing that has been taken with the need to setup the next film, the next big bad, etc, etc has not done the writers any favors and created a style of writing that is infecting other projects. The need to go-go-go in a story and sacrifice pacing, breathing room, and intentionality. The creation of plot demands and then moulding characters’ actions to fit them. I could go on. But I do think writing has taken a weird turn, but I don’t think visual effects are the primary reason for it. But the fact that these films keep printing money in the box office means we get more of it.
I love big spectacle. But I’m not going to add it to my library at home unless it has actual value in revisiting it, which requires a good story (from my point of view) to go with it. And I’ll admit there’s not a ton that I’ve been adding from the last few years. But there’s a decent mix of blockbusters in there (just not anything from Disney’s major studios to be honest).
I think there’s a difference between writing that simply suffers, versus writing for the sake of the spectacle. Star Trek: Generations (and I’d argue the TNG movies as a whole) suffered from writing woes, unfocused ideas, and actors that were wanting specific things that would be “cool” for their characters to do. The spectacle that was left was a symptom, rather than the root problem, IMO.
That said, Marvel is an annoying juggernaught at the moment. The approach to writing that has been taken with the need to setup the next film, the next big bad, etc, etc has not done the writers any favors and created a style of writing that is infecting other projects. The need to go-go-go in a story and sacrifice pacing, breathing room, and intentionality. The creation of plot demands and then moulding characters’ actions to fit them. I could go on. But I do think writing has taken a weird turn, but I don’t think visual effects are the primary reason for it. But the fact that these films keep printing money in the box office means we get more of it.
I love big spectacle. But I’m not going to add it to my library at home unless it has actual value in revisiting it, which requires a good story (from my point of view) to go with it. And I’ll admit there’s not a ton that I’ve been adding from the last few years. But there’s a decent mix of blockbusters in there (just not anything from Disney’s major studios to be honest).
I unapologetically enjoy Titanic and respect the hell out of Cameron’s talents. The beginning and end bits with Bill Paxton and the gang always make me cringe with the corny dialogue. It’s like they took the Twister cast and sent them to search for boat wrecks, with that level of writing and acting.
Nycturne
Elite Member
- Posts
- 1,137
- Reaction score
- 1,484
James Cameron is surprisingly good at finding the balance required to create a blockbuster, while at the same time keeping it in the minds of folks long after it leaves the big screen. I’m interested in seeing the new Avatar film just to see if he could do something interesting with a sequel or not. The first wasn’t his strongest film, but I revisit it occasionally because of just how well everything does mesh together.
One of the reasons I keep an eye on Christopher Nolan as well. Tenet was maybe one of his weaker films, but it still had some interesting ideas, and I still keep coming back to Inception and Interstellar. Maybe Tenet will wind up in my library at some point, but so far it hasn’t really grabbed my imagination like the other two.
I agree completely that special effects, a story they do not make.
When I look at the long list of Marvel movies, I can admit that the Infinity Stone Saga is a monumental achievement in the history of movie making even as an accident.* I find almost all of them to be watchable, solid stories for the most part, funny, sad, poignant at times, but few do I own, a couple of Thor movies, a couple of Guardians, and a couple of Ant Men. However, I can watch them all via my Disney+ subscription.
*This Saga just kind of developed, it was not planned from the start.
Last edited:
Scepticalscribe
Cancelled
- Posts
- 6,644
- Reaction score
- 9,458
Perhaps it is simply a case of personal cultural preferences.
In general, I don't much care for American movies - although, of course, there are a few exceptions to that - and tend to far prefer European movies.
In general, I don't much care for American movies - although, of course, there are a few exceptions to that - and tend to far prefer European movies.
Last edited:
Shame, because I think that’s what we do best. All downhill after that
Nah, who would want to watch any of this crap
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) - Wikipedia
The importance of storytelling over FX is highlighted by stage productions, where there are scant, if any, opportunities for digital wizardry. They are often immensely satisfying, and minimal scenery even helps shift the audience's focus to the characters.
In the sci-fi and adventure genres, though, I'd say special effects are required to move the story along. I can't imagine Star Trek:TOS without the transporter sequences or seeing the Enterprise being cocooned by the Tholians. Trouble is, over the years the effects have come to dominate, so people walk away raving about the CGI rather than the plot or acting.
I think Stranger Things does a good job of achieving balance by using practical effects to advantage. For example Vecna was mostly "real," and was even more menacing that way. I've read that he was so convincing, Millie Bobby Brown's fearful reaction was genuine. But there were other creatures that couldn't be depicted without CGI, and might have been unintentionally laughable if done practically.
In the sci-fi and adventure genres, though, I'd say special effects are required to move the story along. I can't imagine Star Trek:TOS without the transporter sequences or seeing the Enterprise being cocooned by the Tholians. Trouble is, over the years the effects have come to dominate, so people walk away raving about the CGI rather than the plot or acting.
I think Stranger Things does a good job of achieving balance by using practical effects to advantage. For example Vecna was mostly "real," and was even more menacing that way. I've read that he was so convincing, Millie Bobby Brown's fearful reaction was genuine. But there were other creatures that couldn't be depicted without CGI, and might have been unintentionally laughable if done practically.
