[shrrshrr]

Hey all - was posting on a thread and thinking about this.

I missed the 60 Minutes special on the special effects in Sin City, and how uniquely the film was made, but I was told about it and it's been mulling around my head a bit.

Then, someone posted that a new movie was a bit over the top when it came to special effects for horror, and that it sort of took away from the film.

In my opinion there's no question there's an over-reliance on special effects in films these days - and apparently (according to an old boyfriend of mine) cars don't really blow up just because they roll over, or even when they catch fire! And yet that's one of the most popular special effects out there.

In any case, I think it's an intriguing topic and as you can tell from the above message I'm not sure where to take this or quite what I think about it. There's no single answer, and it's definitely worth a debate.

And now that I'm typing this I think we already had a thread on this topic... *goes to look at master list*

[UnsilentMajorty]

There are two sides to this coin:

1) The only limitation film makers have is their imaginations.

This was unheard of just 20 years ago -- I am thinking when CGI was coming into its own with films like Willow, The Last Starfighter and The Abyss in the 1980s.

These days, if a writer or director wants their film to, for example, take place in cyberspace (and I don't mean a virtual reality like Matrix or Existenz)... It can take place in cyberspace with notihing but "space", represnations of bits, bytes, and electrons if that is what is needed.

The flip side of this is...

2) There is an over-reilance on special and visual effects as a substitute for good storytelling.

This is the number one thing critics and movie goers say in this day and age of "there are no limits execept a person's imagination". There is validity to this argument because I think some film makers... George Lucas in particular with the Star Wars Prequels... Rely to heavily on special and visual effects and try and pass off spectacle as story and it comes off as such and audiences today, for the most part, are too sophisticated for it and demand good stories to go along with those spectacular effects.

----

My personal positon on this is I think special and visual effects have their place as long as they ehnahce the story and don't become a substitute for the story.

A lot of industry people use this exact same logic or justification... Like James Cameron... But where they fail is that a lot of times the stories that are told using these special and visual effects aren't that good and therefore, the effects take presidence over the story trying to be told. A perfect James Cameron film like this is "Titanic" and "True Lies". The stories are pretty weak... But because they prop up the visuals (and vice versa) people are willing to "forgive" him and film makers like him because of it... That I feel is wrong in the sense that this is what fuels these multi-billion dollar epics that have crappy stories at the core... Like the Star Wars prequels.

Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, Spider Man II and the soon to be released Kindom of Heaven seem to be an ideal mix of where CGI and good storytelling combine to enhance each other... But it is very rare for this combination to actually work and why a lot of CGI and special effects driven stories aren't that good even if they make an honest effort not to be too sensational or spectacular.

I think Elekra with Jennifer Garner is a prime example.

It is not that bad a of movie... But I think the fact it does have extensive CGI and fantasy-like fight choreography overshadows the story it is trying to tell and it is the more visceral images, sights and sounds in films that people often remember films for these days (right or wrong) and this is what drives the marketing of films... Sometimes to the wrong audiences as well.

[shrrshrr]

I think I agree with you about the fact that the stories are lacking, which causes the creators of a movie to over-rely on special effects as a result. Of course, this doesn't apply to all films.

And yes, I do think special effetcs have their place in movies, but there's just so much of it these days.

Finally, I wish I'd seen the 60 Minute segment because it does sound fascinating and rather unique. I'm intrigued.

[TheCheshireKitten]

I've always thought that Star War prequels rely too heavily on special effects, but I definitely don't think that the storyline for the prequels is poor. Actually, if anything, the storyline is more interesting than that of the original trilogy. More complex. There's so much potential in the story of Anakin Skywalker - the problem is, I just don't think GL has utilized that potential. He focused on all the flashy effects and CGI characters instead.

[shrrshrr]

You know, this is why I haven't seen the first two movies, CheshireKitten - that, and the fact that they are much more child oriented (which again can be pinned down to CGI characters created for the entertainment of kids, since GL is very child oriented these days in his personal life). Good point.

I also prefer the original version of the second trilogy for it's pureness rather than the CGI touched up versions he later produced.