TRAZALCA'S HOVEL

Has the luster of CGI died?

2

Comments (4)

Over the last few months, I continue to see a growing trend of criticism
to new films coming out - especially in regards to the use of CGI.

Was it so long ago that we were pretty much WOWED with efforts accomplished
via the digital format of special effects? From Jurassic Park to the Matrix to the
Pirates films for bombastic eye-candy delivery, to the more subtle uses of it such as
in the Sixth Sense, Forrest Gump and Amelie, CGI was primed to impress, and in
many ways it still does, but now we have become jaded with it. Why?

It reminds me of a book I read that taught you how to juggle.
It made a point to say that, even if you master the art of just juggling 3 balls
in the air, after a few minutes, your audience will get bored. Soon, they'll ask,
"Can you juggle four?"

Despite the limitlessness that CGI offers to the imagination for most movie makers,
more and more fans are growing a bit bored with the format, I think.
It has very quickly passed from the "been-there-done-that" attitude, to
now looking at CGI as a cheap way out to make a scene work.

Recently I noted responses for some recent trailers for Iron Man
and for Indy 4. Within seconds, comments erupted saying "Oh yeah. That bit was
definitely CGI." And the disappointment in its tone was clearly unmistakeable.

What would it take to WOW a movie goer nowadays?
Just a few months ago, I read of reviews for I AM LEGEND reporting complete
amazement at the first act of the movie, which transforms Manhattan to a city
slowly being reclaimed by the earth with flora and fauna.
It had that "how did they do that?" factor going for it, until the monsters appeared
later in the film, and the wow factor fizzled quick.

Transformers delivered in a spectacular show of CGI like never before, but alas,
how long will it be before that too instills a yawn factor to an ever demanding
movie goer?

I remember showing the movie the Ten Commandments to my kids, and I took
note of the special effects used in that film. I hadn't seen the movie in over a decade. No CGI, and yet, it still impressed the heck out of me.
Thanks to the over-exposure of information for just about anything
these days, I could easily learn what methods they used to do the special effects
during the fire and brimstone sequence, or for the parting of the Red Sea.
But still, there was a "reality" element to it that did not fail to fascinate.

So, what's changed? Has the wonder of CGI long died off?
Has the idea of "movie magic" become a thing of the past?
Can we watch a movie without nitpicking over each scene that is or isn't CGI'd?
Couldn't we just sit back and watch a movie on its own terms without doing so?
Even if the CGI looks no better than an aging Playstation 2 FMV (from a Final Fantasy
game, let's say), should we still demand better from any given movie?
If you watched the movie Tron today, would the CGI put you off?
If it was remade today, what expectations would you have for it?

Why have so many suddenly become critical of the film product in recent years,
when it wasn't so for decades?
Why has our expectations for a film changed in that respect?

I have often believed that, before CGI arrived in theaters,
and even before the whiz-bang effects from the Golden Age of Hollywood hit the
cinescopes and widescreen epics, PEOPLE were the greatest special effect.

Directors like Bergman were fascinated so much with the human face,
they very often they filled the screens with it, showcasing facial gestures and
inflections that added to the story, sometimes in such profound ways,
once the credits rolled, you'd be left affected and even a touch wiser for it.

Sadly, this little belief of mine appears all but dead in most films.
People are no longer the special effect, only the delivery system for a plot point,
and regrettably, a predictable one at that.

Sorry if this rant is about as interesting as tepid coffee.

But some of the comments to the trailers articles had me thinking.
And, well, there you go.

Traz