Is the original Star Wars responsible for... wrecking cinema as we know or knew it?
#1
Posted 23 July 2005 - 10:28 PM
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#7
Posted 24 July 2005 - 06:33 PM
I wouldn't say it was Star Wars (the originals at least) or Jaws that messed up movies, I think it really started with Jurassic Park. The main thing that is making lots of people sick of movies these days does come from Lucas and Speilberg though, and that thing is - COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES, or CGI. And we all know, Jurassic Park was the big debut for CGI. Ever since then, almost every action/sci-fi movie released has been filled to the brim with as much computer generated imagery as possible.
George Lucas once said, and I quote -
"A special effect without a story behind it is just AIR, it has no purporse or meaning" - can anyone say hypocrite?
The bottom line is Hollywood doesn't care about making movies with good storylines and dialogue anymore! People like Lucas and Speilberg just want to fill the screen with as much Computer Generated Effects as possible in the hopes of dazzling the pre-teen video game crowds into paying to see the movies over and over again (how do you think Phantom Menace made so much money? Jar Jar Binks' wonderful antics? Jake Lloyd's brilliant acting?). They think as long as they plaster huge amounts of special effects all over everything they do that people won't notice or care if the story is bad, or the dialogue sucks, or prequels don't match up with originals.
It's a real shame. The thing that made the Original Star Wars Trilogy in particular (not the Special Editons) so great, was that it was a good story and the focus was on the characters and their motivations; not on how many spaceships they could digitally fit on the screen at one time or how many QUADRUPLE back-flips a CGI Yoda can do.
CGI is a great tool, but only if isn't over-used; and unfortunately for lots of potentially great movies, CGI is OVER-USED and ABUSED to the max!
Hollywood is getting a backlash from audiences though. Recent reports say that over the past 3 years, the movie industry has lost a lot more money than it has earned.
#9
Posted 25 July 2005 - 11:16 AM
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"
#10
Posted 25 July 2005 - 03:44 PM
Good point Dorothy, Disney and Pixar were some of the first as well.
But, when I watch cartoons with CGI in them it doesn't bother me that much because it looks cartoony and fits. I think when I watch something like Star Wars with CGI in it it bothers me because of the same reason - it looks cartoony, but now it does not fit.
I just think they still have a long way to go with the technology before they can really start making CGI look completely realistic - the good news is it can only get better, too bad Star Wars had to suffer through the initial stages of it.
#11
Posted 25 July 2005 - 04:05 PM
You know, I read an article once about how the more human-like a thing looks, the more it just creeps people out. As I recall, it was talking about robotics, and carried the idea over to gaming, but the same priciple would be true. I imagine that if they could really create life-like CGI, a lot of people would be really impressed, but a lot would just think it was creepy. I'll have to see if I can find that article.
It probably wouldn't hurt to have non-human thingies looking more "real," though. But I don't know if the improvement of this technology will help cinema in general. Good CGI may not be able to replace/enhance poor acting.
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"
#12
Posted 26 July 2005 - 04:58 PM
[/quote]
Right, it will never make up for poor acting or poor script writing, very true. But that is why movies are really starting to suck these days - becuase directors/producers think that as long as they fill the screens with loads of CGI and special effects wizardry, that no one will notice the bad dialogue, acting or storyline.
They awed us all with Jurassic Park which set the trend for the great effects/bad acting movie-making style. But that was a decade ago, everyone is so used to CGI now that the majority of people are no longer impressed by the visuals alone -more substance is required to entertain anyone over the age of 5.
#13
Posted 26 July 2005 - 05:09 PM
1. Great effects.
2. A good book that sold well by an established author
3. A few charismatic actors carrying the bulk of the "acting load (i.e. J. Goldblum as Ian Malcolm, .... .... Maybe Sam Niell?)."
4. It was rated PG-13 which meant that all the younglings could go and see it.
But now we have things like Sky Captain, Darkness Falls ( ) and a lot of the other movies that are heavy on effects, and light on acting, with no charismatic or compelling characters at all.
This post has been edited by Dorothy: 26 July 2005 - 05:11 PM
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"
#14
Posted 27 July 2005 - 01:28 PM
This post has been edited by xenduck: 27 July 2005 - 01:33 PM
#15
Posted 28 July 2005 - 12:39 AM
The JP dinosaurs were great. I saw that film in the theatre probably six times, my last real repeat-view. Well, Best in Show for five.
But the previews for Jumanji showed a terrifying and lower standard was about to be released.
No turning back, no turning back.