Do you agree with Spielberg about special effects?

N

no one is pErFeCt

New member
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a241449/spielberg-special-effects-are-misused.html

I tend to agree with him here. A lot of films seem to be written around the aesthetics rather than the story.

Avatar was a great film and I also agree that the effects in this enhanced the story, rather than caused you to focus on the effects solely.

Films like 2012 were so heavily filled with special effects that you concentrated on what you were seeing rather than the story (or at least I was... but then again the story was a little bit predictable and clich
 
Agree with the general point, but as far as Avatar's concerned, the plot was paper thin. Decent movie yes, but that DID owe in no small part to the FX. The plot itself would never have supported a 3 hour movie.

Isn't it usually Emerich's movies that are the worst offenders in the 'Big FX/VVank plot' stakes? :D

His and Michael Bay's explosion-a-rama movies.....
 
I agree to an extent.

With the advent of CGI, there is nothing that cannot be portrayed and realised on screen in a visual sense.

And the major problem with that is that a lot of filmakers go for spectacle over substance. Films are sold on such spectacles, and those effects sequences look great in trailers.

Unfortunately...that alone seems to be enough to get bums on seats, to get people to part with their money.

It does not matter that they come out hating the movie...the money has been paid...and they will be equally as fooled by the next trailer that looks 'incredible'.

But...the movies that you always go back to, the ones you watch over and over, the ones you buy and keep, the ones that you treasure are because the writing, acting, direction etc are pretty damn good.
 
I read that interview and quite frankly found it nauseating.

Spiellberg, Cameron and Zemeckis were were so deferential and full of praise for each other it was embarrassing.
How rich is it of Spielberg to claim there are too many special effects in films.
I apologise to 0P for disagreeing entirely about Avatar.
 
Avatar's setting was "out of this earth" which is why the CGI was needed (well, it was actually an almost all CGI film anyway). It wouldn't have worked without it.

Something like 2012 could have toned it down a little bit, making it more believable rather than computer game like.

I never read the interview but I can imagine the praise high calibre directors give each other. However, it has nothing to do with that. CGI is clearly overused in some films. I loved the Prince of Persia game but the trailer made the film look like a glamorous CGI mess.
 
Not read the full interview, but to me Avatar is the perfect example of CGI overuse in cinema. What's Spielberg trying to say? There is no story in Avatar beyond the naff, by-the-numbers, Disney-esque 'ain't big corporations bad' crap you've seen before a million times. The whole thing is geared to the effects. How can he deride the use of effects and then list Avatar as an exception?

I agree that there's too much CGI these days, and many film makers don't know when to stop. I don't think this can be aimed at Spielberg himself, since while he did (and does) employ a lot of effects, this never came at the expense of the story or was ever the sole focus of any of his films.

Thanks to HD and digital effects, Hollywood has managed to peddle a complete lack of new ideas to the audience based solely on how good the display looks.
 
Ironic the fact Indy IV was green screen half of the time.

Spielberg is looking for excuses, his days are over... go back and create another WW2 films to get the Academy all over you.

His been coming out with shitty films and now his blaming others for using special effects.

When a director like Chris Nolan who can make grand and epic films with minimal effects, makes Spielberg look like shit.

Anyway, his got Chris Nolans brother to write him a new screenplay now. s"igh"
 
Spielberg has only made a handful of bad films and Indy 4 was one of them. That was partly due to how it was made, too quickly with far too many CGI setups and not enough care put into the script. Now he's criticising that method so hopefully he's learned from that mistake. Of course, how much of Indy 4 he actually directed himself is debatable...you watch the extras and it's like he turns up on set just for show almost, that Lucas and the effects crew were more of the driving force. The other Indy's had more heart and life to them.
 
I agree - far too many special effects. But that's what people want these days. They want to see flashy things, and bright shiny lights.

Star Trek was a prime example of this.
 
I think if CGI is used correctly like others have said it works like anything else in a film. Take explosions in films, to an extent they work like car chase scenes but only if they are used to a minimum because if they are not they become a case of "is anything happening plot wise?". I haven't seen Avatar so I can't comment on how good or how bad it is but I know that when I saw the second Matrix film (I think it was the second it has been so long ago) and Neo fought hundreRAB of agent smiths and all the bullet time was being used I got a bit bored and wondered if that was all that was going to happen, it wasn't a terrible film I just think it was a little OTT. Star Wars is a good example as well, many people have discussed if it would be good with a re-make with todays graphics to which I would aways say no, part of the joy of that film is that you can see it was hand made with very few FX involved. I would hate it if I saw say "The Nightmare before Christmas" or any of the Wallace and Gromit films made in CGI rather than stop motion animation.
 
CGI and 3D should be used solely as a method of enhancing the film story in some capacity. CGI has allowed a number of previously "unfilm-able" books/stories to be made, or made realistic (eg.LOTR, and many Sci-Fi or fantasy themes), which is great. However, as with all good things, it will be abused, and we have seen many instances of this over the years. Once such tools become the main focus of any film, it's a bad sign, since the plot and characters should always be the main point of interest, and no CGI or 3D gimmicry can mask this. 2012 and Avatar are prime examples of this, and whilst I am very sceptical about 3D, I appreciated that it could enhance some films in a positive manner. Unfortunately, 3D is now seen by the big studios as a massive cash cow that the sheep will flock to see, regardless of what pile of crap is on offer, so every half-bit film is made in 3D, or worse still, "converted to 3D" before release.
 
Spielberg must be getting old, I go to the cinema to be entertained and to see things I don't see in the real world, it's escapism and I for one want to see mad sfx, otherwise my dvd collection would be full of independent and art house instead of sci-fi and action. Plus if there are two people to blame for all the sfx these days it's him and his mate Lucas, who effectively made it all possible.
 
Because George Lucas is a furry loving ****.

I would have loved to have seen an Indy 4 with absolutely no George Lucas involvement, I have a feeling we would have seen a far better film. I solely blame him for the shit parts of Indy 4, Tarzan style vine swinging with CGI monkeys, that's got Lucas written all over it.
 
Avatar certainly could have been filmed in the traditional manner and augmented with CGI where necessary. I can't think of any element that couldn't have been done with models, forced perspective and even animatronics. It may not have been as visually stunning or as detailed but the performances of the actors would probably have been improved and the weakness of the plot and script would have been laid bare. The reason for it's success was purely because it was almost fully CGI, 3D and because it was hailed as Cameron's long awaited follow-up to Titanic. It'll never be viewed as a classic, though.

For the most effective use of CGI you only need to look at the LotR films. Where ever possible PJ used practical effects and only turned to CGI to augment the live shots of needed or to produce a shot that was totally impossible using practical techniques. The best CGI is the CGI you never notice.
 
Back
Top