Oohh inspired by the discussion on film better than the book thread.
So is the modern blockbuster's reliance on CGI generated mayhem merely a way of hiding a lack of investment in good screen writing and writers?
*Waits for fireworks* CGI Generated ones natch.
Quote: Blenkinsop @ March 21 2011, 6:54 PM GMTOohh inspired by the discussion on film better than the book thread.
So is the modern blockbuster's reliance on CGI generated mayhem merely a way of hiding a lack of investment in good screen writing and writers?
*Waits for fireworks* CGI Generated ones natch.
Not necessarily, but CGI has too often become a toy that film makers would rather play with than concentrating on a good script.
Also Sooty did a thread on this a while back, although that involved rape so it's probably best forgotten.
Quote: chipolata @ March 21 2011, 6:57 PM GMTNot necessarily, but CGI has too often become a toy that film makers would rather play with than concentrating on a good script.
My thoughts exactly. Nowt wrong with a bit of CGI as such, but nearly every American big star appearing on our many chat shows seems to have some kind of apocalyptic mayhem shown to illustrate their latest film.
What ever happened to a good old simple well told and well-acted story?
I hate CGI monsters. They're always a bit rubbish, they just don't have the same feel; practical monsters are better. Would The Thing be better made with CGI creatures? Nope.
CGI monsters should be stopped! Banned!
Using CGI isn't always bad, obviously. But monster-wise = boring and ineffective.
I agree with what you're saying re monsters etc. but I was referring to the popular trend to have the key moments of films these days pivoting off action rather than a good well-crafted plot twist.
It just seems to me that the default position is to make something look unbelievably spectacular and feck the subtlety of a good twist.
Not always of course but far too often for me. You look at a brilliant film like, say, Goodbye Mr Chips (1939) and wonder if they'll ever get back to that as the norm rather than the exception
CGI is amazing if used properly, Jurassic Park would have sucked huge latex Bronto-balls if they'd used practical Dinosaurs.
I love the old stop motion monsters of Ray Harryhausen but you can get good CGI monsters, such as the Lovecraftian beast in Cloverfield and the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Hard to make scary velocaraptors with plasticene.
There are very few examples of great CGI monsters, and many, many examples of rubbish, enter the cartoon character ones.
GI Joe: Return of Cobra - two hours of my life I won't get back or the million brian cells that committed hari kiri to get through it. Even Riley Major thought it was tosh of the highest ordure. Even the CGI.
Quote: KLRiley @ March 21 2011, 8:43 PM GMTGI Joe: Return of Cobra - two hours of my life I won't get back or the million brian cells that committed hari kiri to get through it. Even Riley Major thought it was tosh of the highest ordure. Even the CGI.
What did you think when you plonked down money to watch a film based on a popular line of kid's toys - that it was going to be a masterpiece?
No, but occasionally there might be a storyline.
Quote: Griff @ March 21 2011, 9:57 PM GMTOne of them's just swept the Oscars.
True. Obviously the exception to prove the rule. 
We also shouldn't get carried away thinking that pre-CGI, blockbusters were models of intelligent well-written quality scripts.
You say that, but what about Jaws 3?
