Gratuitous use of CGI in movies.

[nolawitch58]

Finally saw "Revenge of the Sith" last night. I consider Lucas' use of computer graphics to be a benchmark. None of the CGI scenes are out of place or too long. They don't bog down the action and they advance the story.

Unfortunately, Peter Jackson didn't get that memo when he made "King Kong". Many of the CGI scenes in "Kong" are overly long as if they were so enamoured of the process that they couldn't bear to let the story drive the graphics. If that movie had been made back when all that had to either be mechanical or done with expensive animation, the shots would have been no longer than they needed to be to keep the story moving. Instead, the whole "running with brontosaurus" scene went on too long and was entirely too implausible. No, all those guys would NOT have survived running amid the thundering herd of prehistoric animals. Had the film been edited to shorten or delete many of those scenes, it would have been better.

Which brings me to "Sky Captain". I couldn't watch it. Big whoop-de-do about it being almost all CGI. The story--or what I saw of it--was entirely swallowed up by the masturbatory orgy of gratuitous graphics. That made it boring to me.

Suspension of disbelief is integral to watching a movie. When a cinematic device, such as CGI, is overused or inappropriate, it makes it harder to suspend that disbelief and enjoy the film. Having sat through Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" several times, I can say that no filmmaker is immune to obsessing on his or her latest gimmick. As in "Barry Lyndon", Kubrick fell in love with the cinematic device of shooting in the actual lighing of the period, candles, and while the mise en scene was beautiful to behold, the plot was dull and plodding.

I may do a more personal update later.

Comments

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I won't entirely disagree with your appraisal of King Kong, although some of the longer scenes were actually well done, IMO. The King Kong vs the Dinosaurs bits were excellent, even though they were quite long. The running with brontos bit was probably the only one that the length actually got in the way of the story.
The creepy crawlers bit at the bottom of the ravine was also quite long, but well done enough to enhance the tension, rather than detract from it. Ditto with the planes at the end, although it pushed that limit right to the edge of "omg, just kill him already, we all know how it ends" kinda thingy.

Sith, I expected CGI and got it in spades. Part of Lucas's only saving grace is a great imagintation for CGI scenes. (although the space fleet/Reavers battle scene from Whedon's Serenity will always be the number one awesome CGI scene for me) My problem with both of his last two SW films has, of course, been the horrible acting by Hayden Christianson.

Sky Captain, I agree, was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and explicitly because they had a new toy, and wanted to build a movie to pay with it. Horrible acting, horrible plot, horrible..well, just horrible all round.

Have not seen Barry Lyndon yet. I'm torn; On the one hand, you indicate it's a terrible movie (plot-wise, at least) yet you've sat through it several times? See it or no? (I'm guessing No)

[voxwoman.livejournal.com]

love your icon, BTW

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

Arrrr!

Thanks! :)

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Don't see it. The only reason I sat through it several times was it was required for a film class I was taking on Kubrick's work. I got to see every film he had made up to that point. "Barry Lyndon" was his worst.

about Barry Lyndon

[voxwoman.livejournal.com]

See it. If only for the eye candy. It is an absolutely stunning film, but slow as molasses. (I saw it way back when, when it was in the theaters, during it's initial release, as well as several times since).

[voxwoman.livejournal.com]

Your second paragraph cracked me up... "King Kong" WAS made back when all they had was mechanical - this was a remake of the 1933 version (and you know that) - so were you deliberately being toungue-in-cheek? And I still really like the Fay Wray version (I can't remember if Ray Harryhausen did the stop-motion animation; I don't think so - I think he was too young).

Personally, the dinosaur scenes were my favorites. But I'll watch any animations of dinosaurs, regardless of if there's a plot or a soundtrack :)
The bug scenes were, IMO, gratuitous and yucky.

I also watched "Sky Captain" for the first time yesterday (we must subscribe to the same premium channels, LOL). It felt to me like a colorized black and white film (when it didn't feel like I was watching a fancy video game), and it was just as cheezy as any 1930's/1940's SF film made back in the day in every respect, except for the effects. The robots were cool looking. (And does "Totenkopf" translate to "Big Giant Head"?) One last thing - there was a dark shape in the photo on the Tokyo newspaper (in one of the expository montages consisting of international newspaper headlines) that really looked like Godzilla. Was it the G-guy, or was it just random cloud/shadows making recognizable shapes?

[mcnutcase.livejournal.com]

Totenkopf: Death's-Head.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

The original "King Kong" was no longer than it had to be probably for that reason. The stop-motion animation was costly and time-consuming and was used appropriately sparingly.

I didn't much like the bug scene either for the same reason. It went on too long and it was implausible to the nth degree that the other guy would have been able to shoot the bugs off his companion.

As far as "Sky Captain" goes, I can't tell you anything else. I only got through about fifteen or twenty minutes of it before becoming thoroughly bored. I switched over to something more entertaining at that point. I'm not likely to actually try to view the whole thing either.

[voxwoman.livejournal.com]

Don't bother. I only watched it because the satellite crapped out on the channel that picks up Sci-Fi, and we couldn't watch Dr Who (I'm grabbing it tonight on the 11PM rerun). We lose reception during bad storms, and Friday's was a doozy. I think what got me interested and got me to sit through the whole thing was coming it during the last 20 minutes. I was just trying to figure out the silly futuristic-from-an-early-20th-Century technology was supposed to be. I enjoyed looking at the production design. I do remember all the hype when the film came out, but the trailers and such didn't entice me to go see it in the movies.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

You're gonna love Doctor Who. Next week's is the season finale. It's gonna kick ass too.

I like Eccleston. He has put his own stamp on the Who franchise.

The first King Kong was the best. Period.

[lionsphil.livejournal.com]

It was actually good, for a start, and ended when it ended, rather than dragging on once the star had deceased.

I have to disagree with the CGI in the new Star Wars trilogy, though. I thought it was, frankly, rubbish---it looked horribly fake, mostly because it didn't blend at all with the real bits, such as the actors. Half the discussions in the film don't even have the characters looking in the right direction.

Of course, with some of the acting, that might have happened if it were completely devoid of such technology. Still, at least they gave the script the performance it deserved. Har har.

One final thought on Kong

[voxwoman.livejournal.com]

My favorite part of the whole movie was when they locked the script writer in the animal cage in the hold and told him that's where he's working.