jsea90

Hey guys.

Currently I'm writing my dissertation and i'm looking into which is more important these days, Story or CGI and Special Effects.

Anybody got any feelings on this subject, and most importantly, why they feel that way.

Hope for a few good response. thanks in advance.

Joe

ChristineCB

I think it depends on the masturbatory values of the filmmaker. If he prefers a short thrill, then he'll use all of today's CGI capabilities and immediately be out-dated. Whatever thrill he got in the dark privacy of his own computer studio will be outclassed by the next Intel or AMD chipset's delivery.

Good stories are far more difficult to achieve and take far more effort and creativity. For filmmakers who lack all of those skills, then CGI is their only hope for glory - short-term as it may be.

Have you seen TRON? It was hailed as the milestone upon its delivery. If you watch it today, you HAVE to gasp at the pathetic state of computer animations, and laugh at the pretentiousness of the film-makers who patted themselves on the back so heartily.

Yet, Harryhausen's and Willis O'Brien's stop-motion effects have lost none of their original charm. TRON looks horrible. THE BLACK SCORPION attacking the train or lifting up a tank - it still possesses an "awesome" look about it.

Will FINDING NEMO or TOY STORY outlive TRON? Let's all hope so. But do either of those compare to the 1930's PINOCCHIO? Decide for yourself in the quality of the artwork.

And if one of those outlives the other, is it the artwork? The story? Or both?

Then look at TRON one more time.

CGI or Story?

Evidently, good storytelling and getting that into a film is far more difficult than exploding gasoline and asteroids rippling across planet surfaces. We have plenty of those and I suspect those will suffer TRON's fate - a once arrogant example of computer-based chest-pounding, and now barely worth a smirk.

(Of course, if you REALLY want to know what I think - !!)

Steve Crook

Story every time. Although CGI & other special effects can add a bit of drama they don't come close to making up for the lack of a good story. And decent characterisation.

Look at the films like Die Hard as an example. They are full of explosions and other special effects, but the story can be written on a post-it note, a small one. And there are no real characters drawn beyond the hero, the hero's girlfriend and the villain.

Sadly they continue to be popular. As P.T. Barnum said "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" - and it applies not just to Americans. So it probably depends on whether you just want to make money or if you want to create something worthwhile (which can also make money).

Steve

Wolfgang

Do you not think there is place for story-thin films though? You can go to cinema and get some back-row action and still not lose track of what is going on.

samkydd

IMHO some of the most popular films which can be watched time and again over many years relied chiefly on good story and credible acting. The CGI type of films are often forgetable just moments after leaving your seat, and often end up as 50p DVDs in car boot sales or charity shops.

The last one I was dragged off to see at the cinema was that Sean Connery effort "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" which not only relied almost entirely on CGI, it was bloody rubbish CGI! Compare that with Jack Hawkins, Nigel Patrick, Dickie Attenborough and Roger Livesey in "The League of Gentlemen" from 1960 and there is no contest! Just a good story and excellent characters!

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

Steve Crook

That used to be the case in the 1950s. I think that even teenagers wouldn't consider the cinema the best place to get that sort of action nowadays - not at the prices they charge

Steve

A Pemberton

Brilliant , I would be embarrassed and called it artistic talent..........


I believe most directors today are under pressure to direct a thrill rollercoaster call it what you will, ride for todays young audience , with the MTV generation todays viewers want visuals (CGI) more awesome(horrible word) and spectacular than the last film and a laugh , stereotypical characters and some romantic interest/sex.Keep it formulaic ,and the story..................keep it paper thin and not too taxing on the brain.
Not my kind of film......

jsea90

thanks for all that guys and girls. keep the opinions coming.
basically everything you've said is what i've already got written down and such, but i need other people opinions and information for primary research. so any more opinions would be great. cheers

Phil Turner

I must agree with what's been said already. I think that the basic elements of storytelling and characterisation are far more important than special effects. Although CGI can complement a film, it can date very quickly when the next technological advance takes place, and it can never provide a truly satisfying experience without the backbone of a strong narrative.

On the other hand, themes are universal and never go out of fashion. Like great literature, films that reflect human feelings and emotions are timeless. To use an example, I watched Casablanca for the umpteenth time recently. 65 years after its release it feels as fresh as ever, with the themes of war and romance just as relevent today.

When I go to the cinema now, I make a point of only supporting films that reflect my own philosophy on how films should be made. It's the only way that I can influence the direction of modern cinema, and ensure that films with stories and interesting characters are made. Unless there's an audience for quality films like The Queen or The Last King of Scotland filmmakers will be discouraged from making them.

Phil Turner

ChristineCB

To most of these low-humor CGI types, I tend to agree that their private "accomplishment" is probably the zenith of their creative efforts.

But honestly, I want the CGI types - George Lucas, Speilburg, included - to endure watching TRON 4 or 5 times in a single day and ask themselves, "So uh why am I doing this? Does it really make my story better? Will it make it last 65 years later, a la CASABLANCA, and not just last, but be AS enchanting as it initially was?

Does anyone get thru the umpteenth viewing of the original STAR WARS without being antsy to get to the grand finale where Luke drops his widdle bomblet down the garbage chute?

CASABLANCA has a renowed ending as well, but this story is more about the thrill of the chase, not the climax. Which really is the start of a beautiful friendship anyway.

And there's ZERO need to have Casablanca 2, 8, 14 or whatever. The audience's imagination was recognized to be 'sequel enough'. That can never come from CGI. That's only from good storytelling and good characters.

MarkG

But that's rather like complaining about the plot in 'Arrivee d'un train Ã* La Ciotat', which might be considered the first big spectacle movie. It's pathetic today, but supposedly had people running from the cinema when it was first shown.

Tron was a milestone in that it was the first major movie to include computer-generated scenes. I entirely agree that the plot suffered as a result of the desire to build a movie around that, but it was an effective marketing ploy at the time... computer games were huge when it was released, and there was a big market to tap into.

It's also worth noting that there weren't many computer-generated shots in Tron, much of what many people think is computer generated in the movie was drawn by hand by Korean animators.

As for the original question, obviously story should be considered more important than effects, but that doesn't mean a movie will fail if they're not. The 'Star Wars' prequels, for example, are huge masturbatory effects exercises, but they made big profits. The same could arguably be said of the original 'Star Wars' movie, which was largely sold on the effects when first released. No-one had done space opera that well before Lucas.

Personally my favorite example of a well thought-out CG movie is still 'Jurassic Park', because it would have been impossible without the CG, and CG was pretty much only used where they couldn't do anything else. Again, though, the story isn't much to write home about.

ChristineCB

I know CGI sells well. Will it last, though? The 70-year-old Willis O'Brien work still charms new audiences to his KING KONG. I wonder if Peter Jackson's newest KK will be effective in 35 years?

The Harryhausen films have almost no high-quality effects, yet the stilted stop-action continues to have fans, although I don't think anyone would say they are 'more realistic' than TOY STORY or most every CGI effort. But 'better'? Subjectivity reigns supreme on that.

The 1981 LOOKER has been recently released on DVD. A good little film with Albert Finney playing a Hollywood plastic surgeon who's being repeatedly asked to make models even more 'perfect' in their dimensions - by the milimeter. James Coburn is the bad guy behind these machinations, and he's planning on computerizing human images (once they're are perfectly apportioned) and using those CGI creations instead of paid-actors.

Then flip over to Al Pacino's recent S1MONE, where poor Al's CGI-only creation Simone wins the world over to her charms, and subsequently ruins his life by forcing him to conjure up one lie after another to excuse her continual failure to appear in-person. When he's suspected of killing her, then he's got to 'fess up to the whole CGI creation process. A rather hilarious film.

None of them address the Value Of Story, but only focus on the Benefits (and the eventual Costs) of CGI.