- SAN FRANCISCO OPERA GETS THE BIGGER PICTURE
- The Kentucky Theatre: A Golden Age Jewel, Part 1 of 2
- Bringing 'em into the Box Office
- Coming to America, Part 3 of 3
- Lights, Camera, Chanukah
- Films of Infamy
- Coming to America, Part 2 of 3
- European Exhbitor CGR Cinémas Selects Doremi Cinema's Server
- Coming to America, Part 1of 3
- A Fable of CGI
- Successful Indie-Filmmaker talks about P, D, and E
- Thanksgiving Grace in Film
- Three Cups of Dysfunctional Family
- Hitman: It was Shot, But will They Come?
- So, Independent by Any Other Word Is -- ?
A Fable of CGI
November 29, 2007 3:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Kings, jesters, and the palace coffers
A short time ago in a multiplex not so far away, a great visionary decided to dust off his classic trilogy of films and bring forth a new series to complete a story begun over 20 years earlier.
Fans rejoiced, aflame with the anticipation of what this master filmmaker could do with over 20 years of technological advances.
The lines formed across the country. Some stood for hours, some for days, some even for weeks, wanting to be the first to witness the latest battle between the Jedi and the Empire.
And so it was that multiple generations of fans walked into the darkened theater full of “A New Hope” and walked out hoping to never be so disappointed again.
George Lucas had fallen in line with many others. Maybe it was the pressure of living up to lofty expectations set by previous films. Maybe it was the pressure of two decades of anticipation. Regardless, the first film in his new trilogy left all but die-hard fans disappointed.
His Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace had become another victim of the over reliance on special effects to the detriment of script and movie as a whole. Lucas, as did so many directors before (or after) him, tried to cover up a weak plot and weaker acting with as many special effects as Industrial Light and Magic could throw on the screen.
Unfortunately, while he may have succeeded at the box office, the lasting result is a tarnished reputation for the films that have been touchstones for multiple generations. What should have stood as a lesson to protect integrity was not learned at all.
The Matrix was propelled by revolutionary cgi effects into box office success and millions of loyal fans.This film worked because the special effects complimented the story. Flash forward to 2003: The Matrix Reloaded was unleashed. Rife with trouble from a convoluted plot, a muddled storyline, and sub-par acting, it was obvious the filmmakers felt pressured to replicate the phenomenon of the first film but were not up to the challenge.
Instead of building upon the legacy of its predecessor, the film instead seemed to be making a quick cash grab, trading in the goodwill that the first film generated.
The effects were bigger, the budget larger, the grosses higher. Yet it left the fans disheartened and disillusioned. As a result, the release of The Matrix Revolutions, critically a better received film than Reloaded, flamed out at the box office.
While its $139 million domestic gross would make most other films a success, the reported $150 million budget means that the film was relying heavily on overseas box office to move into the black. The series had squandered its momentum, costing the studio untold millions of dollars in potential additional revenue.
Firefly also had a loyal following, although on a much smaller scale. It was brought to the big screen as Serenity, with a low budget ($39 million) and low expectations. Thus, Joss Whedon was left unmolested to bring his vision to fruition. While its gross ($25.5 million) may not be spectacular, it is certainly respectable. The studio was able to turn a profit after overseas and DVD sales and the fans of the series were not letdown. Should a sequel ever be green lit, it is a good bet that many of those fans will line up for another go.
The lesson to be taken away from this is to focus on what’s important: the story. This is where an independent-film mentality could benefit the studio system. Spend extra time crafting a quality script and less money will have to be spent on the production. Don’t just throw money and effects at problems trying to camouflage inherent flaws. Instead, fix the issues before the film goes in front of the cameras.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Will said:
I would agree that the use of special effects is just a cover up for a bad plot or bad acting. A good movie, with a story, is something that is hard to find today with all of the special effects. I always find a movie to be more enjoyable if it has a good plot and acting to match.
November 29, 2007 9:08 AM
Ian said:
I couldn't agree more that story and acting are what make a movie worth seeing (Im a huge fan of Nintendo, whose unofficial motto seems to be "Gameplay, not Graphics" in the same vein), but if you have story and acting, it doesnt hurt to have the special effects either, working side by side instead of replacing (thinks to Narnia, Spider-Man 1&2 ect.)
November 29, 2007 8:57 PM
Anders said:
I was one of those die-hard Star Wars fans determined to declare the first of the prequels a smashing success. I saw it about 4 times in the theater - but the disillusionment came when it debuted on video. No longer were the special effects mindblowing - when reduced to a smaller screen the flaws stabbed me in the heart. Paper cut-outs where actors should have stood. Silly slapstick where once a drier wit lived. With each poor prequel-sequel my sense of betrayal deepened. Now, I can hardly cope when I see a kid sporting a non-gold plated C-3PO. The world is a sadder place, but i don't think special effects are to blame.
Complacent directors and producers. Shame on you.
December 19, 2007 10:55 PM