Criticizing a film for being of its time

nyarlothothep

I don't get this at all, I've seen criticisms of films which go along the lines of them not having aged well, its cheesy, the fx is lame compared to cg. But how can someone legitimately judge these things when the films of their own time period are de facto going to be judged negatively by future generations for those very same things which aren't clear to them yet because they're living in their time period and are less likely to stand back and look at the fx/dialogue/plots objectively? Furthermore why not celebrate a film for being of its time rather than criticizing it because it doesn't conform to the trends/fads of the present?

Yes some films are generally just sh1t, and some are sh1t with the benefit of hindsight or more disputable as classics in the long run but for example saying that a CG ED209 is superior to the go-motion original is just plain silly. The original animation is what gives it its terrifying unpredictable jerky robotic motion, CG versions on the web for example miss out on this in favour of perfect smooth chicken walker movements. Similarly Ghostbusters vfx is x10 more memorable than the CG overload of today's films. CG allows you in theory to do most things but back then they were limited by physical constraints and necessity is the mother of invention, as is obvious with Ghostbusters. Example, Gozer's temple is genuinely creepy and geometrically aligned, an obvious reference to HP Lovecraftian imagery. The stop motion dogs might look crap to some but I see animated art. Or what about BTTF, they couldn't afford a nuclear station for the time machine so they went with a De Lorean and so cinema history was made. But today they could just model it in Maya and it would be a million times more boring, the whole plot would be different and it would suck.

So maybe in 30 years time people will look back on the films of this era as being serious/intense to the point of ridiculous, burdened with unimaginative CG rooted purely in demonstrations of technique rather than imagination and overly complicated with endless layers of plot twists at the expense of good characterisation and plot pacing.

As for what Lucas did to Star Wars that was like what the Neo Classicists did to Shakespeare (they rewrote his plays to make them have happy endings, because they regarded it as more logical and perfect), an example of the arrogance of future generations determining what's good and what's not even though they will in turned get the same treatment by their descendants!

So I would say appreciate a film for what it is, made unique and interesting precisely because it is dated.

johnny_ultimate

Le Voyage Dans la Lune FTW.

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Le Voyage Dans la Lune

That's technically the first sci-fi film isn't it?

krudler

Ghostbusters is still better than about 90% of the blockbusters being released today.Imagine a summer movie with good dialogue and characters, the mind boggles.

Giruilla

Raiders of the Lost Ark still looks fantastic today, whereas Borefest of the Crystal Skull looks shít already after only 3 years.

Apolloyon

I've never really understood some people being overly critical of special effects anyway. I grew up in a time before CGI and even though of the earlier effects looked 'fake'. It was in no way detrimental to the story and for me that's the crux of the matter. Effects are there to enhance the story not be its centrepiece. You can't fault Star Trek: The Motion Picture for its pursuit of production value but it was its sequel Star: The Wrath of Khan that is lauded as great movie.

I try to take each movie on its own merits. Even now the stop animation movie monsters created by Ray Harryhausen are still fantastic looking and you can see the skill and creativity that went into their design and construction. I hope the pioneers of today's CGI take note!

blue note

Some films date well and some date badly.

I actually don't think All the Presidents Men has dated well, but I'm on my own there I think.

nyarlothothep

Giruilla wrote: »

Raiders of the Lost Ark still looks fantastic today, whereas Borefest of the Crystal Skull looks shít already after only 3 years.

Exactly, who can forget the melting head scene, that's become a cultural reference point in itself.

BostonB

Eye candy doesn't make the story. Though no doubt good effects can enhance a movie, and bad effects can be distracting. But you've got to suspend credibility to enjoy a lot of movies.

krudler

Giruilla wrote: »

Raiders of the Lost Ark still looks fantastic today, whereas Borefest of the Crystal Skull looks shít already after only 3 years.

thats because it looks like a film, not an overly digitally graded flat looking modern summer movie. that cgi background cliffside truck chase in Crystal Skull pales in comparison to the shot on location, real stuntmen and everything iconic chase in Raiders.
Sure that sequence had been done countless times before and it was a big nod to the serials Spielberg grew up watching but it became a classic scene in itself, it might be my favourite action sequence ever. love that shot where Indy charges down the hill on horseback and catches up to the truck to leap onto it, great stuff.

I'm really sick of cgi stuntmen in modern movies, even in Quantum of Solace, and the Bond films have always been a bastion of superb stuntwork, using cgi guys to fall through the skylight in the opening chase, it has its fair share of practical stunts too but once a cgi Pierce Brosnan surfed a fake wave it was all downhill for Bond movie stunts. gotta love Christopher Nolan for favouring practical work and real performers instead of cgi unless absolutely necessary.

Giruilla

krudler wrote: »

thats because it looks like a film, not an overly digitally graded flat looking modern summer movie. that cgi background cliffside truck chase in Crystal Skull pales in comparison to the shot on location, real stuntmen and everything iconic chase in Raiders.
Sure that sequence had been done countless times before and it was a big nod to the serials Spielberg grew up watching but it became a classic scene in itself, it might be my favourite action sequence ever. love that shot where Indy charges down the hill on horseback and catches up to the truck to leap onto it, great stuff.

That scene will still look awesome in a thousand years time! Thats how good the film is!

CGI stopped being impressive exactly 13 years ago.

Galvasean

krudler wrote: »

Imagine a summer movie with good dialogue and characters, the mind boggles.

Batman?

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

Batman?

oh theres exceptions alright, like the first Pirates movie, which I think is one of the best summer blockbusters ever, its just fun to watch and knows it, then the series became a convoluted mess. its just the cashcow remakes/sequels ratio to original blockbusters these days is in the wrong ratio.

krudler

Giruilla wrote: »

That scene will still look awesome in a thousand years time! Thats how good the film is!

CGI stopped being impressive exactly 13 years ago.

the cgi that impresses me is the stuff David Fincher and Christoper Nolan are using, subtle stuff to expand a scene thats almost unnoticable, the best effects are the ones you dont realise are effects. stuff like Transformers, as visually spectacular as it can be, is overcoming the actual story, like what is Dark of the Moon actually about? all i remember is action sequences and terrible comedy.

Galvasean

krudler wrote: »

stuff like Transformers, as visually spectacular as it can be, is overcoming the actual story, like what is Dark of the Moon actually about? all i remember is action sequences and terrible comedy.

To be honest if the robots were made from cardboard boxes and held up with highly visible bits of string the effects would have still been far better than the DotM story.

sillo

There are many reasons I agree with OP but most of them can be summarised in four words:
Gone With The Wind.

Underdraft

krudler wrote: »

the cgi that impresses me is the stuff David Fincher and Christoper Nolan are using, subtle stuff to expand a scene thats almost unnoticable, the best effects are the ones you dont realise are effects. stuff like Transformers, as visually spectacular as it can be, is overcoming the actual story,

Agreed. If CGI starts drawing attention to itself and pulling you out of the story then imho it has failed to be used effectively. The Best CGI should almost be like a referee in a football match (ie if it's doing it's job properly then you hardly even notice it's there.)

Take Zodiac for example. Good bit of CG there and I was actually surprised when I saw the DVD extras as it was so seemless that I'd just presumed almost everything had been shot practically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT491ctM8Kk

Trippie

Giruilla wrote: »

Raiders of the Lost Ark still looks fantastic today, whereas Borefest of the Crystal Skull looks shít already after only 3 years.

watched raiders on the big screen in drogheda one day, was blown away by just how good it was, compared it krystal skull and was utterly ****

Giruilla

Trippie wrote: »

watched raiders on the big screen in drogheda one day, was blown away by just how good it was, compared it krystal skull and was utterly ****

off topic: one reason crystal skull was so bad.... guess how many people jones directly kills in raiders? roughly 11 or 12. guess how many he kills in the whole of crystal skull? .... zero. yes zero .

Mr Freeze

I watched The Thing again recently....John Carpenters one!

Gimme special effects like that any day over the CGI nonsense we see too much of these days.

The effects in The Thing look great even today I think, the transformation scene with the dogs is just brilliant.

Giruilla

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I watched The Thing again recently....John Carpenters one!

Gimme special effects like that any day over the CGI nonsense we see too much of these days.

The effects in The Thing look great even today I think, the transformation scene with the dogs is just brilliant.

I watched that recently and have to say thats the first time I've honestly been blown away by special effects in years!

Underdraft

Giruilla wrote: »

off topic: one reason crystal skull was so bad.... guess how many people jones directly kills in raiders? roughly 11 or 12. guess how many he kills in the whole of crystal skull? .... zero. yes zero .

Didn't he kill one of the natives at the gravesite by blowing a dart back into his throat?

Mr Freeze

Underdraft wrote: »

Didn't he kill one of the natives at the gravesite by blowing a dart back into his throat?

I thought he did too.

Giruilla

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I thought he did too.

It was just a non-lethal poison dart.... fact!

Mr Freeze

Giruilla wrote: »

It was just a non-lethal poison dart.... fact!

Good enough for me, no point arguing over that piece of crap film.

Dodge

re-watched Jason and the Argonauts last week. Still looks amazing

http://youtu.be/5yYeZMx1Y7U

hidinginthebush

Great point OP! I watched the Dambusters for the first time during the year, and while it doesn't depent much on special effects, the parts where

the bombs are bouncing

or when

the dam blows at the end

look ridiculous, but it didn't stop me from having a great time watching the film. I can honestly say that eventhough I watched it on my own I genuinely cheered when

they blew the first dam

. How many films these days will make you stand up and cheer in your sitting room?

krudler

Giruilla wrote: »

I watched that recently and have to say thats the first time I've honestly been blown away by special effects in years!

first time seeing it? its a fantastic sequence

Boo Radley

nyarlothothep wrote: »

As for what Lucas did to Star Wars that was like what the Neo Classicists did to Shakespeare

Lucas did seem to lose the plot alright. I personally think this is a neater idea with regards to reworking the original.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ezeYJUz-84

At least it is insulated from the original film by being something completely different and existing for reasons other than vanity, or what ever was driving Lucas, and most importantly doesn't screw around with the original prints.

LighterGuy

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I watched The Thing again recently....John Carpenters one!

Gimme special effects like that any day over the CGI nonsense we see too much of these days.

The effects in The Thing look great even today I think, the transformation scene with the dogs is just brilliant.

I love john carpenters thing
30 years on and the special effects are still amazing ... thats saying something.

I actually watched Whiteout last year. It being set in an antarctica science station I couldnt help but think of the thing.
At certain points I could swear Kate Beckinsale's 'cold breath' is CGI. While Carpenter, being the man he is, refrigerated the set 30 years ago which comes off a hundred times better.

I know that could be seen as nitpicking. But its the little things that make something more too.

Boo Radley

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I watched The Thing again recently....John Carpenters one!

Gimme special effects like that any day over the CGI nonsense we see too much of these days.

The effects in The Thing look great even today I think, the transformation scene with the dogs is just brilliant.

Remember when Lucas used to use models and what not?

OldeCinemaSoz

The wonderful Ken Adam did everything on imagination
and budget. That's why the early Bond films look so much fresh
and original even to this day.

And let's not forget Ray Harryhausen. His stop motion monsters
are still iconic. A true genius.

Underdraft

Boo Radley wrote: »

Remember when Lucas used to use models and what not?

I loved the practical models but CG spaceships etc aren't a problem for me because they can do really amazing stuff with that too . For instance that opening for ROTS was on a par with anything from the original movies.

However, where Lucas messed up on the CG (apart from all the cartoony looking aliens of course) was in using nearly full digital sets for the scenes with the real flesh and blood actors. As you watch the finished movies you can read off the actors faces that they have no idea where they're meant to be or what the situation is. I suppose you could put a lot of that on the director first for choosing that method and then not getting his idea across, but I think it'd generally be hard for anyone to work in an empty room like that.

By comparison in Avatar the physical conditions were pretty much the same (even tho it was a mo-cap movie) but the actors had that instant 3d pre-vis to look back on an it led to much stronger performances all round (both physical and acting). Hopefully all "empty room" movies might use that tech in future as it certainly seems to help those actors.


Lucas : "OK Hayden, you're in a giant space-ship. There's explosions going off all around you and the ground is tilting by 30degrees. You've got to get to that elevator in the corner (the tennis ball). Watch out for falling metal".

Giruilla

Underdraft wrote: »

For instance that opening for ROTS was on a par with anything from the original movies.

Better than seeing Luke fight Darth Vader in a fully constructed studio?

That opening of ROTS was the definition of everything that was wrong with those films in my opinion. Too much stuff and crap and colours and zero substance.

Goldstein

Underdraft wrote: »

For instance that opening for ROTS was on a par with anything from the original movies.

Underdraft

Giruilla wrote: »

Better than seeing Luke fight Darth Vader in a fully constructed studio?

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying.

That opening of ROTS was the definition of everything that was wrong with those films in my opinion. Too much stuff and crap and colours and zero substance.

If it has zero substance then that's nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the CG. That's down to the director and his composition. Doesn't change the fact that that "crap and colours" makes up an image that's every bit as good as any of the modelwork in the OT.

Technocentral

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I watched The Thing again recently....John Carpenters one!

Gimme special effects like that any day over the CGI nonsense we see too much of these days.

The effects in The Thing look great even today I think, the transformation scene with the dogs is just brilliant.

The reason CGI will never better model work is that with models you are looking at something that ACTUALLY exists (have the cityscapes in Blade Runner ever been bettered with computer stuff? No), the only CGI that works for me is the subtle stuff in the background type things.

OldeCinemaSoz

Technocentral wrote: »

The reason CGI will never better model work is that with models you are looking at something that ACTUALLY exists (have the cityscapes in Blade Runner ever been bettered with computer stuff? No), the only CGI that works for me is the subtle stuff in the background type things.

yep, just like i mentioned above...

the work of Ken Adam...

Giruilla

Underdraft wrote: »

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying.



If it has zero substance then that's nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the CG. That's down to the director and his composition. Doesn't change the fact that that "crap and colours" makes up an image that's every bit as good as any of the modelwork in the OT.

Well it does really... CGI isn't about a pretty image on a screen. It's about a believable image on the screen. Not having any substance behind the scenes just make the scenes completely dead and the viewer unnatached. The start of ROTS was too complicated for its own good... and also in my opinion I thought it looked sh*t, and will look even sh*tter in 5 years time. CGI moves on... hand made models and sets will always always look good. Give me one single believable handmade star destroyer moving slowly through the galaxy any day over that mess of CGI explosion.

BostonB

Underdraft wrote: »

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying.



If it has zero substance then that's nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the CG. That's down to the director and his composition. Doesn't change the fact that that "crap and colours" makes up an image that's every bit as good as any of the modelwork in the OT.

The opening is too busy, but the effects look ok. Lots of other things wrong with it, but the CGI "looks" ok, to me anyway.

foxyboxer

It's simply a question of cost and making movies is still a business at the end of the day.

It costs less to digitally render say a Superstar Destroyer than build a miniature scale model.

CGI helped to expand the scope and scale of the Star Wars movies. Unfortunately the 'talent' involved with matching the quality of the writing and performances to the updated technology wasn't up to scratch. If Lucas Film satisfied the purists using old school skills and effects techniques, we'd still be bitching about the poor writing and stories.

krudler

Giruilla wrote: »

Well it does really... CGI isn't about a pretty image on a screen. It's about a believable image on the screen. Not having any substance behind the scenes just make the scenes completely dead and the viewer unnatached. The start of ROTS was too complicated for its own good... and also in my opinion I thought it looked sh*t, and will look even sh*tter in 5 years time. CGI moves on... hand made models and sets will always always look good. Give me one single believable handmade star destroyer moving slowly through the galaxy any day over that mess of CGI explosion.

ROTS has some absolutely appalling effect work in it as well, watch the scene on the landing platform just before obi wan and anakin fight, the shots of ewan mcgregor standing there talking he ha this big blue aura around him where its not composited properly, you need to turn up the tv brightness a bit but I cant believe nobody spotted it in post production. less is more when it comes to a lot of stuff in SW, the duel between Vader and Luke in Empire is a million times better than the one in ROTS because it means something, its not overblown stunts and guys swinging on wires over a volcano.compare:





one is iconic, the other is a cgi enchanced mess of a sequence.

Mr Freeze

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

And let's not forget Ray Harryhausen. His stop motion monsters
are still iconic. A true genius.

I love the Ray Harryhausen stuff....

The Valley of Gwangi is one of my favorites, I only seen it once as a kid, but it blew me away....

Technocentral wrote: »

The reason CGI will never better model work is that with models you are looking at something that ACTUALLY exists (have the cityscapes in Blade Runner ever been bettered with computer stuff? No), the only CGI that works for me is the subtle stuff in the background type things.

Couldn't agree more.

foxyboxer wrote: »

If Lucas Film satisfied the purists using old school skills and effects techniques, we'd still be bitching about the poor writing and stories.

Ah come on, the writing aint that bad, who could forget this iconic line during the final battle between Anakin and Obi Wan:

OBI-WAN: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic ... to democracy.

I seem to have corrected myself :pac:

The writing and story for the prequel trilogy is absolutely atrocious.

phil1nj

Boo Radley wrote: »

Remember when Lucas used to use models and what not?

Isn't there a story about Geogre Lucas visiiting the sets of "Gangs of New York| in Italy and actually saying to Scorsese that sets like that could be done with computers nowadays. Poor man lost his way long before 2005:D

Giruilla

phil1nj wrote: »

Isn't there a story about Geogre Lucas visiiting the sets of "Gangs of New York| in Italy and actually saying to Scorsese that sets like that could be done with computers nowadays. Poor man lost his way long before 2005:D

Ha! Could you imagine Daniel Day Lewis in character standing in front of a green screen for 3 months!!

Technocentral

Watched some of the "making of's" on the Alien blu ray box set I got recently, some great stuff about the sets and model work/miniatures that made up at least the first 3 films and to a certain extent the last, so sad that real special effects is pretty much a thing of the past, the detailing and skill that went into the models were outstanding, if something real is filmed properly it will always outclass a virtual model in terms of believability. I think where CGI can be better though is with mattes and extending sets that were previously done with paintings.

Underdraft

Giruilla wrote: »

Well it does really... CGI isn't about a pretty image on a screen. It's about a believable image on the screen. Not having any substance behind the scenes just make the scenes completely dead and the viewer unnatached. The start of ROTS was too complicated for its own good... and also in my opinion I thought it looked sh*t, and will look even sh*tter in 5 years time. CGI moves on... hand made models and sets will always always look good. Give me one single believable handmade star destroyer moving slowly through the galaxy any day over that mess of CGI explosion.

So you believe stuff like the battles in the OT or the Millenium falcon flying through the asteroid field looks like "believable" then? Ah ok then! There'll be no consensus between us in that case if that is your view.

Also if you read my previous comments, you'll have seen they apply exclusively to the use of CG vs modelwork which is why my statement "That doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying" is valid.

By comparison, someone has since pointed out how stuff like the mustafar battle doesn't compare to the one on bespin in ESB. You'll get no disagreement from me. IMHO CG hasn't developed yet to a point where you can integrate flesh and blood actors with digital environments and make it look convincing. Furthermore the digital environment has given a director the opportunity to push sequences to the point where they almost become incomprehensible and meaningless. However, my core point is that is that is the directors fault if a sequence ends up that way, not the fault of the CG itself.

Boo Radley

Underdraft wrote: »

However, my core point is that is that is the directors fault if a sequence ends up that way, not the fault of the CG itself.

Isn't that kind of like saying water is wet? You're stating something that is obvious while simultaneously not providing anything of merit to the discussion with that 'point'.

Of course how CG turns out is ultimately the fault of others and not CG itself. CG not being sentient and all that.

However, the argument here is that Lucas' previous films, where he used models, were much nicer to look at and it was easier to suspend your disbelief and accept what you were seeing.

The recent CG stuff just didn't work. Yes it was his fault and not the CG itself but again it seems like a non-point to me.

Cool_CM

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Great point OP! I watched the Dambusters for the first time during the year, and while it doesn't depent much on special effects, the parts where

the bombs are bouncing

or when

the dam blows at the end

look ridiculous, but it didn't stop me from having a great time watching the film. I can honestly say that eventhough I watched it on my own I genuinely cheered when

they blew the first dam

. How many films these days will make you stand up and cheer in your sitting room?

Was going to mention Dambusters, on a side note I saw these when I was looking for the footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMfBKrdErY

Underdraft

Boo Radley wrote: »

Isn't that kind of like saying water is wet? You're stating something that is obvious while simultaneously not providing anything of merit to the discussion with that 'point'.

Of course how CG turns out is ultimately the fault of others and not CG itself. CG not being sentient and all that.

However, the argument here is that Lucas' previous films, where he used models, were much nicer to look at and it was easier to suspend your disbelief and accept what you were seeing.

The recent CG stuff just didn't work. Yes it was his fault and not the CG itself but again it seems like a non-point to me.

Surely if something is that obvious then it doesn't really even need to be backed up in the first place?

Also If I've said something obvious then it's only to reply to a person who is blaming the 'shortcomings' of a technology on the tech itself rather than the artist.

BTW what is your 'point'? (besides of course to bemoan that in your subjective opinion that models are better because you can imagine they 'could' be 'real' easier than CG - and course to contribute 'humourous' clips and pix that we've already seen in several places elsewhere)?

Boo Radley

Underdraft wrote: »

Surely if something is that obvious then it doesn't really even need to be backed up in the first place?

Also If I've said something obvious then it's only to reply to a person who is blaming the 'shortcomings' of a technology on the tech itself rather than the artist.

BTW what is your 'point'? (besides of course to bemoan that in your subjective opinion that models are better because you can imagine they 'could' be 'real' easier than CG - and course to contribute 'humourous' clips and pix that we've already seen in several places elsewhere)?

I am content that I made my point quite clear and you basically answered your own question there so apparently I did. Also, opinions are, by their very nature, subjective and I'm not sure I would consider someone conveying their opinion as 'bemoaning'.

I was, however, bemoaning your nonsense post from earlier.

With regard to the content of my posts, I'm not sure you can speak for everyone here when claiming "we've" seen it already. Each to their own.