Keep Calm And Discuss Retro Generally!

Nothing in the Avengers can match the sheer believability and physical commitment of a classic cinematic chase scene like this:

Andrew76 wrote: »

So a question for the film buffs giving out about CGI etc - how do you make the Hulk look real? Or an invading alien race? Or a god using a hammer to fly about the place? Is it a case the tech isn't good enough to make them believable?

Surely you can only suspend belief so far when you're talking about stuff like The Avengers?

The LOTR setting isn't as fantastical imo, folks riding about on horse back. As cool as it looked I never once thought the orcs or Treebeard were actually real.

I haven't seen The Hobbit so can't comment on how crap that might look.

I love old school stunts and effects too but car chases are not the same as super heroes.

It's all about balance. There's plenty of worthwhile instances of CGI, but there's a tendency these days to just overdose on the stuff. Yeah something like The Avengers needs CG, but all the setpieces suffer from simply being too computer generated. The whole final New York setpiece in The Avengers was just a load of noise to me, barring one or two decent moments (the CG tracking shot following the heroes, for example). Less is more, even when you're dealing with a giant green walking tank. With The Hobbit the spectacle is undermined by an artificiality that was nowhere near as prominent in its decade old predecessors. They used every type of effects work from greenscreen to miniatures to create a rich, spectacular world. Yeah some pure CG elements have aged - creatures particularly - but The Hobbit very rarely manages to disguise the fact that it was shot almost completely on green screen. Some of this was down to practical concerns (they couldn't shoot as much on location due to the obsessive fans that would follow them everywhere) but it's a much less impressive film as a result. On a purely aesthetic level, the move towards digital hyperclarity, 4K and 48 frames per second is making it harder and harder to suspend disbelief. I'm quite the advocate of digital camera with film, and there's lots of stunning film shots using the tech, but blockbusters are abusing the new digital tools.

Just look at Christopher Nolan for a director whose spectacle films look amazing on big screen and at home, using a bare minimum of computer effects (that darn flying 'Bat' excluded) and good old fashioned high-quality film. Or Children of Men whose epic, elaborate and extended camera setups are infinitely more impressive than anything a pure CG blockbuster has offered in recent times. I guess I just tend to be more impressed by physical feats of filmmaking than any impossible situation a computer can throw at me.

On the flip side, Star Trek 09 was a CG heavy blockbuster I loved as it managed a great mix between smart direction, intense setpieces, a wonderful musical score, an enthusiastic cast etc... I was more than willing to forgive a few script deficiencies in that case when it was all so much fun.

Even ironically Twilight is just a waste of time. Just watch Thirst or Let the Right One In instead.