If you want good movies....start with the writer and trust him.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

And again, "You can sum it up in one word: computers." Actually, no. Concentration on CGI at the expense of everything else is bad, of course– but the thing itself is a tool like any other.

I do agree that you can't narrow it down to one word, but I think the author of the article has a point here.

Now, I hope my younger brother does not read this post ever, because I'm going to use him as an example.

He cannot watch calm films, or ones that make you go into philosphical thinking. He likes them straight-forward and lots of action. There's no problem in that, that's just his personality regarding everything, not only films. Sometimes, when he particularly likes something, he would memorize his favourte characters' weapons, moves, attacks, blocks, etc. His most recent obsession is Star Wars (which, by the way, I have nothing against, even though it's 99% special effects), so he goes around saying that Obi-Wan has three cool attacks and Luke Skywalker has a really good block but a bad blaster, or whatever (you get the drift). That's all good and fine - I also used to go around the house and talk about Frodo et al.

However, there comes the time when we sit down to watch a film where you have to think a bit deeper to understand and appreciate it. Sometimes my brother would say something along the lines of "why didn't he do this? It's so easy, he just needs to [insert an 'attack/block/etc']". In addition to memorizing the "attacks" in his favourite movies, he plays lots of games on the Internet when no one is there to tell him not to, so he's quite used to having the idea of a certain number of sure moves one can do. He's the kind of person who would ask "why did they not just use the Eagles?". And he sometimes does not get it that in real life a person sometimes just can't simply do this and that, and that as easy as it is to press a button on the keyboard and win the game it is not easy in real life. He does not appreciate the difficulties beyond the basics and thus likes films that are on a similar level, that spell it out for him.

He is used to having it that way, a film-version of a computer game. What can I say? Computers.


So while I do not entirely agree with that statement (sometimes I don't mind a good effect or two), I can relate to it.




I very much agree with the author that the newer movies tend to be either action+effects to captivate the audience, or elsewise cliches. I prefer a slower-paced and not so fancy looking "old" film that leaves me with something to think about, rather than a shiny new one bursting with the newest miracles of technology that just flies out of your head once you're done watching because there's naught to glean from it. I just don't like how the author argues his point: "this is bad period". I agree that too many special effects often dumb down the film, but I dislike that the author doesn't elaborate or explain properly.