SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL CYNIC: Blockbusters too reliant on digital graphics

Like every other person in the country, I have now seen the third installments of both the "Spiderman" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogies. I have taken two separate afternoons and shilled out fourteen dollars to witness the respective ends to these chapters in the ongoing pop culture textbook. Both movie franchises have been huge successes and have been hyped beyond belief. Just as the third part of a trilogy should be, both of these movies were highly anticipated.

First off, the movies looked great. The computer generated imaging in both films was fantastic, if not unbelievable. The entire point of CGI is seamlessly integrate computerized images into the film; the audience shouldn't know that they're looking at CGI. And this is true with both "Pirates" and "Spiderman." The CGI is so good, it's hard to discern as to what items on screen are generated by computers and what on screen features are actually filmed. CGI only gets better over time, and both films are a prime example of what can be accomplished though the use of computerized animation.

Unfortunately, that's all these two particular films bring to the table; and they're the perfect example of what the pervasive failing of Hollywood is right now. The bottom line is that CGI doesn't really mean anything if there's no context in which it exists. And that's the problem with the most recent "Pirates" and "Spiderman" movies: you can't computer-generate a good script.

Both "Pirates" and "Spiderman" rely on the computer generated action scenes to carry the movie. And this is the complete opposite way to go about making a movie. CGI should enhance a movie, not carry it. And it is that simple rule that movies like "Spiderman" and "Pirates" ignore. They let CGI carry the story instead of the script.

It's like they're saying: "Black-suit Spiderman looks so cool, who cares that it's entirely contrived that a meteor containing an alien life form will show up out of absolutely nowhere and unexpectedly yet conveniently land next to the only man in the world with super powers! Hey, it'd also be a good idea if we make the Sandman look really good through CGI magic, but not develop his character at all!" Or: "Who cares if we don't answer any of the million questions left over from "Pirates II," Davy Jones looks totally cool! Also, we should waste a bunch of time going into a subplot about the goddess of the sea that's not really relevant to anything, as long as we can include a shot of her growing to seventy feet and then materializing into a billion crabs, even though it distracts from the overall story and actually pertains to absolutely nothing! And, because we're Hollywood and totally intense, we should end every sentence with an exclamation mark!"

"The Departed," the movie that won the best picture Academy Award this year, is arguably the best film of the past five years. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find one computer generated scene in that entire movie. The movie is completely driven by its acting, direction, and storyline; it doesn't need CGI, it can stand well enough on its own.

CGI shouldn't be used to fill holes in the plot, and the script shouldn't be written around chances to utilize CGI. That's what was so great about the first "Pirates" movie; the story was engaging and easy to follow. You fell in love with the story and the characters. Everyone loved Johnny Depp's character because he was a likable character with great dialogue. The fact that he battled computer-generated ghost pirates was just icing on the cake.

Maybe I shouldn't judge these movies too harshly. Maybe special effects and 10 zillion box office dollars are what make a good movie. I mean "Independence Day," "Wild Wild West" and "Hulk" all went down as hallmarks of cinema, right?


Comments

More from The Daily






Loading Recent Classifieds...