Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh
CGI is to blame.
technology changed what movies are made & how they are made. Movies before CGI & after CGI are far different animals. everything 1993 & earlier was mostly dependent on a good story & good actors to make a blockbuster. With CGI, good stories & actors are completely unnecessary. Michael bay is living proof of that.
so if a hollywood exec has to choose between a good story that may or may not sell, or a crappy CGI flick that already sells & has a built in audience for the sequel, the decision is easy.
all of the CGI movies & their sequels could not even be made before 1993.
 |
CGI can be used correctly though. Think about The Lord of the Rings movies. These movies likely couldn't have been made in the pre-CGI era (or at least they wouldn't have looked as good) and they are great stories.
The real differences is that someone like Peter Jackson finds projects he believes in and fights to get them made. I also like many of the superhero movies (although some are not as good), but Iron Man was great and I also really liked The Avengers and the first couple of Spider-man movies. All CGI heavy, but they had good stories, good characters and were fun.
Like anything, CGI can be used for bad too. Look back in the 1980's and 90's when over the top action movies with guys like Stallone, Arnie, Chuck Norris etc were ruling the box office. Most of those movies sucked, but they had a formula. Throw in a larger than life action star, add a few memorable/funny lines of dialogue then blow a bunch of shit up and you have a hit on your hands. Hollywood cranked that crap out.