Saturday, September 21, 2013
Special Effects... NOT
Then I think of this shot of Asgard from the THOR movie. It's impressive, but it's cold and has no real feeling to it. I'm sure it was probably cheaper than building a true city in miniature, but it doesn't do much for me.
So can we all agree CG isn't and doesn't deserve the title of "special effect" any more? It's used in every movie, genre or not. It's almost always noticeable, especially during the action scenes. The characters bounce around like they are human marbles with no real damage at all (like Ann getting whipped around in the needless KING KONG remake). I'm all for using CG as a tool, especially if it can make actors and stuntmen safer, but to replace them completely in fight scenes?
It then looks like a video game, and who wants to pay $10 to see that? I really enjoyed THE AVENGERS movie, but the final battle, aside from going on and on and on, looked like half the battle was an arcade game. High tech, of course, but still just fancy graphics.
I mean, how special can computer graphics be when comedies use them? Or dramas? Save the term special effects for something that is truly unusual.
BTW, the Aquabats Super Show is full of stop-motion, cartoons, giant monsters (men in suits, too) and some cool music. Check it out!