Open Forum Friday: Do You Ever Watch Movies Just for the Special Effects?
We all have our reasons for wanting to watch movies, but when it comes to filling seats in multiplexes, there are few things better at attracting crowds than cutting edge special effects. People want to escape reality and they want to see things they haven’t seen before, thus the appeal of comic book movies, along with the action, sci-fi and fantasy genres. Common sense dictates that you need something more than that to make a successful movie (ie. a compelling story with characters that you care about) but the numbers speak otherwise. Bigger isn’t always better, but it usually makes the most money.
How many times have you heard the excuse, “I know it’s a terrible movie, but I just wanted to see it for the FX”? Film is a visual medium, so obviously eye candy plays an important role in our enjoyment of it. But are we putting too much stock in cool visuals and earth-shattering sound? Most of us agree that Transformers 2 sucked, but we all still paid to see it. Is there anything wrong with that? Did the movie succeed as long as it showed us something awe-inspiring and new? Some say we should demand more from our blockbusters, but on the other hand, maybe there’s nothing wrong with plain old spectacle. What do you think? Do you feel ripped off by movies with expensive budgets but terrible stories? How much of a role do special effects play in determining what movies you see? Can you think of any movies that are enjoyable on the basis of visuals alone? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (29)
The Fifth Element comes to mind for me. The colors are great. The opera singer is worth the watch and the baddies look kick butt!
Posted by Andrea on November 13th, 2009If I wanted to see good effects i could type “great FX” in youtube and get them in HD. Just like video games these days, looks are fine but there really needs to be something else involved.
Posted by Byron on November 13th, 2009I liked UltraViolet ok. But it’s charms go beyond just FX though. It’s got a creative unusual style to it. Speed Racer’s another one.
I actually rewatched Fifth Element recently. Didn’t think it held up too well.
And I have to disagree with you Sean. The BO numbers show that it’s easy to market an FX film. I don’t think they prove that people like them.
Posted by Rusty James on November 13th, 2009@ Most of us agree that Transformers 2 sucked, but we all still paid to see it. Is there anything wrong with that?
no I don’t wrong with that. But I think there’s something wrong with only seeing those types of movies, which is what most film goers do.
Posted by Rusty James on November 13th, 2009Ideally, consumers should make an effort to go off the beaten path sometimes and see films other than what’s being advertised on television right this minute.
No.
Posted by anncine on November 13th, 2009ID4 is probably not the best image as it had plenty more going for it than just SFX. It had a terrific premise, engaging characters and a terrific cast.
As long as it doesn’t have character I despise and an offensive worldview filled with sexism, racism, misogyny and general retardednedss (ie TRANSFORMERS) I am perfectly able to enjoy a film purely on a visual level.
I read the reviews of 2012 and they say things like “visually fantastic but no character development or strong plot” and it’s like they’ve got a check list of what makes a film good and if it doesn’t check them then it’ll get a bad review. 2012 is not Citizen Kane, if you expect strong character development you are more of a fucking moron than the people making it.
Some films do what it says on the tin and that’s fine. 2012 is about destroying the world in a spectacular way. If it does that and provides character that don’t make me want to shoot them then I say it succeds as a film.
Posted by finaljoe on November 13th, 2009I think the problem with sfx extravaganzas is that way too many of them aren’t fun. Transformers 2 was the opposite of fun because it failed as a film in every other way. In the end, all the sfx in the world can’t replace good characters and a good story, even if it’s just in the name of fun.
Posted by Nate on November 13th, 2009I have to give a nod to finaljoe. I was reading reviews for 2012 from non-critics and it was blowing my mind that people kept griping about a lack of char development. Go see Shawshank. Different types of movie bring different stuff to the table. I think I’d be disappointed if 2012 brought a ton of char development to the table. That’s not what I’m going to see. I’m going to watch panicky people try to avoid a mind blowing visual feast that is the end of the world. It’s a popcorn flick, take it for what it is or go see something else.
Posted by Ranger Tom on November 13th, 2009..one note: The story does at least have to make sense and hold some interest. Which is why Trans2 and something like 10,000BC fail.
Posted by Ranger Tom on November 13th, 2009There was a year that I really started getting annoyed by movies with big effects and lame plots and characterization. It was actually after I saw The Day After Tomorrow. I felt my brain becoming cheese as I watched relentless bursts of things getting destroyed for durations of 15 minutes then halting and showing less than one dimensional humans respond to the crises.
I am no longer impressed by the whizzbang effects.
That said, when it comes to strong visuals and atmosphere, but a tenuous plot, then I am a bit more partial.
Posted by Senor G on November 14th, 2009I should be more clear with what I mean by visuals at the end. I mean visual style, rather than visual effects.
Posted by Senor G on November 14th, 2009I have to say I’m going to see 2012 on Tuesday pretty much because of that.
Posted by The Dude on November 14th, 2009But I think the more interesting question is if one can actually enjoy movies only based on their computer generated pleasures. As long as the art direction isn’t completely off course I’m definitely able to get some shallow fun out of most
nope.
Posted by tonci on November 14th, 2009Hey Sean what about movies you thought were just going to be a FX film but turns out to be a lot more e.g “Starship Troopers” ?
Posted by xego on November 14th, 2009We see some movies for the spectacle. That often translates into effects.
Spectacle doesn’t equate to quality, but obviously it doesn’t mean lack of quality either. It just is.
Posted by Doug on November 14th, 2009I’m never really impressed by watching CG graphics in movies. If anything, I find it more impressive then I see real life stunts and effects in movies.
Posted by Nick D on November 14th, 2009In short no! I got over special FX when they stopped being special and that was back when Jurassic Park came out. At this point I see “Special FX” as being part of the overall film package much like audio, lighting, etc.
Posted by Marc on November 14th, 2009Ummm…no.
I pretty much do the opposite. If a movie looks like it has too much special effects I avoid it at all costs. 2012? wont see it. Avatar? looks like a videogame, wont see it.
Special effects were good when they were just being developed. Lucas did a great job in the first few Star Wars but nowadasys when eveything is digial it just looks horrible. I get taken out of it.
My favorite movie to come out next would probably be one that had literally no effects whatsoever. Just give me a straight forward story with smart camera and directorial techniques and you’ve got a good movie. No need for special effects in my opinion.
Posted by tom on November 14th, 2009yes i do and so do a lot of people. 2012 is the perfect example of it. i know this movie will not have much substance but that doesn’t mean i can’t enjoy it! i am open minded enough to appreciate the big budget special effects.
Posted by Napalm on November 14th, 2009It depends, I’ll say I’m seeing 2012 because of the effects and John Cusak. The effects are the major part, but seeing an actor I like (even if it’s in a film that, perhaps, won’t have the best writing) amongst all that spectacle certainly makes the ten dollars a ticket go easier.
Posted by Jurassicalien on November 14th, 2009Yeah– “District 9″.
Posted by Falsk on November 14th, 2009Special Effects films make the most money because they’re the type of film that demand to be seen on the biggest screen with the loudest speakers. No wonder studios are making lots of them because that’s what brings people consistently to the theatre. I myself have gone to an OK SFX movie in a theatre over a reportedly great drama/comedy because those movies don’t lose a lot of their magic on my television.
Posted by Glendon on November 15th, 2009I wonder if everyone is as jaded as the Film Junk readers are about special effects films. Is it really because there are so many special effects films nowadays that the people who make them don’t get much respect?
In my day and age, people like George Pal and Ray Harryhausen were venerated by fan boys and critics. Pal produced War of the Worlds (1953) and When Worlds Collide. Harryhausen created the original Clash of the Titans (1981). No one ever watched their films for character development and plot.
I feel sorry for Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich who don’t seem to get much credit for maintaining the spectacle in films.
Posted by Reed Farrington on November 15th, 2009Special effects are the main reason I want to see Avatar, just so I can see what all that money can buy.
Posted by David on November 15th, 2009There was time when when I would not miss a movie with sfx work by greats like Ray Harryhausen, Douglas Trumbull, Rob Bottin, George Pal and certain others. Of course, the films in which their work appears are about subject matter I would have gone to see anyway. The styles of effects artists in those days were singular and were just as much stars of the movies as any actor.
Posted by greenblade on November 15th, 2009Now, there are only, as far as I’m concerned, faceless computer jockeys and “effects houses.”. Most of them are about the same. Maybe some are better than others at making a movie look like more than a big video game…or maybe they just have bigger budgets.
I think the answer is yes. Would you go see 2012 if the CGI looked sucky in the previews? No. The previews don’t show anything but CGI, so you can’t tell me you’re going to see it for any other reason.
Posted by Ryan M. on November 15th, 2009Yep, on occasion I do watch a movie for the effects. However I won’t go to the pictures for that reason alone.
Also, if I pop something in the player at home and don’t like what I’m watching I won’t hang in there for the fx hell of it. It must at least have something plot wise, character wise…else end.
Posted by Bugsyoz on November 15th, 2009@RyanM Well, I did see “Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus” …
Posted by Falsk on November 15th, 2009No.
Posted by Andrew James on November 16th, 2009Leave a Reply