May 11

Well all the authors are talking about 3D and other new technologies that have emerged recently. I wonder what we would have had to read if this book was published after Avatar was released. I probably would have been reading all day. I think that all the authors made some really good points about how film has evolved, and how 3D and CGI have helped action films. I did notice that the writers brought up examples of what people would consider “good films.” There was no mention of films like “Bad Boys” or ‘Live Free or Die Hard” where the entire film relies on heavy special effects, and the movie overall sucks. What I am saying is that when the film relies so much on its graphics, images, and special effect, sometimes they forget about the basic important things like acting and screenwriting. Like the films I mentioned before, there are countless action films that have a ton of special effects but terrible plots. While some people go to the theaters to see tons of shit get blown up on a large screen, some of us care for some plot, dialogue, and acting. If you look at last years Oscars, The Hurt Locker beat out Avatar, because people seem to care about acting and plot more then effects and action. 3D, CGI, and special effects are a great thing to add to a film, but they should be a side thing in the background to add to the entire film, I don’t think it should be the main aspect of the film.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 comments so far

  1. 1 Vincent Li Sun
    12:34 am - 5-12-2010

    your idea was interesting, however, i think i might disagree with it.

    as the film industry became more commercialized, some people seem to make films to gain audiences instead of just creating an art piece, and i am not saying that film has lost its sense of art, but partially, it has become a pure entertainment. also, i am not saying that good plotted films do not entertain audiences, they do, but most people are living under tremendous pressure these days, so they are probably looking for relaxing pure entertainments from movies, which do not require too much thinking. so there comes the new era of “cinema of attraction”, which films are focusing less on storylines.

    it is the trend that the film industry becomes more and more commercialized because of the power of Hollywood. therefore, to follow this trend, new movies need 3D, CGI, and special effects to attract their audiences. but they certainly might not be good films, and some of them are not.

    good plots are necessary too, but i think it depends on which films we are lookng at. professionals, shcolars and some people like films to be an art, but casual audiences might just want to see some new thrilling things created by 3D, CGI and special effects.

  2. 2 Vincent Li Sun
    12:49 am - 5-12-2010

    sorry, i just want to add something. i think, unlike the old “cinema of attraction”, the new era of “cinema of attration” actually try to combine good stories and “attractions”, but chooses to focus on one of them. you mentioned that the speacial effects should be in the background, and that is right for the films like The Hurt Locker, as you will probably agree that it has a great story and actings, and the special effects are less important. however, as in Avatar, special effects becomes the main focus, that was Cameron’s aim, i think, so the story couldnt be too good or it will confuse the main point, but its story at least concerned about some social issues instead of just being completely bad. and i dont think science fictions are very likely to win the Oscar (we could see not many science fictions actually won Oscar), so maybe it is too commercial, but it is not completely a bad movie.


Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Your Details

Your Comment

Cooper's Film Blog