h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The same, without the typo:

I am still baffled when people still say, nowadays, in 2012, that a film had a lousy story but amazing special effects *as if it was something positive*.

>>But have *films* got better in direct proportion?<<

Yes, good SFX can make a good story better as it increases the options for the storyteller. One of the fundamental rules of drama is 'show, don't tell' and SFX gives much more scope to show. It can also make a world more immersive, more 'real' and leave the audience more entertained. Inception is a good example of that: it might have been a good film without the SFX but with them it was simply mind-blowing. Chronicle is a more recent example: the 3 leads exuberance and joy of using their powers, and the audience seeing that, was far more powerful than any description of it would have been. The shots of a second Earth hanging in the sky in Another Earth weren't strictly needed, but they really added something to the film.

Films could be made without SFX but why would you want to? Why deprive yourself of that particular tool? Good films without sound or colour can still impress as The Artist is proving, but it's not like there's going to be a rash of black-and-white or silent films because directors like those tools. On some occasions SFX can make a weak film better: take Avatar as an example. It's plot could've been written in crayon for all its sophistication and originality but the SFX and use of 3D was staggering and, in the long run, I think that's what people will remember. Thor was a pretty average superhero flick but the visuals and SFX elevate it above the pack.

SFX, like every other tool a film-maker has at their disposal, takes practice, skill and artistry to get right. When they get it right though they can really enhance the experience for the audience.

I'm still not convinced...although maybe I've been watching the wrong films.

Isn't the a sense in which good directors work with what they've got?

"Isn't the a sense in which good directors work with what they've got?"

Well... yeah.

But if you take that argument to its extreme, you're making the case that a good director ought to (be able to) tell his story with a sequence of still, uncaptioned black and white images. After all, what is a moving picture if not a "special effect" dependent on persistence of vision?

(Bonus points if you read that and think, "hang on... La Jetee... Twelve Monkeys", or at the very least know what I mean when I say it...)

Could Nolan make a head feck movie without fx? Sure - it's called "Memento". Could he make a BETTER one with fx? Oh yes.

And all that stuff that HI said about "show don't tell".

I think like any tool it's whether its appropriate to the film as a piece of art. I thought Gollum was superb in LoTRs...made the films for me. But I thought the Nazgul were rubbish...but that was more down to my idea of them, not so much the SFX in themselves. I found them quite woosy and all 'show'

But it would be ludicrous to have SFX in a film like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy...my favourite film of the ones I've seen from last year. But then I love dim smokey rooms with a load of people sitting round a table and watching the power politics and psychology play out...and a slow long drawn out build up of tension, and that requires top acting.

Memento's better than Inception, surely?

Definitely.


I think the best example of a good director is Peter Bogdanovitch, who gave his completely botched film to the editor (Donn Cambern) who created the masterpiece that is The Last Picture Show.

"Memento's better than Inception, surely?"

Hmm. I'd say yes, certainly. But I could respect the position of anyone who said the opposite. They're really too different to make a meaningful comparison. For example, Inception works better on the level of pure spectacle, but it's like comparing the Rime of the Ancient Mariner to Ozymandias. Is "The Empire Strikes Back" better than "The Godfather"? Apples and oranges, I think.

I do stress that I've nothing against FX (nor Inception). They're just something I expect to be there - if and only with they're needed. If I notice them, the director isn't doing their job.

I'll admit this is odd, given my love of cinematography. I quite like it when a director pulls off as shot that says 'Hey! Look at thia!'

"If I notice them, the director isn't doing their job."

Really? What if he's directing a story about, say, genetically engineered dinosaurs? Or the Ark of the Covenant? Or a man-eating shark? Was Spielberg really not doing his job in any of those movies... or didn't you notice the T. Rex, the face-melting or the big rubber shark?

Well, yes - really. I'd notice if the were shakey. But given that the director has chosen to make the film, I'd just kinda expect the FX to be there. Else - make a different film.

I don't notice costumes, makeup, hairdressing either. I know they're all technical skills - there are Oscars for them - but I don't get a buzz out of them.

I enjoy witty dialogue, good acting, dynamic special effects when they belong in the story, and a storytelling capability that doesn't have you saying "I know how this is going to end" by the time you're twenty minutesi nto the movie.

About ten years ago I stopped going to movies for a while because I thought filmmakers had lost the ability to tell a story. The universe might be random and meaningless, but that doesn't mean movies need to be.

I think there are two things people say which sound very similar, but actually mean different things. When you say that a film had "spectacular special effects", you could mean "I could see the special effects, which were of a spectacular nature" or you could mean "the film was spectacular, and I know from general knowledge that this was due to special effects". Jurassic Park has incredible, realistic-looking dinosaurs, especially for the time. In parts, you could (in theory) convince yourself that they actually bred a dinosaur-like creature and then filmed it. However, we all know that such creatures do not exist, so it must have been some kind of cinematic trickery. There was also all the publicity surrounding the film ('Making of' documentaries, etc.), but that's not the point.
Incidentally, I suspect you would be surprised at the amount of CG in 'Tinker Tailor...'. Films like this now routinely use CGI for things like airbrushing out anachronistic details of location shots. For 'The King's Speech' they created an entire park!

On another film that has been mentioned, I had rather more respect for 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow' once I heard what they were trying to do with it. The fact is that they set out to create a movie _entirely without sets_, and I find that experimental spirit admirable. It also makes the film more interesting, seeing where they had to work especially hard to overcome their handicaps, and in my opinion they pretty much pulled it off.
Reportedly there were another couple of films made elsewhere with the same ambition. The only other one I've seen is a European (mainly French) film called 'Immortel (ad vitam)': http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314063/

>>The fact is that they set out to create a movie _entirely without sets_, and I find that experimental spirit admirable.

See also the Dogme 95 movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95

Indeed. I've only seen one Lars Von Trier film - Dogville - and that was brilliant, but I note that he doesn't stick rigidly to the Dogme manifesto.

300 and Sin City were almost entirely free of sets.

>>Indeed. I've only seen one Lars Von Trier film - Dogville - and that was brilliant, but I note that he doesn't stick rigidly to the Dogme manifesto.

By definition the ones that credit him as director don't.

'Festen' (Dogme #1) was my favourite, which included whassisname who played Theis Birk Larssen in 'Forbrydelsen'.

"300 and Sin City were almost entirely free of sets." [Hoovooloo]

I saw both movies, but didn't realize so little was done with sets.

I wouldn't bet folding money that they were as entirely free of sets as Sky Captain was, but they were certainly far more er... sparse... (dodged a bullet there) in their appointments than most feature films.

Sin City was done extremely well, I thought.