Comic-book Movies Have Ruined Special Effects

I saw Iron Man this past week, after it had already raked in over $100 million dollars, and was as impressed as I hoped I'd be. While it probably will pale in comparison to The Dark Knight, one of the summer's other numerous comic book films, it was right up there with the best of the Marvel movies (although this was the first film produced by Marvel itself, I'm including the Spider Man's, X-Men, and the first Hulk here).

Robert Downey Jr.'s manic, sarcastic charm was perfect for Tony Stark, as were the supporting actor's in the minor parts. And certainly one reason it was successful is that the kick-ass parts were, well, pretty kick-ass. His escape from an Afghanistan Cave, the fight on a Los Angeles freeway; they're all done in perfect big-budget, big-movie, special effects extravaganza mode. Cars are flipped over, things blow up, a confusing and potentially impossible power source plugs into Iron Man's chest, and his yellow and red suit blasts Tony up close to outer space, as well as helping him to out-duel two fighter planes in the Middle Eastern desert.

In fact, the only bad part of the whole experience was the guy I was sitting next to, who downed two large soda's and two Butterfinger's while he was tweaking out like the aliens in Men in Black who need sugar to live.

Iron Man, however, got me thinking about what really makes memorable special effects. Because, although entirely adequate for a movie based on a comic book, it's not digitally created scenes like ones I mention above that get talked about for years to come. In fact, the Comic book genre in general hasn't really inspired much wonder for CGI; if anything, it's provided a glut in effects that makes the films less impressive. The move to films shot mostly on green screen, or where entire characters are generated by a powerful Apple in a backroom somewhere, has increased only the amount of special f/x in films. It hasn't increased an appreciation for these lavish, technologically superior worlds.

For example, has anyone been impressed by the kaleidoscopic acid trip of the new Speed Racer, or the new Hulk in the Incredible Hulk trailer ? This thing looks like it cost a lot of money to create, but it doesn't exactly instill one with a feeling of awe for the magic of moviemaking. Not to mention it's a shame to sign up Edward Norton to bring the film some gravitas, and then saddle the action sequences with a hero and villain that look more suited for the soon-to-arrive Xbox 360 game than any movie.

What does this add to the movie? When the new Star Wars movies came out, all I heard about was the revolutionary graphics and technology George Lucas was cooking up at Skywalker Ranch. But what this did was make it clear that the movie was 90% tech and 10% story, acting, and heart. Creating armies of Stormtroopers with a computer might have been a neat stunt, but it made the movies worse.

Obviously special f/x, even gratuitous effects, have been used for good and not just evil. The T1000 was incredible, for example, as were the action sequences throughout The Matrix series. But overall, it's just not that impressive to see chunks of a movie filled purely with CGI. Maybe my old age has given me a jaded perspective along with sore knees and deteriorating vision, but movies like Iron Man, or The Spider Man movies, or Pirates of the Caribbean, make me think, "holy cow, that looks expensive," more than, "that's awesome."

The special effects that really get to me, that stay in my head for months, are the ones that seem to fly under the radar, a little more under the surface. The best example is Spike Jonze's Adaptation. The effects in this movie are just brilliant. First off, you have the most realistic and affecting car crash ever put to film. While I know this doesn't compare to the wizardry of some bigger movies, and has to do mostly with just great non-green screen filmmaking, it's nonetheless the rare scene that gets the audience asking, how the heck did they do that, which I think is the general point of great special effects in the first place; the sense of wonder.

What I find even more impressive, however, is the front of Chris Cooper's mouth. In the movie, it's missing two teeth. Not just painted black, but they are missing. Now I've seen Chris Cooper in plenty of movies before and after Adaptation, and the man has just as a nice a set of chompers as you could ask for. So through what sorcery did Spike Jonze and the producer's make him toothless?

Another great example is Forrest Gump, which in fact did win the Oscar for best Visual Effects. When I (perhaps smugly) remind friends of this, they're pretty surprised. This is the category, after all, where the Big Blockbuster's reign supreme. King Kong, with it's 45 minute interlude of CGI dinosaurs and large bugs, won in 2005, preceded by Spider Man 2, and followed by the third Pirates of the Caribbean. Gump doesn't exactly have the same feel as these films; while the Bubba Gump shrimping boat gets caught in a pretty bad storm, they don't have to fend off ghosts from the deep blue sea. But what the film does do is get rid of Gary Sinise's legs in convincing fashion, and let Forrest meet a few different Presidents in archival footage.

Popular Mechanics has an article on their website that argues the rise of Comic-book movies have resulted in a decline of "smart" science-fiction (sci-fi presumably based on "real" science, as opposed to the "comic" science of gamma rays, etc.). I think, perhaps, their gripe is related to mine; for me, the rise of Comic-book movies, even if they have been accompanied by A-list actors and directors, have ruined CGI effects.

By their very nature these films rely on effects a lot, making them commonplace and just not that impressive. When you watch a computer generated Iron Man climb to the reaches of Outer Space, it's not nearly as impressive as trying to figure out where Chris Cooper's teeth went, or Gary Sinise's legs. It's not that I have a thing for missing limbs (although for another good example of this special effect, see Master and Commander for a grizzly amputation on a boy who, in real life, has both arms), I have a thing for special effects that make the real world seem a little more spectacular. What does a 100-foot wall of sand, with a face and fists, that is set on destruction in Spider Man 3, really do for anyone? It seems that more and more movies are made like last year's Transformer's, which showcased almost no action scenes that featured real actors, and I'm not impressed.

But if someone can tell me how you can take out someone's teeth, I'm all ears.

Comments

[DennyCrane]

HuffPost's Pick

Studios are making comic-book movies for two reasons. One, because CGI technology has advanced far enough to make it possible to bring these characters to life and do so in a way that doesn't look cheesy. And two, because the movie industry is in decline and they'd rather produce something that has built-in audience than risk producing something that could flop. The problem with most CGI is that the viewer knows it's fake so you can't be impressed by it all that much. That's why The Dark Knight and its predecessor Batman Begins are so impressive. The director there avoids using CGI and relies on old-fashioned stuntwork. The best part is he relies on things like storytelling, acting, characters, cinematography and music. Maybe if more comic-book movies were like that and relied less on CGI, they wouldn't be so forgettable.

[jaycg9]

HuffPost's Pick

The accessibility of quality CG leaves the filmmakers with a large responsibility--using them well. Iron Man's success was, in part, due to the fact that most (not all) of the CG was unnoticeable. It blended with the stuff the camera saw. And, after all, that's the ideal--instead of a bunch of actors knocking around in front of a green screen, there would be an even blend of real and created. When the eye is too busy to notice what is 'fake,' the eye stays in the story.

[Cathexis]

You guys are not allowing yourself to immerse in the storyline.

If you're sitting back wondering "How did they do that *during the movie*, you haven't successfully suspended disbelief and are not truly "into" the movie. It is only afterwards, walking back to the car, perhaps, that the thought "Say, how did they DO that?!?" should hit. Or maybe think it in the back of your mind, as most of your attention is on the "here and now."

This could be a failing of the movie: It failed to pull you into the story sufficiently.

Or it could be a failing on your part: You've become so enamored/aware of the mechanics that you allow it to interfere with your immersion.

Or both.

[Sumocat]

"It seems that more and more movies are made like last year's Transformer's, which showcased almost no action scenes that featured real actors, and I'm not impressed." -- Are you kidding me? The humans vs. Transformers scenes dominated that movie. Those were real humans playing the soldiers fighting Skorponok in the desert and shooting up Decepticons in the city, plus the scenes where Autobots and humans fought alongside each other. Real humans dominated the action. Even the final battle was decided by a human. Also, all the major sets were real, not green screen. (And you know Michael Bay made as many real explosions as possible. That dude likes to blow stuff up.)

[hominidx]

I'm agreeing here.

This has been the dominant conversation on industry lists for my area (interaction design) and it's brought up a great comparison as to how special effects of all sorts have inspired changes and improvements in many fields (industrial design, programming, astrophysics, etc.) by showing the now-impossible with CGI and other special effects. The main problem with CGI is the uncanny valley - when things look almost realistic but not enough (compare the toys in Toy Story versus the humans) and that pulls you out...but if it's powered armor, the display for the computer systems that design and drive that armor, it's really mapping out the path to the stars.

[samuelpablo]

You make some great points, but screw that, I've been waiting my whole life for these superhero movies and you won't take the enjoyment from me! The mining of my childhood gives me immense retroactive pleasure.

[larryfishkorn]

I agree about the CG's. Once they figured out how to generate, for example, a massive army of soldiers, then every movie had to have a massive army. Now, seeing a massive army on screen is commonplace.

Look no further than the "Star Wars" movies. Sure, the special effects from 1977 look quaint now, but there was something else going on in the movie, and it was a compelling fairy tale and characters you grew to like. What the hell was going on in the newer episodes? I couldn't follow, because the screen was TOO FREAKIN' BUSY! Wow, with computers, they made R2D2 fly, even though it doesn't make sense to the flow of the whole series.

And sure, some of the costuming and masks look outdated from 1977, but it was passable. Now, with computers, they can mimic facial expressions closely but the characters are at best irritating. Jar Jar Binks, anyone? I mean, what the hell is THAT?

Storytelling is the great yardstick to measure movies by, not computers. The heart can tell the difference.

[BlackJAC]

You're trying to make sense out of a movie series that's little more than a valentine to the Saturday matinee adventure serials of the 1950s? Stop being a fanboy.

[Ken Volok]

For years now I have been saying that to a large degree, CGI has taken much of the magic out of the movies. Gone indeed is the "Wow, how did they do that?" feeling because everyone assumes a computer did the work (operated by humans of course.)
Even when a film's effects rely chiefly on models such as James Cameron's Titanic, most audiences assume its all CGI.
Notice that a lot of modern cinematography in CGI laden films looks bleached out or there's a blue hue throughout most of the film? Its done to hide matte lines and basically make the CGI look more believable and actually part of the scene.
I am in no way anti-CGI. But too often its used as a replacement for substantive, truly trailblazing film making..

[LadyCat]

Thank you for pointing out Titanic. It was done more with models than CG, and that's the way movies SHOULD look! I don't go to a movie for the CG, I go for the story. I want to be entertained and hope that the storytelling more than makes up for the special effects that may or may not be there.

[philoaks]

It might be a good idea if you ran your posts by an editor before posting. Learn how to properly use apostrophes, and how to differentiate plurals from possessives. Oh, and appropriate use of capitalization.

OK, taking off my grammar nazi hat, and on to the substance-

You're blaming the symptom for the disease. The problem is not the effects, it's lousy direction. Steven Spielberg knows how to make good use of (CGI) visual effects in a film. He gets good work from his crew and it fits into the story he's telling, and more often than not, he makes a good movie.

Bad directors use spectacle when they don't have a story to tell. Sometimes, good directors make bad movies because they get caught up in the details of making the spectacle (see Matrix 2 and 3, Speed Racer, compare to Bound and Matrix 1)

Regarding the Oscars for Best Visual Effects- they are awarded to the film with the best visual effects, not the best film with good visual effects. Transformers and Pirates 3 weren't very good movies, but they had great, technically ground-breaking visual effects.

[Grulg]

WAAAHHHHH! I WANNA GO BACK TO GUYS IN SUITS, GODZILLA CITY SETS, REAR SCREEN PROJECTION AND MODELS!!!!

Gimme a break. CGI stuff is only as good as the people using'em. Get used to it.

[superlive]

Ohhh... That would be AWESOOOOME!

[alguien]

uh, i think that's the point he was trying to make.

[blueraven]

You sound like the perfect candidate to dig up a copy of "The Wizard of Speed and Time." Mike Jittlov's entire point is effects that mean something to the story.

And while you're at it, please get "Eats, Shoots And Leaves." Your apostrophe abuse is epidemic.