Visuals Over Storytelling

Tools    





Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
Something that's been on my mind recently is CGI. It's a really good tool for creation but overuse and experimentation of it has been almost replacing the overall idea behind today's films. Audiences are starting to praise movies for visuals alone, even when the story isn't that great, or paced well. If a movie looks really good, is that really enough to say it was a good one?
__________________
|>
|
Ami-Scythe



I would say the 90's was probably the worst time for films sold on flashy(for the time) CGI, these days you don't really see many films(maybe the Fast and Furious franchise?) were that's the central selling point.

I mean film is a visual medium and used well it should be a big part of selling a story. Its why I never really understood the criticism of something like say Blade Runner as "just good looking" when the visuals clearly inform the drama.



Something that's been on my mind recently is CGI. It's a really good tool for creation but overuse and experimentation of it has been almost replacing the overall idea behind today's films. Audiences are starting to praise movies for visuals alone, even when the story isn't that great, or paced well. If a movie looks really good, is that really enough to say it was a good one?
I couldn't agree more. In general, computers have completely changed our society. In specific they have ruined normal social interaction. And now CGI has dominated action, fantasy and superhero movies.

The allure for producers of films is obvious: they can show things not possible with live action. Armies of zombies can be shown, and breathtaking stunts can be represented with abandon. But look at all the extras and stunt people now out of work!...

I watched the recent Avengers movie last night, and it was almost refreshing to see the segments that were in live action. The ending battle with the multitude of warriors, superheros and weapons was so supremely over the top that it became boring: the banality of excess. It'll be interesting to see at what point this pepper spray of assault to the senses will top out.

Like you, I'll be happy if and when filmmakers return to good story telling. Once the public tires of having social justice themes shoved down their throats, and the industry gets a little back bone, we might be treated to some good, old-fashioned movie making.

~Doc



Welcome to the human race...
Dude, we don't need another Birth of a Nation.

As for the topic, I'm inclined to side with MoreOrLess regarding how film is an inherently visual medium and that the best films will not automatically favour visuals over storytelling (or vice versa) but instead manage to find ideal balances for the two (i.e. "visual storytelling"). For example, modern blockbusters tend to be criticised for see-sawing between visually overloaded action scenes and flat-looking non-action scenes.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
Dude, we don't need another Birth of a Nation.

As for the topic, I'm inclined to side with MoreOrLess regarding how film is an inherently visual medium and that the best films will not automatically favour visuals over storytelling (or vice versa) but instead manage to find ideal balances for the two (i.e. "visual storytelling"). For example, modern blockbusters tend to be criticised for see-sawing between visually overloaded action scenes and flat-looking non-action scenes.
Yes, the two should be balanced, but currently, they're not being balanced. It's been beat for beat recaps of stories we already know but prettier and "more diverse," which I guess is fine, but it's being done so much that it's starting to take away the meaning of film or at least what makes a good one. I'm not saying that every film should be "Birth of a Nation," but not every film should be, "Oooh, look what I can do with a computer," either.



Welcome to the human race...
That was more a jab at how GulfportDoc was drawing a line between filmmaking that invokes social justice themes and "good" filmmaking, which I naturally found suspect coming from someone who lists a notoriously racist (albeit technically accomplished) film like Birth of a Nation as his #1 favourite. Like, I get that there's nuanced criticism to be made about the usage of social justice themes in films (especially in the MCU), but it's hard to take that argument in good faith from people who constantly make that kind of complaint no matter what.

I guess it also depends on how exactly you divide between "visuals" and "storytelling", to say nothing of the standards you hold for each aspect together and apart. Narratives in particular are so basic and archetypal that there's only so much variety to be had with them in the first place, so of course it makes sense to pay more attention to how tangible aspects like visuals make worthwhile improvements to said narratives.



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
I would say the 90's was probably the worst time for films sold on flashy(for the time) CGI, these days you don't really see many films(maybe the Fast and Furious franchise?) were that's the central selling point.
Alita: Battle Angel, Captain Marvel, Spiderman: Into The Spider-Verse, and most Disney remake's promotional focus was, "We can do [x] with a computer." It's not the promotional focus of every effects heavy film but I can't help but to feel as if it is definitely the focus of the films themselves, like the story is just a reason to flash CGI in audiences' faces like keys to a baby and as a result, the film gets reviews that (to me), don't feel earned because behind the incredible visuals, and don't get me wrong, they are incredible, it's still the same bland garbage we've been getting for decades. I know we're talking about a problem which primarily affects superhero/action movies which are genres that are typically expected to be mediocre at best, but you can't tell me that movies like these can't have interesting stories. :/
Maybe it's just me being overly critical and sensitive but that's just my thoughts on the matter.



Welcome to the human race...
I'd contest Spider-Verse because there was actually a point to its visually inventive use of CGI in telling a tale of alternate universes that each had their own artistic styles, which is more than I can say for your other examples using CGI as a matter of course.

I'd also contest that action movies are expected to be mediocre at best - it's more that the best examples know to invoke practical effects and stuntwork over CGI, which is why films like John Wick or Mad Max: Fury Road have proved successful alternatives to stuff that settles for CGI (and The Fast and the Furious arguably proves extra successful for compromising between the two).



Something that's been on my mind recently is CGI. It's a really good tool for creation but overuse and experimentation of it has been almost replacing the overall idea behind today's films. Audiences are starting to praise movies for visuals alone, even when the story isn't that great, or paced well. If a movie looks really good, is that really enough to say it was a good one?
I like CGI best when it's convincing, and it might be the case that that is more likely when it's sparingly applied.

Two of the best examples I can think of are Take Shelter, in one amazing sequence; and the Wallander film The Pyramid, with a scene that represents drug use.

Dredd is one of my favourite experiences of CGI in a film. It's there for dramatic reasons, not just visual.



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
I'd contest Spider-Verse because there was actually a point to its visually inventive use of CGI in telling a tale of alternate universes that each had their own artistic styles, which is more than I can say for your other examples using CGI as a matter of course.

I'd also contest that action movies are expected to be mediocre at best - it's more that the best examples know to invoke practical effects and stuntwork over CGI, which is why films like John Wick or Mad Max: Fury Road have proved successful alternatives to stuff that settles for CGI (and The Fast and the Furious arguably proves extra successful for compromising between the two).
I can get behind that



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
I like CGI best when it's convincing, and it might be the case that that is more likely when it's sparingly applied.

Two of the best examples I can think of are Take Shelter, in one amazing sequence; and the Wallander film The Pyramid, with a scene that represents drug use.

Dredd is one of my favourite experiences of CGI in a film. It's there for dramatic reasons, not just visual.
Yeah, I recently watched a video about how CGI is getting worse in quality because there's too much of it and the artists hired to do it are underpaid. Like, they're paid to do a certain amount of shots, but they're not paid for the remaking of the shots



Alita: Battle Angel, Captain Marvel, Spiderman: Into The Spider-Verse, and most Disney remake's promotional focus was, "We can do [x] with a computer." It's not the promotional focus of every effects heavy film but I can't help but to feel as if it is definitely the focus of the films themselves, like the story is just a reason to flash CGI in audiences' faces like keys to a baby and as a result, the film gets reviews that (to me), don't feel earned because behind the incredible visuals, and don't get me wrong, they are incredible, it's still the same bland garbage we've been getting for decades. I know we're talking about a problem which primarily affects superhero/action movies which are genres that are typically expected to be mediocre at best, but you can't tell me that movies like these can't have interesting stories. :/
Maybe it's just me being overly critical and sensitive but that's just my thoughts on the matter.
Alita is probably as close as you'll get those 90's blockbusters sold heavily on the latest CGI effect but generally these days its something else that's the big sell.

Don't think theres anything wrong with CGI at all used well, look at the difference between say X-men apocalypse with Oscar Isaac buried under so much makeup their was very little room for performance and Thanos were a CGI's Brolin is able to give a far richer performance.

Fury Road is actually a very strongly visually focused film indeed, maybe moreso than any other action blockbuster this decade(Rogue One probably the closest rival). I'd say that's actually a lot of the reason for its success, it feels more akin to something like Friedkin's Sorcerer when it comes to telling a story via atmospheric mood.

When it comes to ostensibly more "serious" cinema as well I tend to think that actually the issue with have today is that a lot of it isn't very ambitious visually. Lots of drama's for "worthy" causes lacking in visual ambition, most of my favourites along these lines this decade would be the opposite, Under The Skin, The Lobster, The Great Beauty, The Master, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Calvary, Drive etc all visually very expansive.



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
Alita is probably as close as you'll get those 90's blockbusters sold heavily on the latest CGI effect but generally these days its something else that's the big sell.

Don't think theres anything wrong with CGI at all used well, look at the difference between say X-men apocalypse with Oscar Isaac buried under so much makeup their was very little room for performance and Thanos were a CGI's Brolin is able to give a far richer performance.

Fury Road is actually a very strongly visually focused film indeed, maybe moreso than any other action blockbuster this decade(Rogue One probably the closest rival). I'd say that's actually a lot of the reason for its success, it feels more akin to something like Friedkin's Sorcerer when it comes to telling a story via atmospheric mood.

When it comes to ostensibly more "serious" cinema as well I tend to think that actually the issue with have today is that a lot of it isn't very ambitious visually. Lots of drama's for "worthy" causes lacking in visual ambition, most of my favourites along these lines this decade would be the opposite, Under The Skin, The Lobster, The Great Beauty, The Master, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Calvary, Drive etc all visually very expansive.
Yeah. I don't think CGI is a bad thing, I just think it's overused. For instance, while I don't really like Thanos, there's no question that he was beautifully animated and well acted but in the same film, there are character in CG suits in scenes where they're just standing.



Don't think theres anything wrong with CGI at all used well, look at the difference between say X-men apocalypse with Oscar Isaac buried under so much makeup their was very little room for performance and Thanos were a CGI's Brolin is able to give a far richer performance.
Oscar Isaac said he wasn't keen on that design – couldn't move his neck and obviously constricting to wear. They should have gone more for a cybernetic look, very close to the skin instead of on top of it, which would have worked well done with Egyptian designs. Despite the encumbrance I think he made the character interesting; he's your classic arrogant baddie isn't he?

I didn't think much to the CGI in Apocalypse either, and it always gets on my nerves how Beast is obviously jumping on wires. Digitally removing them isn't enough is it? Use a trampoline, use anything! Somebody will do it one day.



More Marvel anyone??? Cinematography will probably eventually be a green screen and a computer I guess in the future.
__________________
My Favorite Films



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Two movies that I think are really entertaining for the visuals are The Crow, and Dick Tracy. Style over substance but such well done visual style, you still enjoy the movies, even if the stories are not memorable much.

Or what about a movie like The Raid: Redemption or Mad Max: Fury Road? All action scenes, with a forgettable story, but the action is really good and takes up most of it.



Ami-Scythe's Avatar
A bucket of anxiety
Two movies that I think are really entertaining for the visuals are The Crow, and Dick Tracy. Style over substance but such well done visual style, you still enjoy the movies, even if the stories are not memorable much.

Or what about a movie like The Raid: Redemption or Mad Max: Fury Road? All action scenes, with a forgettable story, but the action is really good and takes up most of it.
I understand that some movies aren't story driven, especially action and superhero movies, but I'm just noticing that the decline in good storytelling (in story driven movies, or at least movies that are trying to make the plot seem important) is being overshadowed by effects and even if you don't agree with me there, I quite honestly think the overuse of CGI is also hurting films that are supposed to just be about the action because there's so much of it, the artists don't have the time and money to make it look good, so it's reminiscent of a video game, which to me is not very engaging when the point of the movie is that it "looks cool." Like in the MCU for instance, I very much prefer the action scenes in Civil War over Infinity War and not just because I don't like Infinity War in general, Civil War was just more engaging because the CG effects were in the places they were supposed to be so there was more time put into make them look real.



Something that's been on my mind recently is CGI. It's a really good tool for creation but overuse and experimentation of it has been almost replacing the overall idea behind today's films. Audiences are starting to praise movies for visuals alone, even when the story isn't that great, or paced well. If a movie looks really good, is that really enough to say it was a good one?
Like everything, there's a balance to it. When I watched the 2012 Avengers movie, there was so much CGI that it looked like a computer game. It was literally like watching 2 people play a fighting game on the XBOX for 2 hours. It put me off so much that I haven't watched an entire superhero movie since.

There is a place for CGI. I liked the subtle use of CGI in 'The Favourite'. I think from memory it was the bird shooting scene. Loads of movies have minimal use of subtle CGI, and it looks great.

As for your final question - that's up to the viewer. To me, a film laden with CGI looks terrible and detracts from the actual experience, while for example something like The Fall, The Neon Demon, The Assassination of Jesse James, Suspiria, Mishima, Ida, Lost In Translation etc etc etc were executed so well without CGI, and looked so stunning, that I felt even more invested in the film, so it made the experience even better.