R.i.p.d.

[Xanderfox]

oh Hollywood... great concept, top name actors, awesome special effects, how do you still screw it up?

[vincent_richter]

Originally Posted by Xanderfox

oh Hollywood... great concept, top name actors, awesome special effects, how do you still screw it up?

Objection, Your Honor: asked and answered!

[danielsangeo]

Originally Posted by Xanderfox

oh Hollywood... great concept, top name actors, awesome special effects, how do you still screw it up?

(Apologies for the rambling post ahead, but this is something I've been wanting to talk about for a long time):

Haven't seen the movie yet so I won't comment on it but in general, I do know this:

Movies are a business. That much is true and whatever puts the most butts in the seats is what most moviemakers try to do. That's the primary goal of a lot of them.

However, what I wish was the primary goal for all is to "tell a good story" with superb character development. The top name actors, the awesome special effects, and so on all should only be used to further the story. George Lucas famously said that special effects without a story is a pretty boring thing and I agree. A movie called "Twelve Angry Men" released in 1957 was, for the vast majority of the movie, just twelve guys in a smoky room talking to each other. There were no special effects. But Twelve Angry Men ranks in my top 10 favorite films of all time because of story and character development.

Don't get me wrong, some of my favorite films are a cavalcade of special effects. Time Bandits is among the top 10 as well, with its giant floating heads, a person turning into a pig, doors to other places in time, Sean Connery, and yet still it has a great story and great character development because these special effects serve to the story and character development, not the other way around.

In the movie Shrek, the filmmakers made an error in judgment, in my opinion. In the scene where they introduce Lord Farquaad, the executioner pours a glass of milk. They used this scene to "show off" their ability to do liquid in a computer. While it was only a short sequence, it jarringly took me out of the story and it took me quite a while to become re-engrossed. In a live action movie, they would not have had this kind of scene because, really, it's just pouring a glass of milk. The milk would've just been in the glass next to the gingerbread man. It's one of my only complaints about the Shrek movie because the rest of it was superb.

Long story short (too late!), I believe that special effects should serve the story, not the other way around.

On topic: I probably will wait for RIPD to come out at Redbox or something before I see it.

[CNash]

Originally Posted by danielsangeo

In the movie Shrek, the filmmakers made an error in judgment, in my opinion. In the scene where they introduce Lord Farquaad, the executioner pours a glass of milk. They used this scene to "show off" their ability to do liquid in a computer. While it was only a short sequence, it jarringly took me out of the story and it took me quite a while to become re-engrossed. In a live action movie, they would not have had this kind of scene because, really, it's just pouring a glass of milk. The milk would've just been in the glass next to the gingerbread man. It's one of my only complaints about the Shrek movie because the rest of it was superb.

DreamWorks do this a lot, whenever some new animation technique is developed. I remember when they produced one of their first animated films in stereoscopic 3D, they specifically had a character in the first scene with one of those bat-and-ball toys, bouncing the ball directly into the top "layer" of the screen (i.e. right into the viewer's eyes) just to show off the 3D effect. But because it wasn't part of the narrative, it just seemed tacky.

[shaftway]

Originally Posted by danielsangeo

In the movie Shrek, the filmmakers made an error in judgment, in my opinion. In the scene where they introduce Lord Farquaad, the executioner pours a glass of milk. They used this scene to "show off" their ability to do liquid in a computer. While it was only a short sequence, it jarringly took me out of the story and it took me quite a while to become re-engrossed. In a live action movie, they would not have had this kind of scene because, really, it's just pouring a glass of milk. The milk would've just been in the glass next to the gingerbread man. It's one of my only complaints about the Shrek movie because the rest of it was superb.

L

I thought that was an important part of the scene aside from being a demo of what they could do. Sort of like laying out the dental tools in Marathon Man. I mean, how else would you torture a cookie?

[Case Scenario]

Originally Posted by shaftway

I thought that was an important part of the scene aside from being a demo of what they could do. Sort of like laying out the dental tools in Marathon Man. I mean, how else would you torture a cookie?

I kind of agree.