Movies ain't what it used to be?

[Jusela]

Several weeks ago, i watched Lawrence of Arabia, a three and a half long hour movie about the exploits and adventures of the said person. The movie was really, i kid you not, stunning. It had an awesome plot, set in a time that no longer exists, and what's best is that there's no CGI. That's right. No fancy CGI. Yet the movie was so visually stunning sometimes, some scenes, combined with the excellent composed music just made me go like "awesome!".

But most importantly, the movie had somesort of meaning and symbolism, and most of all, it felt real, it wasn't all fancy plastic special effects like the movies we have nowadays, where the actors stand infront of a bluescreen, and the background gets added later.

Is it just me, or are most of the movies produced in recent times (10's, 00's), just CGI with lacking storylines?

[North Suran]

To be honest, I think Lawrence of Arabia's lack of CGI was more down to the distinct lack of computers than a purposeful artistic choice of the director.

[Jusela]

To be honest, I think Lawrence of Arabia's lack of CGI was more down to the distinct lack of computers than a purposeful artistic choice of the director.

Still they managed to produce scenes that were visually awesome.

[Southern Patriots]

In 80 years when movies are downloaded straight to a person's brain, the kids will probably say, "These movies lack any story. The ones back from the 10s and 00s had artistic cgi and original plots."

[Buffett and Colbert]

Occasionally a few good ones come by.

[The Bleeding Roses]

It's the culture. A 3+ hour movie just doesn't work in this day and age, no profit for theaters who have to cut their showings by half.

Intermissions are long gone.

[Mostly armless]

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

[La Habana]

Movies ain't what it used to be?

...

Grammar fail......

[Bei Song]

Is it just me, or are most of the movies produced in recent times (10's, 00's), just CGI with lacking storylines?

There are plenty of good movies with good storylines out there. Obviously there are films like Avatar which are just about the CGI (which was still a great movie), but there are plenty of movies with good plots.

[Farnhamia]

To be honest, I think Lawrence of Arabia's lack of CGI was more down to the distinct lack of computers than a purposeful artistic choice of the director.

What would you computer-generate in Lawrence of Arabia? Make Peter O'Toole's eyes bluer?

[Jusela]

It's the culture. A 3+ hour movie just doesn't work in this day and age, no profit for theaters who have to cut their showings by half.

Intermissions are long gone.

Im not talking about the length of a movie, im talking about the quality. Most older movies were shot either on-site, or in a studio, while modern movies mostly involves actors standing infront of a bluescreen, with the CGI added later.

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI etc.

Is it just me, or are most of the movies produced in recent times (10's, 00's), just CGI with lacking storylines?

There are plenty of good movies with good storylines out there. Obviously there are films like Avatar which are just about the CGI (which was still a great movie), but there are plenty of movies with good plots.

Yeah i do agree with you there. Shutters Island, Iron Man 2, Avatar, those were quite good movies produced recently. But it is still a rare find.

[Rambhutan]

It's the culture. A 3+ hour movie just doesn't work in this day and age, no profit for theaters who have to cut their showings by half.

Intermissions are long gone.

If anything films have got longer. In the 60s and 70s the average length of a film was about 90 minutes, nowadays a film is likely to be 120 minutes plus. That said if CGI had been available David Lean would probably have made use of it.

[Mostly armless]

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI et.

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

[Farnhamia]

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI et.

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

It's expensive, you have to schlep everyone out to some God-forsaken place, house them, feed them, get power to the spot. It's a pain. And anyway, backgrounds were blue-screened into old movies, too.

[Illotheum]

Watch Plan Nine From Outer Space and see if you still agree with this argument

[Jusela]

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI et.

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

It's expensive, you have to schlep everyone out to some God-forsaken place, house them, feed them, get power to the spot. It's a pain,

Yeah it is probably a pain to organise everything, but the end result would be better than having some CGI as background.

And anyway, backgrounds were blue-screened into old movies, too.

Really? I didn't know they had CGI backgrounds back in the 80's...

[Mostly armless]

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI et.

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

It's expensive, you have to schlep everyone out to some God-forsaken place, house them, feed them, get power to the spot. It's a pain. And anyway, backgrounds were blue-screened into old movies, too.

Compared to the money they make from the films, it's not really much.

[Big Jim P]

I hardly watch movies anymore. The older ones are just too cheesy, and the newer ones just plain suck.

[Rambhutan]

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

If the film is set on a moon of Jupiter or in second century Athens it probably is quite hard.

[Mostly armless]

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

If the film is set on a moon of Jupiter or in second century Athens it probably is quite hard.

Then you build a set.

[Farnhamia]

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI et.

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

It's expensive, you have to schlep everyone out to some God-forsaken place, house them, feed them, get power to the spot. It's a pain. And anyway, backgrounds were blue-screened into old movies, too.

Compared to the money they make from the films, it's not really much.

It's still a pain. Don't get me wrong, I think on-location shooting does add something to a film, but I quite understand why it isn't done as much as it might be. Poorly done blue-screening or CGI detracts from quality, obviously. Even if the money made - and, without having looked it up, I think it's far less than you imagine - pays for the expense, it's still a pain to drag the cast and crew to some far-off location.

[Veblenia]

There are lots of good movies being made these days; you just shouldn't expect to find them at one of those idiot multiplexes. Here are a few of my favorites from recent years:

Waltz With Bashir
The Darjeeling Limited
Let the Right One In
The Counterfeiters
Up the Yangtze (documentary)

[Mostly armless]

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI et.

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

It's expensive, you have to schlep everyone out to some God-forsaken place, house them, feed them, get power to the spot. It's a pain. And anyway, backgrounds were blue-screened into old movies, too.

Compared to the money they make from the films, it's not really much.

It's still a pain. Don't get me wrong, I think on-location shooting does add something to a film, but I quite understand why it isn't done as much as it might be. Poorly done blue-screening or CGI detracts from quality, obviously. Even if the money made - and, without having looked it up, I think it's far less than you imagine - pays for the expense, it's still a pain to drag the cast and crew to some far-off location.

I suppose for smaller films it is: it costs a lot. But with bigger budget films it's not much of a problem.

[Marshmellowstan]

It's the culture. A 3+ hour movie just doesn't work in this day and age, no profit for theaters who have to cut their showings by half.

Intermissions are long gone.

You forgot about Smurfs in Space

[UberWeegeeia]

They aren't.
Has anyone seen a single comedy that isn't just "lulsexjokelulsexjokelul we do funy lololololol."
Young Frankenstien was where the good stuff was.