Lets Get Back To The Surreal 'The Real'

One thing that I dislike about the entertainment industry of today is that it has lost 'The Real' in an attempt to be cooler, hip and more 'realistic and mature'.

When I say 'The Real', I'm talking about the mystical, magical, authentic and captivating essence that movies like 'Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom', 'My Neighbor Totoro', Jim Henson's 'The Dark Crystal', 'NeverEnding Story' and MGM's 'The Wizard of Oz' contained and it is that same essence which is almost absolutely lost in the movies and television programs of this era in which we live.

It seems as if the only programs that have retained that magical and surreal essence are Jerry Bruckheimer's Pirates of the Caribbean, Ankama Animation's Wakfu anime, BBC's Merlin, Doctor Who Series 5, Pendleton Ward's Adventure Time, Andrew Adamson's 'Chronicles of Narnia' and Universal NBC's 'Hop', Disney's 'Tangled' and JG Quintel's Regular Show to only name a few.

The media makers of today rely to heavily on computers and a vast array of green screens to create so many environments, creatures and so on and so forth that movies and other media created today don't have that strange etheral and otherworldly atmosphere that can be seen in the opening footage of 'The Dark Crystal' in which the castle is set against a strange background with white sparkles flowing across the ground and a stormy cloud formation and lighting effect overhead. 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and 'Temple of Doom' are also very 'other worldly' while the last two Indy movies just don't hit like the first two did.

It'd also be nice if Del Toro got back to making those animated Hellboy movies.

BTW I'm not attacking CGI animation. Look at how the Michael Jackson 'Captain EO' and 'Billy Jean' videos contained the same 'magical, other worldly' tone, look and feel that can be seen in the mystical 'The Dark Crystal'.

What we need is a resurgence of the use of animatronics, scale models, matte painting in conjunction with CGI.

Does anyone feel what I'm talking about?

RedeemedChild said:

When I say 'The Real', I'm talking about the mystical, magical, authentic and captivating essence that movies like 'Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom', 'My Neighbor Totoro', Jim Henson's 'The Dark Crystal', 'NeverEnding Story' and MGM's 'The Wizard of Oz' contained and it is that same essence which is almost absolutely lost in the movies and television programs of this era in which we live.

Click to expand...

Oh, my goodness...IT's back! Mysticism & magic are not "real". Plain & simple. The visual effects industry has changed in the past 20 years. My advice is: Live with it or be forever frustrated because there's nothing you can do to change it.

RedeemedChild said:

What we need is a resurgence of the use of animatronics, scale models, matte painting in conjunction with CGI.

Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath waiting, Child... Matte paintings have become digital. There is no point in doing mattes the old way because it's counter-productive. Animatronics & scale models are still used...(but are not as easily detected).

RedeemedChild said:

'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and 'Temple of Doom' are also very 'other worldly'

Click to expand...

"Raiders" contains some blatant anachronisms but (apart from the Ark ghosts) how is "Raiders" otherworldly?!?

I know what RC is talking about. CG is too 'sharp', too perfect. It seems more perfect than the real world. The flaws in prior movie technologies creates a charm, IMHO. Look at Ridley Scott's sets. Blade Runner, Legend and the like - those evocative atmospheres. Gladiator had that sharpness of CG that seems impressive, but I tend to get weary, for the want of a better word, of it. I know CG is here to stay, but it's like the human mind's need for a perfectly cut lawn instead of appreciating nature's slightly uneven offerings when you let it grow. A bit poetic, but c'est la vie!

Have movies lost their charm due to CGI? Not, really. It's simply about filmmakers understanding their medium and applying the tools in the correct way.

I did not say "lost their charm due to CGI" at all. CG movies have another type of charm and I do not prefer it.

If the issue is practical effects vs. cgi, I'm for the practical effects. If the issue is how the content feels different, I offer this; while mainstream cinema has always had a corporate mentality/obligation, there seems to be more of a joy-de-vivre in movies from the 80's and earlier. In our modern age of spreadsheets and more easily trackable data, an already cynical industry overrun with graph-paper-brained accountants rather than artists, it's no wonder that the magical quality of cinema seems to be on the decline. My not-so expert opinion is that focus-group-worshipping bean-counters are winning the war on the art form, at least in the realm of mass media consumption. If you want more sincere movies, I would advise looking into independent film, and forgotten films of years gone by. Generally speaking, of course.

Mickiana said:

I know what RC is talking about. CG is too 'sharp', too perfect. It seems more perfect than the real world. The flaws in prior movie technologies creates a charm, IMHO. Look at Ridley Scott's sets. Blade Runner, Legend and the like - those evocative atmospheres. Gladiator had that sharpness of CG that seems impressive, but I tend to get weary, for the want of a better word, of it. I know CG is here to stay, but it's like the human mind's need for a perfectly cut lawn instead of appreciating nature's slightly uneven offerings when you let it grow. A bit poetic, but c'est la vie!

Click to expand...

Yes, Mickiana you're right in tone with what it is I'm trying to say. As I've said before, I've got nothing against CGI. I know that it is 'here to stay' . However, just don't get all "in your face" with this CGI stuff Hollywood! This is my message and plea. When you watch a movie by someone like Michael Bay it is like 'all in your face' and you feel flattened, sick to the stomach and deflated. Yet, when you watch a movie by Jerry Bruckheimer, JJ Abrams, Del Toro or Christopher Nolan you don't get that same sick pit in the stomach as the aforementioned film makers handle the CGI quite creatively.

I can't stand how most movies today are about extreme abouts of explosions for absolutely no reason and showing off how real you can make something scene. By Odin's beard! It's a movie for pete's sake. I don't care about it being overtly realistic you poor excuse of a movie director. Don't lose the plot of good story telling in your attempt to make the movie explosive. Movies like 'I Am Number Four' and 'Knight and Day' make me get all bent out of shape and want to beat up the director for being so STUPID!

Now, in the case of a movie like the upcoming 'The Three Musketeers' I've got to propose that it might actually be a good movie or at lest I can hope!

Again, I'm not against computer generated animation. I loved Tangled, How To Train Your Dragon, Despicable Me and Hop. Oh, and I still enjoy the cheesy Power Rangers to.

I'm sure once movie makers get bored out of their minds with explosions, zombies, guns and half naked girls then they'll resume making good movies like The Dark Crystal, DeMill's The Ten Commandment's and The Lord of the Rings again.

@ Indy's Brother, I certainly agree that practical effects are far more important than a bunch of crappy explosions and girls in bikinis. Take that Sucker Punch.

Stoo said:

Oh, my goodness...IT's back! Mysticism & magic are not "real". Plain & simple. The visual effects industry has changed in the past 20 years. My advice is: Live with it or be forever frustrated because there's nothing you can do to change it.

Click to expand...

Wise words.

There's no going backwards. There's a cost implication as well as the practical.

RedeemedChild said:

What we need is a resurgence of the use of animatronics, scale models, matte painting in conjunction with CGI.

Click to expand...

If you want magical realism, then I think CGI at its finest can create the perfect blend of fantasy and real-life. It really then comes down to the quality of the animation

Just watch old stuff?

What I don't want is the overuse of CG. Sure it's is great in the right use, but my right use probably won't be many others' right use. Some movies it suits very well, some it is essential for. It might be cheaper and easier to use than matte paintings, animatronics, etc but it has to support the story, not be the focus.

I haven't seen sucker punch, but it might be a good story. I can't stand when the story isn't good. It can look spectacular, but if its story is not engaging....

Indy's Brother, I agree with you. There are the big crowd pleasers movie industry and there is the art house industry. I love art house movies and there are some big blockbusters that I have a good time at.

Redeemed Child, you are very passionate about giving CG the arse. Again, it's a very subjective area of how much of different factors you personally want in a movie. For me, the Indy movies are about a certain approach to movie making. Lucas' own words, making Raiders "down and dirty", that is, functional, effective techniques, come back to me when I think about this CG issue. It created a style of movie that I just fell in love with. I have Raiders-itus! The rough and tumble adventures of Indiana Jones doesn't need to be perfectly rendered. But I am ready to admit that, because of my Raiders worship, I may be stuck in a time warp.

Montana, I also agree here. CG is great for magic realism. Visually anything can be achieved. As long as it supports a good story.

Montana Smith said:

Wise words.

There's no going backwards. There's a cost implication as well as the practical.



If you want magical realism, then I think CGI at its finest can create the perfect blend of fantasy and real-life. It really then comes down to the quality of the animation

Click to expand...

Montana Smith I agree with you. CGI is perfect in the creation of a blend between fantasy and reality which I think Summit Entertainment did perfectly with the Twilight movies and I also think that is quite apparent in the Harry Potter and Narnia movies as well.

@Mickiana, you've also raised good points with which I highly agree. Again, I don't have anything against CGI guys. I'm planning on studying CGI in Art School. I think that advances in technology are beautiful and I loved Cameron's Avatar and I'm looking forward to seeing the new highly CGI rendered Green Lantern later this summer.

Basically, it all comes down to the creativity and talent of the movie maker and his skill in creating the movie and putting the CGI to good use. Mars Needs Moms and Bay's Transformers are the perfect examples of when CGI is abused and misused while a movie like Bryan Singer's X-Men Trilogy, Del Toro's Hellboy: The Golden Army or Michael Apted's Narnia: Dawn Treader are films which make one feel at ease with the CGI.

I'd love to see a 'Legend of Zelda: Ocarina' movie created by Del Toro or Jerry Bruckheimer and CGI could be utilized very creatively in such a movie.

Hasn't green screening existed in films for al ong time, though? Take something like Nutty Professor, a movie made in 1996, Eddie Murphy played most of his family, sans the husky child.

Agent Crab said:

Hasn't green screening existed in films for al ong time, though? Take something like Nutty Professor, a movie made in 1996, Eddie Murphy played most of his family, sans the husky child.

Click to expand...

1996?!? Chroma keying has been around since the 1930s! The only thing new is the colour.

RedeemedChild said:

By Odin's beard! It's a movie for pete's sake.

Click to expand...

Right, if it's just "a movie", then why get your knickers in such a twist?

RedeemedChild said:

I don't care about it being overtly realistic you poor excuse of a movie director. Don't lose the plot of good story telling in your attempt to make the movie explosive. Movies like 'I Am Number Four' and 'Knight and Day' make me get all bent out of shape and want to beat up the director for being so STUPID!

Click to expand...

Wow. Didn't Jesus say, "Love thy neighbour"?

I think Jesus flipped over some tables, etc at the temple when the merchants were flouting any reverence they should have had. But don't take me for an idealogue of any religious persuasion. Just observing that one can get angry at a situation. I'm sure RC doesn't really want to beat up anyone.

RC, you have to learn, with a sad resignation, that the world is more disappointing than otherwise. Let it trundle on while you gather all you enjoy in your corner of it.

Mickiana said:

I think Jesus flipped over some tables, etc at the temple when the merchants were flouting any reverence they should have had. But don't take me for an idealogue of any religious persuasion. Just observing that one can get angry at a situation. I'm sure RC doesn't really want to beat up anyone.

RC, you have to learn, with a sad resignation, that the world is more disappointing than otherwise. Let it trundle on while you gather all you enjoy in your corner of it.

Click to expand...

Thanks Mickiana! You're cool. Nah, I won't go and beat up someone helpless movie director but I sure would love to sit down and talk with some of them and reason some things out.

Anyway, we're in for a good summer of movies this year and besides; there is always Adventure Time to fall back on.

I'm more dismayed by the constant remaking/rebooting of movies and television. *sigh* All these arrogant goons of the mainstream film industry taking liberties on other peoples' art. When I heard Robert Zemeckis is trying to remake Yellow Submarine, my stomach turned.

Indy's brother said:

If you want more sincere movies, I would advise looking into independent film, and forgotten films of years gone by

Click to expand...

Really, not to be holier than thou, mainstream films can be great too. But, agreed.

Gear said:

Really, not to be holier than thou, mainstream films can be great too. But, agreed.

Click to expand...

Oh sure, and modern films can be good too! Inglourius and There Will Be Blood were both big budget, modern blockbusters that I wholeheartedly enjoyed, for example. And I know this, which is why I wrote an escape clause at the end of my last post in this thread:

Indy's brother said:

Generally speaking, of course.

Click to expand...

Indy's brother said:

Oh sure, and modern films can be good too! Inglourius and There Will Be Blood were both big budget, modern blockbusters that I wholeheartedly enjoyed, for example. And I know this, which is why I wrote an escape clause at the end of my last post in this thread:

Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard a lot of praise for 'There Will Be Blood' and yet I've not seen it yet T_T. I've seen bits and pieces of 'The Kings Speech' and all but nothing has appealed to me the way Cate Blanchette's Elizabeth: The Golden Age did or perhaps I just love Mrs. Blanchette?

Gear said:

I'm more dismayed by the constant remaking/rebooting of movies and television. *sigh* All these arrogant goons of the mainstream film industry taking liberties on other peoples' art.

Click to expand...

While it's more common these days than ever before, remakes aren't anything new. Not to mention that so many films are based on novels, etc.; 'other people's art'. A good story/character cannot be kept down.

Gear said:

When I heard Robert Zemeckis is trying to remake Yellow Submarine, my stomach turned.

Click to expand...

The original will always be there so a remake of that is something I'd like to see.

Gear said:

When I heard Robert Zemeckis is trying to remake Yellow Submarine, my stomach turned.

Click to expand...

Good thing he got that idea cut out when he failed to make a decent movie out of Mars Needs Moms, Hm?

I would be curious to see how he pulls it off, personally.