Does It Matter If A Movie Has Bad Special Effects?

By Benjamin Richardson / May 16, 2016

Movies are a distinctly visual medium. You can't watch a film without, well, watching it. This rather basic and obvious premise means that since their inception, movies have gone out of their way to look good. Superficiality sells.

During the embryonic years of the industry, films were entirely silent, and visuals alone were all they had at their disposal to put across their narrative. As such, many directors pioneered elaborate special effects in order to bring fantastical concepts to the screen. Georges Mlis' short space odyssey Le Voyage dans la Lune and Edwin S. Porter's 1903 thriller The Great Train Robbery were landmarks in the industry thanks to their stunning and innovative film techniques, and both were massively popular - despite not a single word being uttered.

Quarter of a decade later, Fritz Lang's dystopian sci-fi Metropolis set a new benchmark for ambition within the industry. The most expensive movie ever produced at the time, Lang's epic represented a colossal shift in what cinema was capable of. Yet despite its visceral visual onslaught, the movie was a commercial failure.

Metropolis brought film-making into a new era of special effects, but it also existed in one where visual trickery alone wasn't enough to carry a movie. For all its dazzling cinematographic brilliance, the flick was widely panned for its insubstantial, clich ridden plot, with H.G. Wells going so far as to call it, "quite the silliest film."

Metropolis was one of the earliest examples of a film where stunning special effects alone could not save it from its flaws. Yet in retrospect, those same flaws are often excused and the movie is considered a technical marvel, and a landmark in the history of cinema. Its ironic that the one aspect that made it special at the time of its release is the one that makes it special now, given it has aged the most.

The film industry diverged after Metropolis, with the dual pursuits of visual brilliance and artistic merit often being mutually exclusive. Despite the commercial failure of Lang's effort, the strides made in special effects meant producers were convinced that wowing the audience was still the way to go, and for every subtle, serious screenplay like M (ironically from Lang) which aimed to enrapture viewers with its slow-burning, enthralling narrative, there was a visual treat like King Kong.

King Kong was a runaway success, but unlike Metropolis, its visuals don't stand the test of time. Yet its presentation means that it still retains the same sense of wonder it provoked during its first screening. The movie was sold on looks, but has remained relevant for being a fundamentally great film.

It's a well-established axiom. The visuals may age, but a great screenplay is timeless. Think of an ancient car, albeit with sound mechanics beneath the bonnet; the bodywork may rust and decay, but the banger still serves its purpose. What use is a slick, high-end sportscar in pristine condition if the engine won't start?

Star Wars is the perfect example. George Lucas' hare-brained decision to 're-master' the original trilogy in 1997 introduced a whole host of unwanted and unappealing new CGI to the films. It looked terrible then, and hasn't aged gracefully since. But the enduring strength of the movies' original characters and plot mean no computer-generated band can undermine their appeal.

There are other movies either built on the draw of their special effects, or which first garnered critical acclaim for them, that have not aged so well. Like Metropolis, though they were impressive at the time, brilliant visuals aren't enough to mask a poor film.

Jason and the Argonauts swashbuckled its way onto screens in 1963 to great critical acclaim, though today it is only remembered for Ray Harryhausen's masterful stop-motion animation. In truth, its characters and story are flimsy at best, and it's no surprise that its spectacular claymation set-piece is the aspect of the movie most remember so fondly.

Avatar is an even more egregious example. James Cameron has became a byword for big-budget blockbusters, promoted more on the basis of their elaborate expenditure than any eminent quality. The director's 2009 eco-drama was no exception, as it was lauded for its innovative new motion-capture techniques. But at its base, it was a platitude-ridden, insubstantial story with wafer-thin characters and not a lot besides. The then-groundbreaking visuals do nothing for the film now just as they didn't at the time, and it has aged badly in all departments.

Time is fairly indiscriminate. As things age, they tend to look worse; it's as true in life as it is in film. Even those few movies today which exhibit both a great screenplay and seemingly flawless visual effects won't be immune to the creeping and inevitable process of decay. We may think that The Avengers can't possibly be topped in terms of CGI supremacy, but will we think the same thing in ten years time? After all, Jurassic Park's dinosaurs were incomparable in 1993, but the computer generated terrors look decidedly ropey now.

Will we think less of the super-hero romp in a decade once all the visual razzmatazz has worn off? Many of us still hold Jurassic Park dear for its mind-blowing movie accomplishment, but now the computer creatures no longer amaze us, the movie itself feels a bit thin. Yet like The Avengers, the film could never have succeeded without its stunning special effects.

So do they matter? Does bad CGI detract from a film, or is it ultimately inconsequential if the movie itself is high quality? Is this quality specifically informed by impressive CGI, and is this a selling point in itself? And what about old films that once boasted the industry's most cutting edge tech, but have not aged well - can you still watch them, or are the dodgy effects just too distracting?

Please tell us all your thoughts and opinions in the comments below!