One of the most disappointing aspects of modern cinema is the overt reliance on needless visual effects. There's a certain visceral charm to pre-90s movies, where a gory scene is all the more terrifying because a part of our brain is acutely aware that the scene was filmed with real props, whereas ropey CGI completely removes our investment from the scene, as viewers are totally aware that they're watching a cold, computerised fabrication. The 2011 prequel to The Thing is a fine example of this: the movie was, like the 1982 classic, shot with practical creature effects, though these were eventually ditched in favour of unconvincing, gaudy CGI creations which didn't hold a candle to the incredible effects in Carpenter's classic. Though films like Avatar, Gravity, Interstellar and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes categorically prove the power of CGI when used in a controlled and artful manner, far too many movies merely use visual effects as a quick and easy substitute for the hard graft of tangible make-up work, which sucks. Can It Make A Comeback?: No way. On one hand, CGI allows filmmakers to achieve so much more, but for all but the auteurs, it can easily become a corner-cutting tool that distances viewers from the product. Still, it's easier and cheaper than doing it for real most of the time, so it's unsurprising that CGI is even replacing physical set design, lighting and stunt work these days.
Stay at home dad who spends as much time teaching his kids the merits of Martin Scorsese as possible (against the missus' wishes).
General video game, TV and film nut. Occasional sports fan. Full time loon.
