Post by The Social Introvert on May 8, 2018 15:57:31 GMT
If you prefer to see this in video and audio format, see here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaj0EIV-hJw
Jurassic World producer Frank Marshall recently made the following comments about the upcoming Fallen Kingdom movie:
"I think since Jurassic Park we’ve got more animatronics than any of the other movies. Except Jurassic Park.
"
The quote and the hyped up reaction it got kind of irked me, because it’s simply a businessman with a vested interest promoting his product and there’s no reason why his claims should hold any merit, which I made a video on.
But there’s also something else this got me thinking about. Something related more to audiences and critic’s reaction to blockbusters in general than anything specific to Jurassic World.
Let’s say the producer is telling the truth, and there are more animatronics in Jurassic World 2 than in any other movie in the franchise bar the original. Forget the quality of the animatronics, how good they look, how well they move, how real they look. Let’s just forget about that for a second and agree that there will be more. So what? So what if there are more animatronics than in previous films? In what way is this something that is praiseworthy? Why is the producer tapping himself on the back here? The fact that they’ve used animatronics is not worthy of notice – what matters is how good it looks in the film. Heck the animatronics could be terrible like the Apatosaurus in the previous film.
I mentioned in previous video how this was quite obviously a producer’s way of building hype and putting bums in seats. I’m more concerned here with after those bums have left the seats. The Hollywood people do this intentionally of course because they are trying to generate income, but I think that today movie audiences and critics tend to praise and overpraise movies for doing things that movies have been doing for yonks. Frank Marshall believes that saying Fallen Kingdom will have lots of practical effects is worth shouting about, Colin Trevorrow seemed to think telling people his Jurassic World will be shot of film and not digital is worth mentioning. Well guess what guys, another film had done both of these things and it was called Jurassic Park, and it is an all-time classic but the fact that it had animatronics and was shot on film were not the only reasons, not even the primary reasons – they were one of the few elements that definitely added to the film, but about the script, the acting, the pacing, the tension and having one of the most talented directors around in his prime building a visual rollercoaster ride for audiences?
But I guarantee that when Fallen Kingdom comes out, if it does have a lot of practical effects people will point fingers to the practical effects and say that’s why I loved Fallen Kingdom, because it had practical effects. Well did you also like Troll 2 and Howard the Duck because those films also had practical effects?
Look, I know the argument is much more complicated than that, and more than anything you have to look at how good the effects on screen are, regardless of whether they are practical or CGI. After all, isn’t the best CG when you don’t notice it’s CGI? How the effects were applied should have no weight over your opinion of a film, how well they applied should.
Even as a massive advocate of practical effects I can’t help rolling my eyes when a film sells itself on having practical effects or, more importantly to me because the audience’s opinions mean pretty much everything, when a film is given a pass because it has practical effects. Take The Void, a film with a messy plot and odd ending. It wasn’t particularly memorable and petty silly but look at reactions online and you’ll see that many were quick to praise the film and overlook its faults because it had practical effects, even though the practical effects weren’t all that great. They aren’t doing anything new, they haven’t created some new form of technology, they’ve just been doing what film-makers have been doing since A Trip to the Moon and earlier, and yet certain films are getting a pass because they simply have practical effects.
Look at James Cameron’s Avatar. It’s often accused of being a pretty Dances with Wolves rip off, with backlash being amplified by the fact that all of the effects are digital and haven’t aged too well. If anything, we should be praising the effects in that film, because Cameron DID actually create new technology and in doing so propelled movie-making tools into further advancement.
I just feel that I think within the past few years I’m starting to see loads of films that get praised for things that film-makers were doing anyway since, well, since films were made. When a building was made to explode in Lethal Weapon 3, did everyone go on about how that was a real explosion and how brilliant it was? Not really no. But a lot was made about the explosion at the end of Spectre being real and not CGI. The Alien Covenant cast were chased by real men in alien suits, as they constantly told us before the film came out? Well, so what, so were the original cast 40 years ago!
Mad Max Fury Road is an interesting one. It is constantly praised for its car chase scenes which were all practical effects and had no CGI. That’s not true by the way it actually had a lot of CGI, but it was so good most didn’t notice it. Anyway, much of the praise was because the chases were practical, when in fact it should have been because the chases where exhilarating, engaging, and adrenaline-rushing. I wonder if the original Mad Max movies were presented with this much praise just for having practical effects? Of course not, because back then there was very little alternative. But my point is today you see loads and loads of praise heaped on a film just because it did something for real. Film-makers know this and go out of their way to say during marketing that their film has practical effects, like having animatronics is some kind of sympathy token, a get-out-of-jail card. It’s the same with, say, movie not using CGI blood and opting for squibs, or not using shakey cam. It’s great, and I’m a big fan of when it’s done, but why the extra praise when people have been working this way for years? All that effort that went unpraised even in your standard 80’s action movie or crappy B movie horror flick, because that was the standard of film-making back then.
It’s not just effects either. Look at the recent Black Panther film. Was it praised for being a good superhero movie (whether it was or it wasn’t a good oneI can’t say as I haven’t seen it). Not really – most of the praise was at how progressive it was since it was one of the first major blockbusters to have black people in main roles. That was the main marketing gimmick of the film, as if Hollywood attempted to pretend they weren’t making a movie aimed to make millions of dollars and were instead performing a public service. But again the film gained almost unanimous praise for its cast being black and not the quality of the film. Excuse me, what about Blade, what about Candyman, what about Hancock, Spawn, Coming to America, Bad Boys and the countless other films that had black people in major roles that did not sell themselves or were praised solely because of the fact that they had black people.
Gender equality is another issue. Some film makers get so caught up in the idea of strong independent woman that they forget they are making a movie and not an advertisement for feminism, and often derail their films in doing so. Anyway, that’s an argument for another day, but when a modern movie like Wonder Woman or The Hunger Games gets praised for having strong characters, so much so even in poor movies, which leads me to think that some people are too afraid of calling a decent movie decent or a mediocre movie mediocre and have to overpraise in fear of being called misogynist – it’s as if Sarah Connor, Nurse Ratchet, Ellen Ripley, The Bride, Leia Organa, Clarice Starling, Dorothy Gale and Phyllis Dietrichson never existed. These new movies aren’t doing anything new by parading the phrase ‘strong independent woman’ in their PR interviews, strong independent women have always existed in film.
I’ll tell you what I think one of the worst offenders is – The Artist. This was a pretty good movie. I enjoyed it. It was funny and whimsical and yes, the black and white added a vintage touch. But critics at the time were going crazy over the fact that it was a black and white and silent film in the modern age and how that made it nostalgic and memories and yada yada yada. The fact is, why should it have gotten extra praise because it was silent? If you lifted this film and placed it into the era of silent movies like Metropolis and City Lights would The Artist stand out much? I really don’t think so. Yes they recreated the look of a silent film but as a movie it wasn’t a lot better than your standard decent black and white film. Being silent worked for the film’s story so I won’t call it a gimmick, but it definitely was an aspect of the movie that gave it more than deserved praise, even landing it best picture. And I will say that The Artist was an OK film. But I will also say that The Artist won best picture because it was a silent film, which made it quirky and new.
But silent pictures are not new. And practical effects are not new. And neither are the inclusion of black people and strong women in movies. So I think audiences and critics need to take a step back sometimes when movies have these things and judge the films for their quality and quality alone.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaj0EIV-hJw
Jurassic World producer Frank Marshall recently made the following comments about the upcoming Fallen Kingdom movie:
"I think since Jurassic Park we’ve got more animatronics than any of the other movies. Except Jurassic Park.
"
The quote and the hyped up reaction it got kind of irked me, because it’s simply a businessman with a vested interest promoting his product and there’s no reason why his claims should hold any merit, which I made a video on.
But there’s also something else this got me thinking about. Something related more to audiences and critic’s reaction to blockbusters in general than anything specific to Jurassic World.
Let’s say the producer is telling the truth, and there are more animatronics in Jurassic World 2 than in any other movie in the franchise bar the original. Forget the quality of the animatronics, how good they look, how well they move, how real they look. Let’s just forget about that for a second and agree that there will be more. So what? So what if there are more animatronics than in previous films? In what way is this something that is praiseworthy? Why is the producer tapping himself on the back here? The fact that they’ve used animatronics is not worthy of notice – what matters is how good it looks in the film. Heck the animatronics could be terrible like the Apatosaurus in the previous film.
I mentioned in previous video how this was quite obviously a producer’s way of building hype and putting bums in seats. I’m more concerned here with after those bums have left the seats. The Hollywood people do this intentionally of course because they are trying to generate income, but I think that today movie audiences and critics tend to praise and overpraise movies for doing things that movies have been doing for yonks. Frank Marshall believes that saying Fallen Kingdom will have lots of practical effects is worth shouting about, Colin Trevorrow seemed to think telling people his Jurassic World will be shot of film and not digital is worth mentioning. Well guess what guys, another film had done both of these things and it was called Jurassic Park, and it is an all-time classic but the fact that it had animatronics and was shot on film were not the only reasons, not even the primary reasons – they were one of the few elements that definitely added to the film, but about the script, the acting, the pacing, the tension and having one of the most talented directors around in his prime building a visual rollercoaster ride for audiences?
But I guarantee that when Fallen Kingdom comes out, if it does have a lot of practical effects people will point fingers to the practical effects and say that’s why I loved Fallen Kingdom, because it had practical effects. Well did you also like Troll 2 and Howard the Duck because those films also had practical effects?
Look, I know the argument is much more complicated than that, and more than anything you have to look at how good the effects on screen are, regardless of whether they are practical or CGI. After all, isn’t the best CG when you don’t notice it’s CGI? How the effects were applied should have no weight over your opinion of a film, how well they applied should.
Even as a massive advocate of practical effects I can’t help rolling my eyes when a film sells itself on having practical effects or, more importantly to me because the audience’s opinions mean pretty much everything, when a film is given a pass because it has practical effects. Take The Void, a film with a messy plot and odd ending. It wasn’t particularly memorable and petty silly but look at reactions online and you’ll see that many were quick to praise the film and overlook its faults because it had practical effects, even though the practical effects weren’t all that great. They aren’t doing anything new, they haven’t created some new form of technology, they’ve just been doing what film-makers have been doing since A Trip to the Moon and earlier, and yet certain films are getting a pass because they simply have practical effects.
Look at James Cameron’s Avatar. It’s often accused of being a pretty Dances with Wolves rip off, with backlash being amplified by the fact that all of the effects are digital and haven’t aged too well. If anything, we should be praising the effects in that film, because Cameron DID actually create new technology and in doing so propelled movie-making tools into further advancement.
I just feel that I think within the past few years I’m starting to see loads of films that get praised for things that film-makers were doing anyway since, well, since films were made. When a building was made to explode in Lethal Weapon 3, did everyone go on about how that was a real explosion and how brilliant it was? Not really no. But a lot was made about the explosion at the end of Spectre being real and not CGI. The Alien Covenant cast were chased by real men in alien suits, as they constantly told us before the film came out? Well, so what, so were the original cast 40 years ago!
Mad Max Fury Road is an interesting one. It is constantly praised for its car chase scenes which were all practical effects and had no CGI. That’s not true by the way it actually had a lot of CGI, but it was so good most didn’t notice it. Anyway, much of the praise was because the chases were practical, when in fact it should have been because the chases where exhilarating, engaging, and adrenaline-rushing. I wonder if the original Mad Max movies were presented with this much praise just for having practical effects? Of course not, because back then there was very little alternative. But my point is today you see loads and loads of praise heaped on a film just because it did something for real. Film-makers know this and go out of their way to say during marketing that their film has practical effects, like having animatronics is some kind of sympathy token, a get-out-of-jail card. It’s the same with, say, movie not using CGI blood and opting for squibs, or not using shakey cam. It’s great, and I’m a big fan of when it’s done, but why the extra praise when people have been working this way for years? All that effort that went unpraised even in your standard 80’s action movie or crappy B movie horror flick, because that was the standard of film-making back then.
It’s not just effects either. Look at the recent Black Panther film. Was it praised for being a good superhero movie (whether it was or it wasn’t a good oneI can’t say as I haven’t seen it). Not really – most of the praise was at how progressive it was since it was one of the first major blockbusters to have black people in main roles. That was the main marketing gimmick of the film, as if Hollywood attempted to pretend they weren’t making a movie aimed to make millions of dollars and were instead performing a public service. But again the film gained almost unanimous praise for its cast being black and not the quality of the film. Excuse me, what about Blade, what about Candyman, what about Hancock, Spawn, Coming to America, Bad Boys and the countless other films that had black people in major roles that did not sell themselves or were praised solely because of the fact that they had black people.
Gender equality is another issue. Some film makers get so caught up in the idea of strong independent woman that they forget they are making a movie and not an advertisement for feminism, and often derail their films in doing so. Anyway, that’s an argument for another day, but when a modern movie like Wonder Woman or The Hunger Games gets praised for having strong characters, so much so even in poor movies, which leads me to think that some people are too afraid of calling a decent movie decent or a mediocre movie mediocre and have to overpraise in fear of being called misogynist – it’s as if Sarah Connor, Nurse Ratchet, Ellen Ripley, The Bride, Leia Organa, Clarice Starling, Dorothy Gale and Phyllis Dietrichson never existed. These new movies aren’t doing anything new by parading the phrase ‘strong independent woman’ in their PR interviews, strong independent women have always existed in film.
I’ll tell you what I think one of the worst offenders is – The Artist. This was a pretty good movie. I enjoyed it. It was funny and whimsical and yes, the black and white added a vintage touch. But critics at the time were going crazy over the fact that it was a black and white and silent film in the modern age and how that made it nostalgic and memories and yada yada yada. The fact is, why should it have gotten extra praise because it was silent? If you lifted this film and placed it into the era of silent movies like Metropolis and City Lights would The Artist stand out much? I really don’t think so. Yes they recreated the look of a silent film but as a movie it wasn’t a lot better than your standard decent black and white film. Being silent worked for the film’s story so I won’t call it a gimmick, but it definitely was an aspect of the movie that gave it more than deserved praise, even landing it best picture. And I will say that The Artist was an OK film. But I will also say that The Artist won best picture because it was a silent film, which made it quirky and new.
But silent pictures are not new. And practical effects are not new. And neither are the inclusion of black people and strong women in movies. So I think audiences and critics need to take a step back sometimes when movies have these things and judge the films for their quality and quality alone.