pros and cons on special effects in films

[BobbyBobBob]

My wife is a teacher and would like to know some pros and cons for the use of special effects in films.

I'm hoping you intelligent folk on here can help out?

many thanks

[dotty.]

it depends on the audience, if you show a spiderman movie to small children, what percentage of them would then try to jump off tall buildings. There has to be a link I think between special effects and film rating certificates. If there is a graphic murder then special effects can make it seem so real, again, the film certificate needs to address that. Therefore the use of special effects to tell a story, rather than the clever thrillers hitchcock used to make, mean many movies would be classed as 18 these days, whereas hitchcock could just scare you without special effects. except for those damn birds,

[tenrec]

I think the birds were coffee grains swirling about!

[bibblebub]

The advancement of SFX technology does mean that what may have been previously considered unfilmable can be be put on film/video. It depends on the director as to whether the end result is any good.

[Eve]

Some special effects can make a film take on a whole new personality, the best example I can think of it Sin City though if she teaches children then that may not be the best example!

Avatar could be another example.

Would 3D count as a special effect as she could look at the growth in films being made to show in 3D and in cinemas such as IMAX.

I find some CGI creepy and unrealistic, especially when it's used for things like babies' faces though it must be more convenient for film makers, especially for less controllable subjects such as children or animals.

Scope of films too - maybe a hit home effect like in The Day After Tomorrow, even more realistic films too without the filming hassle (and maybe budget) of trying to film otherwise difficult or impossible scenes - I remember watching 28 days later where they actually closed part of the M6 to film it as deserted - compare with maybe some car chase scenes in films which would not be practical to be filmed on location or on a set - maybe something like Legend?

Some effects can be distractingly unrealistic, especially ones where people are in a car and the scenery is not real. That said, the use of green screening has made many more things possible without some otherwise more practical or costly filming implications.

Id say effects can make for a more wow factor in a film - things that would not be possible to shoot without - disaster movies, films like Jurassic Park, Avatar, Lord of the Rings (golum is a great example), other major franchises like Harry Potter and Twilight. It can help bring literature to life without the constraints of not using special effects.

[Eve]

Looking at the top grossing film lists may also give a bit hint about popularity...

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011

The Top 5 of 2011:


1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
3. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1
4. The Hangover 2
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Maybe says a lot about film franchises too but I imagine 4 out of the 5 use a lot of special effects.

[woofgang]

Has CGI made films more expensive to produce? Are there now CGI "expectations" from filmgoers, thus limiting creativity?

[bibblebub]

I sometimes wonder what it would have been like to be alive at the turn of the last century and to see images such as the Méliès films for the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JDaOOw0MEE

[bibblebub]

i'm always grateful for the invention of dvd's because i own a few hundred films from that era which i would never have had the chance to see otherwise