So, my husband has just left to go to a showing of Wolverine, and he did not understand why I was disinterested. All of the wives were disinterested in the film, and so it is ending up being a “boys night out” for him (and he deserves and needs one) but he couldn’t understand why I would not go, particularly since Saturday-morning viewing of the outstanding X-Men cartoons is such a happy family memory.
I couldn’t speak for the other wives, but I explained myself without thinking, and ended up being -I think- right on the money (so much so that I tweeted it here). I said to him, “GCI has ruined movies for me the way some say the Designated Hitter ruined baseball.”
As soon as I said it I knew it was true. I wanted to like the previous X-Men movies, just as I wanted to like Van Helsing and other action films, but I just can’t, and it is the fault of CGI, or of directors who rely too-heavily upon the tool.
Instead of using a (relatively) small amount of CGI to enhance a story, too many filmmakers seem to use CGI to try to distract an audience from a weak story line or vapid dialogue, and it gets overwhelming. Instead of punching up the script, they overuse the special effects, and the end result is loud, often visually stunning and as satisfying as cold gruel.
When I consider the action movies I’ve thoroughly enjoyed in the last few years -enough to want to see the film again- it comes down to Iron Man, a film which managed to give precedence to character, plot and dialogue over special effects, and then used those effects brilliantly but unintrusively; the story was never overshadowed, nor was Robert Downey’s terrific performance.
I love X-Men and Wolverine, and I even like Hugh Jackman well enough. But the films have left me cold. Even being a fan of Gambit, the Cajun card-thrower and flirt extraordinaire, could not entice me to the theater, ma petites!
This family has been looking forward to this movie, can’t wait to see it this week. As for Gambit, he was a favorite of the daughter, so much so that our lovable mutt was named after him.
I must admit, I never pictured you as an X-Man fan! I hope your family plans to see the Star Trek film. I will need an opinion as to whether I can take my 7 1/2 year old to see it. Hugs.
[Oh, heavens. I am NOT a trekkie. Only TNG, and only if I am in the mood! Hope you're feeling better! -admin]
Oh know you did not say TNG.
By far the best of the Treks has been Deep Space Nine, where Sisko out Kirked even Kirk
then TOS
then Voyager (especially when Seven of Nine arrived)
then Enterprise
and only then TNG, which started out too prissy and squishy, and then when they started to Kirkify Picard, they kind of ran out of new strange new worlds and stopped boldly going where no MAN has gone before, and simply became a series that either spent all its time on the holodeck or rotated around the characters, rather than have real stories.
That said, one of the most excellent single episodes of all of Trekdom is the episode where Picard is captured and interrogated (and some might say tortured) by the Cardassian David Warner.
oops, that should be “oh no” not “oh know”
it’s late, I’m tired
you know what i meant
Ah, I haven’t seen that cartoon since my best friend and I used to babysit her younger siblings. Let me guess: You got hooked on it when Buster watched it.
Wolverine was my favorite X-Man from my early teens but I didn’t even know there was a movie until this week, when it opened. I caught a sneak peek of the Star Trek flick during “LOST” – the scene looked like a CGI monsterfest straight from the Star Wars “prequel”. So I’ll probably give it a miss.
P.S. You must be from the same part of New York as my pals; they say “disinterested” when they mean “uninterested”. And I say “pop” when I mean “soda”. We say we must be multi-lingual simply because we can understand each other.
I have not been to a movie for over 30 years. To many real things in my life I guess. Please would you tell me what “CGI” is. Thanks a bunch.
Hear, hear! I feel that special effects have become no longer special, and so detract from far too many films today. CGI (Computer-Generated Images, for the poster above me) just makes it worse, as it allows film-makers to indulge their wildest fantasies at comparatively little cost.
It used to be that, when watching a truly thrilling scene (the chase in “Stagecoach” or a similar one in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”), you sat back and thought “Wow, people risked their lives for this footage!” Now, it is just the manipulation of pixels.
The worst offenders in this case are the martial arts films, where people suspended on wires defy the laws of physics regardless of actual ability. When Bruce Lee flys through the air and kicks someone in the face, it is a display of incredible talent and years of practice. When Drew Barrymore does it, it is just a stupid gimmick. I wish today’s directors could discern the difference.
I have spent my adult life successfully avoiding X-Men and now you’ve brought a pristine record to a close, Anchoress!
I’m with culperjr. My problem with CGI is not an over-reliance on the effects to the detriment of the story. My problem is that CGI killed the WOW! factor.
Remember the early Star Wars movies? They were all special effects and, as a kid, I would be slack jawed as much by the “how’d they do that?” wonder of it all as with the on-screen beauty.
Now it’s just a cartoon. Big deal. Yawn.
CGI plays a trick on the eyes. Consequently the brain really doesn’t believe what it’s seeing and so it’s all very bewildering and “eh, so what.” My twentyish sons feel the same way so it’s not an old people’s thing. Pixar uses it to good effect, though.
While I understand what you say, I tend to disagree with it. I wouldn’t bother to mention this but what you suggest seems to be wrongheaded in regards to something like Wolverine, as opposed to merely “a different attitude”, as might apply to a vast array of other movies.
Something adapted from a comic book NEEDS CGI. Go back and look at the other pre-CGI comic book movies and TV shows and you’ll note that the further back they go, the more absolutely cheezy that they get. That may have been some of their charm, but you try and release a movie that cheezy *NOW* and people will laugh at you and ignore your movie.
A movie about The Green Lantern just could not have been done even 15 years ago.
Comic book based movies are going to be inherently short on script and long on action, which means CGI — because that’s the way very popular comics are. That doesn’t mean they can’t be done better or worse, but making a talking-heads comic book movie just seems rather pointless.