Thoughts: There's no more 'Visual Spectacle' kind of films that can 'WOW' audiences anymore - We've seen it all

Submitted by JudgementalButCute t3_zw46du in movies

Films like Avatar were fine a few years back when they were new.

I just feel at this point movies banking purely on the 'visual experience' factor will have very few NEW things to do.

The big-budget films with heavy CG which have been 8 years in the making just get a 'oh thats nice' reaction from audiences who can easily move on to the next film within a few minutes if the core content / script is not nice.

No one cares whether you've spent all your life on an animated film anymore.

Content >> Spectacle anyway.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

fuzzyhobbit t1_j1t7o6e wrote

Dune wowed me.

81

goldencityjerusalem t1_j1tslbt wrote

Tenet as well. Big Imax theatre.

13

Hershieboy t1_j1uzgli wrote

I still don't know how I feel about Tenet. I've watched it multiple times. I'm not sure if I just love the spectacle or the film.

3

YeaItsBig4L t1_j1wj3jn wrote

I also have watched that movie multiple times and I don’t know why.

1

Hershieboy t1_j1wmm81 wrote

I think it has everything a great movie needs, except I'm not sure it's effective at telling its narrative. However it's the exact reason why I keep watching it. So maybe that's the point.

1

YeaItsBig4L t1_j1wq9er wrote

There’s just so many little intriguing things about it. The protagonist is just called the fucking protagonist. It’s great

1

Ohsbar t1_j1stz7a wrote

Would've agreed before I saw Avatar 2 in 3D. From the get go it was a completely different experience from anything I've ever seen before. The super high refresh rates was telling. The quality of the visuals was like nothing I've ever seen. It took me a while to get my jaw off the floor and just immerse myself. Thanks to James Cameron for reminding us that all CGI is not the same.

64

TheNineteenthDoctor t1_j1tllf7 wrote

Went to see Avatar 2 in 3D on opening day. It was their very first showing of the film. Was initially pretty disappointed. It was…OK. Kind of uncomfortable. I took the glasses off and it was actually better without the glasses.

And then something happened that has never before happened in my moviegoing experience. They paused the movie.

A guy from the theater came out and explained there was an issue they were troubleshooting. They had received very detailed instructions from IMAX on how to set up the new projector and 3D tech, they’d followed the directions to the letter, but it wasn’t working quite right. So they were on the phone with IMAX and fixing it. The theater was a little restless, one or two guys left, but the rest of us waited it out. It took them about 15 minutes to fix. They rewound the movie a few minutes and hit play, and…

WOW. The difference was incredible. Night and day. Whatever they fixed, it made the movie go from “eh, whatever” to “this is exactly the kind of experience that will never be able to be achieved at home”. I’ve seen a number of 3D movies in the theaters before and enjoyed them, but this took the cake. I’d been on the verge of asking for a refund. That changed into me wanting to see it again immediately.

Couldn’t tell you the names of half the characters. But I could tell you how many hair follicles each of them had.

31

phatboy5289 t1_j223izz wrote

I’m curious if they accidentally had the left and right eyes flipped.

1

AgoraiosBum t1_j1t6u7g wrote

I'd agree; the issue is that a lot of big "spectacle" movies actually have cheap and rushed CGI that's not really that good.

15

Firvulag t1_j1srf0n wrote

Hard disagree. I'm happy Avatar 2 came out because there is LITERALLY nothing that even comes close to it. And experiences that unique is what I want.

47

Bushgjl t1_j1sw1vw wrote

Nobody has ever "seen it all".

Technology changes and we understand more about the world.

20

Nihilistic_Marmot t1_j1trcd9 wrote

Hard disagree. Coming from someone who usually values content over spectacle, Avatar 2 in Imax 3D melted my friggin face off. There is absolutely more that can be pushed in the blockbuster department. Ditto for Top Gun Maverick, another recent blockbuster that has set pieces that blew my mind.

If you asked this same question a few years ago I would have agreed, but between Dune and the two aforementioned movies I feel like you missed the boat to bring this take out.

10

coffeeNiK t1_j1uhhcg wrote

Was now about to say. My thoughts exactly

0

slightly-soupy t1_j1te3fd wrote

Idk.. Seeing dunkirk and interstellar in the movie theater was pretty sweet.

9

phredbull t1_j1srco3 wrote

Visual spectacle isn't just throwing tons of $$$ around to use the latest tech; it can be achieved by lo-tech means, it's about creativity.

I think the issue is films that are made by committee & market research, rather than uncompromising creative vision.

8

future_shoes t1_j1x2k6v wrote

I mean visual spectacle is why Top Gun Maverick made so much money and that was like 6 months ago.

7

Sabnitron t1_j1sv93l wrote

For you maybe. I can still be wowed by cool visuals. So can most people. It's not hinging on new and better tech to make people sit up and pay attention. You're forgetting there's an artist and an art involved.

5

mindtropy t1_j1sqepp wrote

I kind of agree. I’m not gonna be excited about a CGI experience I can get with any video game I can play at home anyway. Rather have a nice plot with great acting.

4

Commercial_West_4081 t1_j1upek6 wrote

Just saw Avatar in 3D. I never choose 3D, it was an accidental selection. Got there and realized what I had done and grumbled all the way into the actual theater.

Having said that, so glad I saw 3D! It was amazing. The visuals and sound in this movie are phenomenal. And yes, I was "WOWED".

4

Electric43-5 t1_j1vz5jn wrote

Let me use a lesson I learned from video games.

"Graphics quality will change with time but great style lasts forever"

A problem I have with a lot of CGI is that even when it is done well (because there are a lot of VFX artists that are worked to the bone and do the best any one can do) its that the direction and implementation of it isn't very interesting.

3

DutifulDuck458 t1_j1sqsnv wrote

Ive never enjoyed CGI for the sake of CGI. Sure its art and its good to look at, but a movie expects you to sit through the whole thing so you need something to keep you interested aka story.

2

Pepsiman1031 t1_j1w8yqs wrote

Realistic cgi doesn't mean as much anymore due to us peaking on it. Nowadays style makes alot more of an impression.

1

Illustrious_Win951 t1_j1waok8 wrote

Gasper Noe makes visually stunning movies. They are very explicit, though

1

AJStroup22 t1_j1wnwx6 wrote

yeah i saw avatar 2 and while it was spectacular it wasn’t mind blowing. i saw it in 3d and i left feeling like i saw another well done movie with great effects.

1

PCav1138 t1_j1u02ps wrote

I hope now the spectacle will be what impressive feats can be achieved with practical effects

0

Putrid-Conclusion-93 t1_j1w0y38 wrote

3-D will wow people for a few years, VR will take over, then who knows.

Special effects work for a key demographic that content can't touch: the witless. Bawdy comedies can still work, but new ideas are scarce in Hollywood, and the same recycled sh*t only works on younger audiences. Plus, everyone's become so damn thin-skinned they're about to declare laughing a hate crime.

It's the last gasp of cinema. Just like cinema became the killer of radio, apps are about to deliver the death knell to cinematic relevance.

0

YeaItsBig4L t1_j1wjl26 wrote

I will tell you right now firsthand that 3-D in VR is way better because it removes the layer between your eyes. And you’re just seeing the images in better clarity.

1