The effect of effects

I agree totally, Mr. Ebert!
A few films of recent memory (I Am Legend comes to mind) seemed to be in dire need of a real monster rather than a digitized creature. The weight and presence always seems to be lacking, with rare Andy Serkis-related exceptions.
Although, I wonder how much of the "lingering" on the digital effect has to do with the gaming industry. I have sat in films where I felt the motivation seemed to be to provide incentive for the viewer to go out and buy the video game tie in and not to provide any kind of thought provoking narrative.
Watching the latest Indiana Jones film I noticed the big change in how action scenes are shot. Comparing it to the first film which had that exciting scene with the boulder chasing Indy out of the cave and was really tense, this one had lots of Lara Croft type situations with timed leaping and what seemed like ever increasing levels of difficulty in battles. It was less about the character's fear and struggle with their situation and more about showing how they all bounce around collecting things and defeating things in order to make it to the next level of collecting and defeating. The location of the camera and the length of the fight scenes also seemed to mimick many of the video games I have enjoyed of late. As I watched something in my brain kept popping up - x button, jab, y button, jump!
Maybe I just play way too many video games but it seems, to me anyway, that video games as well as CGI are changing the way action scenes are filmed.
Sad really.

I'll definitely check The Thief of Bagdad if I get the chance. Hopefully it's available from NetFlix.

Thanks for pointing out what seems obvious only after hearing it. It's hard not to notice how most spectacle films have been flat and lifeless, regardless of much they've crammed into each frame, and I think your words are right on the mark. Why bother with characters you can care about and plots that tickle your brain? These are the things that you can't work on at 3AM in a computer editing facility, hence they are too much trouble. More production, less post-production!

Joseph, "The Thief of Bagdad" has just been released by the great Criterion Collection, so it is most certainly available on Netflix.

I've made friends with an avid movie buff here in my home town, who has a VGA/DVD projector mounted on his ceiling, aimed at a large blank wall in a room with a great sound system, and lots of couches and chairs. He collects practically every movie in the Criterion Collection, and shows us a movie or two every Friday night. This one will definitely go onto my request list!

CGI is blatantly overused, but I think Hollywood might be catching on. Speiberg uses it effortlessly, and the new Batman thriller, "The Dark Knight," effortlessly blends CGI with live action --- the director using it to enhance the storytelling, not to drive it. Sometimes it's these types of subtle special effects that don't get merit Oscar attention. The Academy often awards the film with the MOST special effects, not the BEST special effects.

Yup, I really need to see both 'Bagdad' films. The shot you chose to accompany this article is pretty stellar, especially for 1940.
One of the many things I like about Chris Nolan's Batman films is that he uses very little CGI. In a world where Batman exists it's pretty easy to go overboard on computer effects (*cough cough* "Batman & Robin" *cough cough*).

Thanks, Eric. Can't go wrong with Criterion.

And for what it's worth, Zodiac is a great example of 'invisible' special effects. It should have at least been nominated for that. (And maybe picture, supporting actor, adapted screenplay...) :-)

was on two panels at the Conference on World Affairs in Boulder this year with a really cool CGI effects guy named Doug Roble who talked about "The Uncanny Valley" -- a phrase I love. Basically, it's the principle CGI folks talk about where, the closer you get to "reality" (especially when it involves rendering flesh-and-blood creatures) the less the audience believes it. That is the "Uncanny Valley" -- where things are just close enough to "real" to look unconvincing because the differences between the effect and reality become so apparent. Paradoxically, we accept the more "poetic" effects (especially "old-fashioned" ones done in-camera or composite opticals involving matte paintings or models) than we do meticulously rendered "3-D" CGI because in leaving so much to the imagination we actually BELIEVE in them. That is the challenge CGI artists face. I think of it as something similar to when somebody tries to match colors -- in paint or furniture or whatever. If it's close but not quite there, it looks like they were trying and failed. But if the colors are a little farther "off," they don't call attention to themselves.

I was so pleased to know that CGI artists had a name for an unintended "effect" we viewers have long recognized.

The 1940 Thief Of Bagdad has always been one of my favorite films. I'll never forget watching it on commercial TV, and still being totally sucked into this amazing world. Watching it you really beleive that you are watching a real arabian city, and that everything that happens is actually happening. You don't look at Sabu flying on the carpet, and say ,oh that's a blue screen and they are pointing a fan on him. No, it looks ike he's high in the sky and if not careful he can fall to his death, or that the genie could actually step on him and crush him.

I remember watching it when I was an adult, it was around the time "Return of the Jedi" came out, and feeling if they decided to make a 70'mm print of the "Thief of Bagdad", and release it as a new movie, people would come a marvel at the special effects, and think tht it was just made. It's now coming on the 70th anniversary of the film and still to this day I find the effects breathtaking and so much better than say the obvious CGI effects in a film like "Transformers", which I loved, but could tell they were computer generated. They didn't make me feel like I was watching another world, it just wasn't believeable.

It's like another film that I loved, "Crank". That scene of our protagonist driving in the mall and ending up on the escalator. Come on you can even tell it was totally computer generated. It made it very unbelievable, and laughable in a bad way. Compare it to the shopping mall chase in "The Blues Brothers", where it was real cars, real stunt men, and a real shopping mall. There's no comparasion. CGI should , as others especially you Mr. Ebert said, should be used to enhance the story, not tell the story. What's going to happen to the stunt man, in years to come. With CGI, we don't need them we can do it so easier. But will it actually be better, I don't think so.

I agree with you about the superiority of movie stars doing their own stuntwork like Keaton or Chan, but I cannot really blame movie studios for moving away from it. Considering the substantial investments they make in a film it seems reasonable for them to push for a safe CGI stunt instead of actually risking the life of the star.

Dead on assessment, Mr. Ebert. "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" was a good example of what you're talking about, although better than the second "Mummy" film, which was such an orgy of whizzing CGI effects I began yawning due to overstimulation. There is such potential in the "Mummy" films that would be realized with fewer CGI folderol and more makeup effects, miniatures and matte paintings.

Another thought: although I loved "Ratatouille" and greatly enjoyed "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," both films had moments of CGI-rendered gorgeousness that flew by without allowing any chance to enjoy and savor them. I shouldn't have to wait to rent the DVD and freeze-frame the images to enjoy them.

Totally agree. I recently watched Chaplin's Modern Times (1936) and Sommer's (2004). In the latter, there was a runaway carraige, on fire, next to a cliff, in the midst of a fight, with explosions. No tension at all, watching this scene. In the former, I was quite worried for Chaplin's safety during his skating scene.

Special effects that draw attention to themselves don't work for me any more. Overuse also kills them. Spielberg has mentioned that Jaws so successful partially because the mechanical shark malfunctioned in many ways. He had to eliminate many planned appearances of the shark, and suggest the shark's presence more psychologically with film techniques.

Guillermo del Toro instantly came to my mind reading this. Example: we all know the faun in "Pan's Labyrinth" isn't an actual faun, but it is a faun.

The debate over "old school" effects vs. CGI will go on and on. The best man may not win because of the money factor. CGI is cheaper in the short run, which is all that the mega-studios care about. (Remember "Dungeons and Dragons"?)

Previous comments citing Spielberg and Christopher Nolan are referring to two masters of movies of two generations. Both with more influence than just about anyone in Hollywood. Conclusion: Either CGI extravaganzas must start to lose money, or directors and producers must gain more powerful influence.

Your article is spot on correct. The best films tend to use special effects as story and not as spectacle. One of the best examples in recent years has been Alexander Sokurov's Russian Ark which, supposedly, had twice as many special effects as most movies yet you never notice it while watching. That's the key, making the special effects invisible and believable.

How many of the problems with CGI effects are really a function of Sturgeon's law? We only remember the good stuff and forget the junk. Of course the older, traditional effects look better compared to the current CGI fare--we're comparing good movies to bad ones.

My problem with most special effects and action movies is the same I have with a lot of musicals, sports movies, etc: once the set piece gets started, the plot and character development is put on hold. This has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with directing and editing. The good movies know how to keep things moving. Most movies do not.

One of the things that impressed me about "The Dark Knight" was in how it utilized effects. It was more satisfying, and actually comforting, seeing that that was a real tractor-trailer truck (it was, wasn't it?) being flipped over rather than so many hours of rendering time. This as opposed to "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" where so much of the action sequences were CGI and blue/green screen, leaving me pining after its predecessors; the only sequence I was even moderately happy with was the university chase. Why? There was no obvious CGI work - just guys on a motorcycle, guys in a car, tearing around a university.

And to follow in the same vein as Mr. Emerson's comment - even though Harvey Dent's half-face was not a "realistic" set of images showing the aftermath of gas-fed-fire-burning-flesh, it was nevertheless convincing and impact-making because the emphasis was on making it scary and emotive (or as emotive as a few scraps of flesh over bone can be) as possible (which meant abandoning realism). A magnificently successful example of how good CGI can be, right up there with Gollum/Sméagol.

BTW. I've heard it said that there is a difference between special effects and visual effects - that the former are on-set, during production gimmickry and tricks whereas the latter are post-production add-ins and add-ons. Is this a true distinction? Does such a distinction really matter in today's film environment where CGI is being produced even while the actors and crew are still filming?

Harryhausen's clay, stop-motion Medusa in 'Clash of the Titans' has always been more chilling to me than any CGI monster I've ever come across. Recently, I was able to watch a piece of test footage he made for a proposed but never completed 'War of the Worlds'. Tom Cruise's overblown effects-fest was like being beaten over the head for two hours - that grainy two minute clip, with no sound, sent a real chill down my spine.

Jim - The "uncanny valley" is a fascinating concept, and it actually crossed my mind while re-watching 2001: A Space Odyssey a few nights ago. In particular, several of the more abstract shots during the "Beyond the Infinite" sequence made me wonder exactly what I was looking at - the movie as a whole really speaks to the notion of "poetic" special effects.

Also, this:

http://vodpod.com/watch/796578-the-uncanny-valley

"He acts like he doesn't care, but he does!"

From your keyboard, Roger, to God's ears. If I want to watch a cartoon, I'll go see a cartoon.

In 2005, I prepared myself for a letdown with Peter Jackson's "King Kong," only to realize that computer animation has the potency for bringing wonder back to the cinema. I walked out of the film feeling exhausted, and full of joy and awe, the kind we often lose the more movies we see, and the older we get. And yet, I don't know that I would trade it in for the original, in which a creepy, geeky looking Kong has been meticulously sculpted frame by frame with human finger indentations and frizzy patches of fur to prove it. The original remains classic, entertaining, spooky, and... well, I'm glad that I don't have to choose. But for every Peter Jackson's "King Kong" there are countless films whose makers believe that a big budget for effects is a free ride to success. Monetary success, possibly, but artistic success? They should invest their money in a more worthwhile venture, like making video games, and sparing those of us who pay to see a movie, because we intend to see a movie.
When I think of a master of effects created by a human hand connected to a human heart, I think of Jim Henson, because I grew up during the years when he was at the forefront of modern effects. The Henson Company has been preparing a sequel to his "The Dark Crystal," which is rumored to be a mix of CGI and puppetry. I wonder if its makers will remember and grasp, and emulate, the qualities that made his film so beautiful and believable. Will the plants in the forest move subtly with the wind? Will rocks appear to breathe life? Will creatures move according to their own impulses, and in tune with their spirits? Or will that hardly be necessary, due to their spirits being swept up in a tornado of CGI action?

I grew up with the internet and have used a computer almost every day of my life for the last 10 years. Yet, I still have seen very few movies where I didn't have problems with the CGI, or, as Ebert states, forget about the effects and enjoy the totality of the experience. Perhaps it is my over-familiarity with computers that makes me instantly complain about statue-like modeling or overly smooth textures. I think the only CGI character that I have completely accepted is Gollum from LOTRs.

I think my main problem is thinking about the work involved behind different effects shots. When I think of animation, I either picture the vast amounts of craft in learning how to draw "solid" shapes that move fluidly like in the best Warner Bros. cartoons, or the vast amounts of time in creating and posing stop motion puppets like Wallace and Grommit. Also, when I see Jackie Chan or Keaton jumping off trains, I think of the athleticism of the stuntmen and the physical danger involved.

When I see CGI shots, all I picture is people in front of a computer screen for hundreds of hours. Not very inspiring. Yes it is hard, difficult work and requires an immense amount of technical skill and artistry, but really it just doesn't seem "real" enough for me. It wouldn't be much of an issue if CGI was seamless and undetectable, but it still rarely is.

I think as time and craft goes up, I will be more and more accepting of CGI effects. Really they are not that old as far as the other crafts are concerned, and I'm sure if you see the first decades of the different forms of special effects, you could find many flaws and crudities. So, I am optimistic of the future. The first 30 minutes of Wall-E seemed completely real to me, the use (and restraint) of effects in Minority Report, and Gollum all are great examples. I look forward to being fooled on a completely CGI human character (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within didn't come close).

One movie that comes to mind when discussing movies that have impacted the use of CGI is Sin City. The use of computer rendering after shooting the scenes created an entirely separate universe which ultimately made Sin City an amazing, great-looking movie. The integration of sparse coloring with the classic black and white made the movie look incredible and feel like a film straight out of a dark, twisted fantasy.

It seems CGI is taking over much too drastically. As recent as (estimating) fifteen years back when I was growing up, not that long ago in the early to mid ninetey's I still remember the images conjured up in Jurassic Park. Though I believe some of the dinosaurs are computer generated, the key scene of the t-rex tearing through the beautiful, modern and useless Ford Explorers features a "real" model Tyranasurus (at least part of one). Though the film is certainly short on its human appeal, I can still remember the eye of that dinosaur peering into the huge flashlight of one of the children. It was so overwhelming. It brought me back for a 2nd and 3rd trip to theater and became my first favorite movie.

Though cgi is so often overused, I do remember a recent film that had extraordinary cgi effects. The Host from South Korea was one of the most exciting monster movies of the past decade. And Pixar also uses computer wisely, in Wall*E we are kept for so long, not only without dialogue, but also from finally seeing the colors and lights and futuristic inner-spaceship city. I think that's part of the point of the film too.

In art history what you describe is discussed as the debate over "indexical" versus "digital" media. The index is that sign which bears the physical imprint of its source, as in a fingerprint, or photography, in which light has physically contacted the visual field. The digital instead reduces all information to the same units-- pixels-- and from that point on, all connection to the world of objects is severed. With the apparent loss of truth-value that the photograph suffers when it converts to digital, some critics have lamented the use of digital photography in contemporary art as a return to painting.

I am fascinated by the fact that films that combine CGI and analog footage, such as -Lord of the Rings-, are invariably better than those that seem to drown in digital effects, such as the -Star Wars-prequels. We have been told since the dawn of digital that the new medium would eclipse all the functions of the old; this has not yet been the case. But it is not only about empirical differences. As you point out, there is a very particular play of fantasy between movie and moviegoer. We need to believe in some things, and suspend our disbelief in others. Hybrids of analog and digital are compelling in that we might retain belief that a star who we look at is real, while the monster he or she fights is a dazzling technical creation. We want our cake and eat it too.

Funny: no comment mentioned that one of the greatest films, "Citizen Kane" consists of over 50% special effects of one kind or another. (See R.L.Carringer, "The Making of Citizen Kane", p99) Only a few of these effects are detectible as such. Now that's ironic, given the blizzard of CGI in most spectacle films nowadays, which are soon forgotten.

I think you hit it on the head when you talked about the mad cross-cutting during an FX shot. It kills the flow and you feel like you didn't get a look at whatever that was you were trying to see.

Blade Runner did it right. Those long, pastoral, sweeping shots of the city at night gave a feel of actual buildings and grounds. Why? Traditional cutting. Establishing, medium, over, close/up, repeat.

That's what filmmakers do. It's not what CGI subcontractors do. A sub wants to hear everyone in the meeting go "Oooo!" when the FX reel gets played. You don't really get that in sweeping panoramas, and that's where CGI really earns its money.

It's no accident that many of our best directors started out in FX departments. Look at Don Seigel's early montages or the years of work Terry Gilliam did on Python, hand-animating in a closet. Those sequences didn't go to the producer to get dropped in later. They were put together and tweaked by the creative side first so they appeared seamless in the finished product.

It's too bad the technology has gotten to the point that flims can the thrashed together any old which way, then reworked, or not, depending on memos from corporate board meetings. When the subs work for the director, there's a continuity of tone; when they report to the producer or the studio, there's so much compromise that the film all but disappears in the FX sequences.

For overall effects (visual, sound, etc) my favorite is "The Exorcist". What I love about this film is how everything is "homemade". Watch the DVD commentary where the various artists describe how they made mouth-appliances attached to off-camera pumps and tanks to project "vomit". When the bedroom needed to be freezing, they air-conditioned the set. Everyone is shivering because it was actually cold and their breath is really condensing. The bed, and the girl, are really levitating. When the priest jumps out the window down the flight of steps, it's a human stuntman rolling down a flight of steps covered in invisible padding. This all adds a degree of authenticity which encourages the feelings of dread, terror and revulsion. Even the demon's voice was not digitally created: Mercedes McCambridge chain-smoked, ate raw eggs and tortured her vocal cords to create one of most disturbing-sounding voices in movies. The list in that film goes on and on. Brilliant. No CGI needed to create one of the most visually terrifying movie experiences ever.

I think that many movie makers take CG for granted, and they use it to save a poorly executed movie, as if an explosion or flying or a new city would give the story more weight than it has.

I do think that the way they use matte paintings and optical effects, is the same as using CGI in this days, so there is no difference. There is, when they over use it.

Take again, Iron Man for example, how easily they blend practical with CG, I was surprised to know how many scenes used practical and which ones were CG that I thought were practical.

I have never seen Thief, but thanks to that pic that you posted, I'll give it a rental, or maybe a blind buy. Thanks!

I think CGI is an excelent tool but its problem is that it has made film makers lazy. When I first saw it used in Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park I thought the sky was the limit. Who would believe that some 15 year those two films would still represent two of the best examples of what can be obtained from it?, in other words, I'm sure the computers used in the creation of CGI effects have evolved tremendously but the quailty of the films that've used this technology has not.
An example is one of the later James Bond films "Die Another Day". On its "Making of" the director proudly states CGI will eventually make stunts unnecesary. He obviously didn't get to see the final, embarassing results on his own film as this is one of the poorest 007 movies with the ridiculous and obvious effects one of the main causes. On the other hand the CGI in "Casino Royale" is hardly noticeable but yet indispensable in obtaining the finally outstanding result.
So it's not as simple as "not wanting to watch a cartoon" but rather getting to watch the right cartoon done by the right people.

I am relieved that films are going back to the use of more practical special effects and stunts. 'The Dark Knight' and 'Casino Royale' are two of best recent examples of this.

Remember the days of 'The Road Warrior'? The chase sequence climax in that film is one of the greatest action sequences caught on film. Now compare that to 'Speed Racer'.

It is so much more dramatic and exhilirating to see Jackie Chan or any other stunt performer scaling a building than to see their CGI counterparts like Spider-Man webslinging through New York. You lose the tension, drama and the sheer admiration of what physically the body can accomplish when you trade human performers for computer gee whiz fakery.

Not to say that I didn't admire John Dykstra's vfx in Spider-Man 2 which incorporated seamlessly practical effects with CGI to the point where I couldn't tell which of Doctor Octopus' limbs were practical puppets and which were CGI. Spidey's webslinging was also vastly improved giving Spidey's body weight, dimension and a ballet-like movement as he slingshots his way through a fantasy version of New York city.

The point is some of the greatest movies of all time are visual effects movies but the filmakers who made those films understood how to incorporate them in a way that felt natural to the story that was being told. The trick is to present the effects without the effects themselves upstaging the rest of the film.

Ebert wrote in his review of Peter Jackson's King Kong that visual effects don't necessarily need to be convincing so long as they are effective.

Filmakers need to stop throwing vfx up on the screen just for the fact that it can be done but need to ask themselves whether it should be done. Whether it serves the purpose of the story and moves the narrative forward and what effect would the (visual) effect have on the audience.

Just because visual effects are cost effective and can be cheaper at times to practical effects does not necessarily give filmakers licence to drown a film in a pool of vfx. It feels lazy and unimaginative and it has reached the point where it cheats audiences. I remember watching the latest Indiana Jones and there were countless scenes that were 'green screened' for no apparent reason. There is a scene early in the film where the background is so fake I was distracted and pulled out of the film. I was disappointed because I remember interviews where Spielberg indicated in pre-production that he was filming the majority of the film on location.

I am curious to hear Ebert's take on a film like '300', an over the top myth-like take on the battle of Thermopylae. Despite being made in a computer, like Sin City it's a film that plays to our wildest imaginations of what the ancient battle could have (and probably not) been like. It's a picture that is not supposed to be realistic in the least and a film that despite its blatant overuse of CGI I found oddly EFFECTive in bringing Frank Miller's world of macho men to life. This is after all Miller's 300 not history's.

Ebert next needs to blog on cinema's modern fight sequences. We have come a long way here too from 'The Matrix' 10 years ago and its super slow-mo dance like moves to the 'Bourne Ulimatum' slyle of shaky cam and rapid fire editing both which have been copied but not with the same effect and results.

"We knew we weren't always looking at real bodies or real severed heads..." Not always??? Now I definitely want to see the X-Files movie!
---
Just yesterday I was watching Jurassic Park on DVD, for the first time after it was originally released, and later the same day I went to see The Mummy 3. I was so disappointed by the dragon. I cannot believe the only reason I KNOW that those dinosaurs drawn and animated 15 years ago are CGI, is that dinosaurs haven't lived for millions of years. The dragon in Mummy, to me, was pretty badly created, an obvious cartoon, and not just because the drawing was awful and I know they don't exist. Just compare Sam Neill's character's reaction to the sight of dinosaurs (those tears in his eyes!), and Brendan Fraser's reaction to the dragon. He (and we) might as well be looking at the guy holding a pole for reference that most likely was standing there during the shoot. That's the difference between one filmmaker who uses the effects, as any other element, to tell a story, and the guy who just will throw effects up on the screen. That's what makes the effect real.
I too, Roger, remember seeing The Thief of Bagdad in a matinée as a kid in the 70s, and nearly jumping off my seat: "The horse is flying!!!"

Ebert said an interesting thing in his review of "Transformers", which I think is a good case study for an "effects movie": "My guess is we're getting to the point where CGI should be used as a topping and not the whole pizza." I find this quotation fascinating because it seems to suggest that there was a point where an effects movie as "the whole pizza" was a good idea.

While there is some merit in the idea of making a film with the purpose of expanding one's technical filmmaking capabilities, such a film isn't really going to be art in any meaningful sense. Like movies that display gratuitous violence or sex for its own sake, the phenomenon of the "effects movie" is little different from porn (and given the box office grosses of a movie like "Transformers", the public's appetite for special effects porn is insatiable).

Of course, filmmakers are going to do their best to deliver what the public wants, so ultimately the prolificity of such movies comes back to the fact that these movies have a massive audience. I was bewildered when walking out of "Transformers" with friends who couldn't stop gushing about the quality of the special effects. I asked them "but what about the movie?" and they looked at me as if I'd grown a second head. I didn't get it, obviously. Never minding that I disagreed that the effects were high quality (while I can't deny the amount of work that was obviously put into them, based on the sheer number of polygons on screen, that isn't what makes an effect "good" or "bad"), I was simply unqualified to judge the movie because I operate from the assumption that I should be going to the movies to see a movie, rather than special effects.

CGI is often described as one form of paint in a filmmaker's palette, which I think is an apt description. I don't mind the presence of cgi in the movies, nor do I wax nostalgic for the times when everything was "practical". CGI is often a practical tool for filmmakers (I was shocked to learn, for instance, that in "Clerks 2", the sign in front of the Mooby's restaurant was a CG effect; it was cheaper to do it that way than to make a physical sign, and I would have quite literally never suspected that it wasn't real) as well as a means of putting things on screen in greater detail than is possible using any other current means. For filmmakers whose goal is to present things that are impossible to recreate physically but that are interested in preserving verisimilitude, there is no better tool. But the effects that always seem to be referred to as the "best" always seem to exist in a context that transcends them.

It's not a great movie, but as I rewatched John Carpenter's "The Thing" over this past weekend, it occurred to me how much I miss puppetry since the digital age. Gross-out effects though they were, there was something utterly convincing in the animatronics and miniatures that make me appreciate their efforts all the more. Films once required so much more orchestration and engineering than the cheats we use today. Not to undermine the work of skilled computer specialists, but I think they have a long way to go if they want to finally one-up the work of their forefathers: Besides a few notable exceptions, such as Peter Jackson's Gollum and King Kong, I've yet to look at a fully-digital creation and been convinced of their authenticity. It's frankly distracting how audiences have settled for the IDEA of reality instead of realism itself.

I'm thankful for the work of Guillermo del Toro, who still uses puppetry in this digital age. "Hellboy 2" makes for an interesting comparison between CGI and puppetry, since it utilizes both to create its creatures. Especially since there's really no comparison between which is more convincing - not the CGI plant creature attacking Manhattan, but the grinning angel of death, a puppet. Another good recent example (since I seem to be using horror/fantasy genre examples here, where most special effects seem to exist) is George Romero's "Land of the Dead," which mixed great zombie makeup/gore with more unconvincing CGI. Though "Land" does effectively use CGI for background detail, such as the size of the city. On that note, I wish CGI could be more confined to such detail work, since it can create scope that otherwise wouldn't be there. But when it starts creating characters and assorted critters, I find myself slipping out of most films because I'm too distracted by the fact that I'm watching an effect. I want to BELIEVE what I'm seeing, not merely ACCEPT it.

I think, Roger, you actually said it best yourself in your review of "Empire Strikes Back", when you discuss a scene between Yoda and Luke:

"Yoda has just sent Luke Skywalker into a dark part of the forest to confront his destiny. Luke says a brave farewell. There is a cut to R2-D2 whirling and beeping. And then a cut back to Yoda, whose face reflects a series of emotions: Concern, sadness, a hint of pride. You know intellectually that Yoda is a creature made by Frank Oz in a Muppet shop. But Oz and Lucas were not content to make Yoda realistic. They wanted to make him a good actor, too. And they did; in his range of wisdom and emotion, Yoda may actually give the best performance in the movie."

Amen, sir. Compare the stirring realism of Yoda in this film to the unconvincing, Shrek-like animation of the last two Prequel films, and there's simply no question which one comes out on top. What brains we have gained with these new technologies cannot make up for its increasingly shrinking heart.

You hit exactly upon the problem with so much CGI today: it isn't on screen long enough to enjoy, only long enough to beat us about the head and shoulders, then run down a dark alley like the mugger it is.

"The Thief of Baghdad" has been one of my favorites since I first saw it, probably in the early 50's, on black & white tv. Korda and crew's loving attention to the story was the key to their special effects. I will never forget the flying mechanical horse as long as I live. I wanted it so.

One of the major problems with CG is that every element in the effect has to be created. Live action allows some elements of randomness to enter the scene: an actress may spend two hours getting her hair perfect and then brush her hair against something on-set unthinkingly, and the shot is irrevocably changed. In a CG shot of a horse tossing its mane, on the other hand, there might be an artist for the hair of the main, and the hair of the coat, and the flecks of spittle that fly from its mouth. Each part will often end up looking designed, subtly throwing off the scene.

I think most directors should avoid using CG for organic objects at all costs. Need horses? Use horses. Need people? Use people. Need trees? Find a forest.

I think, it is not a question of choosing between traditional effects or CGI based effects. Inherently, they don't hold any advantage or disadvantage over the other. Afterall, these are just story-telling tools. Their ultimate success/failure depends on how much emotional weight is built into the effects/creatures and is the approach self-consistent throughout the film.

Audiences everywhere have a tremendous ability to suspend their disbelief/skepticism if it leads them to a good story. The original KingKong is a case in point- where the puppetry is so garishly obvious, but even then, it doesn't hold us back from going along for the ride.

Another example is "Vanya on 42nd Street"- we know that they are just rehearsing a play, but it doesn't hold us back in getting emotionally involved in the story. But, the film and the set-up is self-consistent through out. Using traditional special effects also works because of the same reason- we are willing to go for the ride and it is self-consistent.

Whatever tools are used to create the alternate reality - if it has the emotional investment, and is done well, it works. Of course, as pointed by Jim, while using CGI, the additional complexity of avoiding the "Uncanny Valley" arises.

I believe Mr. Ebert is right on track. I remember as a child how The Wizard of Oz only came on TV once a year and it was a BIG DEAL. I couldn't wait to see it because of the tornado and the witch writing in the sky. Totally believable. Thrilling.

Also, Forbidden Planet. Awesome effects done without computers. The scale of the underground cities with the actors walking far below the camera is completely mesmerizing. Even now, it holds up, while effects from CGI already look stale after just a few years.

Hats off for recognizing the skill and ingenuity it took to make these films!

Exactly right!

This is one of the reasons why the new Star Wars films pale in comparison to the old ones.

Filmmakers can use computers to great effect in bringing their visions to life. But they often forget that an integral part of that magic is letting the audience forget that they're using a computer at all.

"Dark City" is a wonderful example. It was just rereleased on DVD (with a great commentary by a prominent movie critic, I might add :)

This movie sucked me in with its characters and its ingenius periodic revelations. CGI was a tool used to bring the world of Dark City to life. CGI was not its sole point of interest, like it was in films like "300."

Oh, and a comment on Dark City: It's one of those movies where every shot is carefully constructed and each frame can almost stand alone. I think Alex Proyas had a strong visual image of how the movie should look, and took great pains to make sure that the effects fit and enhanced that look. Frankly, most blockbusters aren't intended to be examined so closely. Could it be that the distracting visual effects we notice in movies like The Mummy Returns are just the most obvious consequence of an overall lack of aesthetic control exerted by the director? In live shooting, blunders tend to be small and relatively innocuous, but a director who isn't willing to say, "No, this effect is entirely wrong for the movie," or one who has a tin ear himself? Could be disastrous when dealing with special effects.

Of course, I spelled "mane" incorrectly in my previous comment. Maybe I shouldn't be talking about other peoples' attention to detail.

Nothing much to add; I just wanted to thank you for making me remember "The Thief of Bagdad", a film I first watched on the TV show "Family Classics" with Frazier Thomas one Sunday afternoon. I haven't thought of that film in over 40 years, but that picture immediately took me back with a smile. And now I want to watch "Captain Blood" all over again. :)

The big fear I have about the domination of CGI is that with the death of traditional fx, the art-form of doing them will die too.

Unlike cgi, where someone can go to a school and learn about computer animation and thus be a cgi fx-maker, with traditional effects we are dealing with an art-form that cannot be learned at school. It's like jewelry-making or blacksmithing, it's an apprentice thing.

If the art-form of traditional fx-making dies out completely, where will the future generations of film-makers, interested in them, be able to learn?

It is therefore important that film-makers keep the knowledge and techniques alive.

Much of the hoopla, and rightly so, of say, for example, Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Return of the Jedi, was the knowledge that there were a tremendous amount of man hours physically and creatively put into the making of these films look out-of-this-world. The press and the studios informed us of the work and detail put into building a six-foot high model of the mothership that flies over the Devil Tower mountain. When the Millennium Falcon travels through the belly of the Death Star, we are aware, again by the press, of the man-hours taken in putting in the detail into the model of the reactor that powers the Death Star in Return of the Jedi. All this minus the CGI effects. I am dazzled by the craftsmanship - back then!

Today the special effects look quite real on the big screen, because a computer can create a reality that looks real; however, I am not inspired. I cannot get excited, before going to a movie, knowing that someone was sitting in front of his computer screen for long periods of time creating a realistic scene like in Hellboy II with the mechanical warriors for example. Or knowing they used several terabytes of information to create a single scene. They look real and acted real, but I know they are CGI. Ho-hum!

Like in The Thief of Bagdad, I know people used mechanical devices, mattes and clever camera angles to come up with this gee whiz movie. That brought me into the theater - not computers or what software or how many years they were sitting in front of a computer! The bottom line of seeing a special effects ladened movie today and from now on is this - How did they do that? If you say computers, I again say this - ho-hum!

I actually disagree here. While I havn't seen the 1924 version, the 1940 Thief of Bagdad is one of the most boring chores I have ever had to sit through. It is one of those movies that made me doubt people's opinions on what was actually good. I was trying to watch all of the Michael Powell movies and I had read this one was kind of mess - well yeah, it is a horrible mess!

But hey, that is simply my view point. If you see something great about it, Ebert, I trust your opinion more than anybodys and I just might watch it again someday. I was kind of wondering since you are rounding 300 great movie reviews soon, hence a third book, what are some possible entrys from this decade? I know you have The Terrorist, Babel, Ripley's Game, and Pan's Labrynth, but that's all I know. You are more positive about newer films than most cirtics and I was wondering if there will be any more "great movies" from our modern times.

Ebert: Yes, there will be. One example: "Magnolia."

The saddest repurcussion of CGI's omnipresence is the death of the epic film production. Presumably, the economics of generating a marauding army versus staging one means that filmed spectacles have disappeared. The sense of awe when watching, say, the raiding armies in Lawrence of Arabia, or the train crash in The General, or the splendour of any of Kurosawa's epics, are a thing of the past.

A computer is just a tool no different to a camera or a pencil

I think the key is that somehow the human eye can recognize the presence of the third dimension on film, even though it is a two-dimensional rendering. CGI violates this by providing a clearly two dimensional figure. Yes, some effects people do a better job at making it invisible than others, but in something like "Spiderman" you can help but notice that there is something askew with Spidey jumping around in the air. CGI simply cannot occupy "space" adequately enough to truly improve over an actual 3-dimensional object.

Hear, hear! CGI promiscuity is out of control and ruins films (I am Legend) that could have looked really cool (28 Days, 28 Days Later).

It's not CGI that kills films. It's those damn "CGI for dummies" books!

Quite agree, and I'd like to suggest two Great Movies entries.

First, for the same reasons as Thief of Bagdad, is The Hurricane. Even knowing it was all done in a studio does nothing to diminish the storm's overwhelming dramatic power.

Second, since noir is your favorite form, please consider Raw Deal, surely one of the four or five definitive examples and Mann's best work.

Another great non-effects effects movie produced by same shop just before Thief of Bagdad is The Four Feathers (which though grounded in English jingoism, presents rebellious colonials with some respect). It shows us the actual sons of the Africans who fought the British striking in huge, furiously determined numbers. You think, my God, this is surely how it was, effects be damned.

In response to Matt, regarding "I Am Legend":

This is an interesting case. I think the computer effects used to make NYC look empty were amazing. However, the creatures were overdone. They would have been more interesting if they were a little less restless (Their hyperactivity didn't make sense anyway).

One more thing on the "emptyness" effects: "The Omega Man" had similar shots of the city. How'd they do that? It's not a very good movie, but the sequence toward the beginning with Heston driving around NYC after a personal screening of "Woodstock" stuck with me.

Groundbreaking special effects can elevate a film with a cornball story and bad acting to an entirely different level. The trouble is that special effects are essentially a magic trick. And as anybody who's gone back to see a stage magician's act a second time can tell you, illusions have a very short shelf life. Once you've seen one woman sawn in half, you've seen them all.

I've been a big fan of dinosaur movies since I was a kid, and so when "Jurassic Park" came out, I remember being awed by the film, particularly the sequence in which the T-Rex attacks the car with the kids inside. Aside from the drama of the scene, the effects used in that sequence were groundbreaking. I had never seen anything quite like them before.

But when "Jurassic Park II" came out, none of the dinosaur sequences moved me in the same way. Why not? 'Cause I'd been there, and done that. CGI is *so* realistic that nothing that happens in a movie surprises me anymore; I know that literally anything can happen when I walk into a movie theater. And so I'm not particularly surprised or awestruck when it does.

The magician needs to learn some new tricks.

If I'm entertained enough by a movie, I don't care how the effects were done.

I recently watched The Thief of Bagdad with my 3 year-old-nephew, it was the first time for both of us. He enjoyed most of the movie, although I had to fast forward through a few parts like the spider scene. At the end of the movie, I was hoping he wouldn't notice the people suddenly getting killed (which caught me off gaurd) and I instead tried to point out how cool the flying carpet was. Later that evening when my sister asked her son how he liked the movie, he replied, "The man got shooted in the face and the horse broke!"

My nephew obviously appreciated the great special effects. I hope that I haven't scarred him for life.

Jim, the Uncanny Valley concept actually arose out of robotics (specifically humanoid robots):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

I believe Roger has written about a few films exploring this idea.

Also, it's worth noting that, despite their reputation as effects extravaganzas, whenever possible in the Lord of the Rings trilogy they used physical effects - tricks of the set and cameras, models, costumes, and enormous miniatures ("bigatures" in their lingo). I think this had a huge impact on the immersive and believable nature of the world. Peter Jackson seems to have an excellent touch in this regard.

One of my all-time favorite pictures was Disney's DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE, aka "the Irish picture." I got the DVD a while back and watched the featurette on the special effects, emphasizing matte paintings and forced perspective. Even after seeing this, I was still able to watch the movie and enjoy it fully - I didn't even try to spot the breaks or joins or whatever. That's what good storytelling is about; you don't realize that you're being fooled, you just go along for the ride. Hold the CGI for when it's absolutely necessary - such as creating a setting that couldn't exist otherwise.

I have seen both versions and the brilliance of Powell's version is the focus of the story really is Abu rather than the Thief. While Fairbank's version focused on him because he was the star you can really treasure the fact that the 40's film, more into the studio system, of Abu's presence. This is a wise choice to expand on the story and create better character development. I hope you realize this fact in your upcoming review for the Great Movies section.

"The modern film that best uses effects, I think, is "Dark City," which regards them with respect."

What about Forest Gump? The use of special effects were so respectfully done that it's easy to forget how they permeate throughout the movie.

One reason TOB is a great Special Effects movie is that, ironically, that isn't all it is. How many fantasy films have been as well written? What sets it apart is that it isn't a movie made just for kids but for adults as well. Most film executives, then as well as now, thought you had o write down to a juvenile audience. Not Alexander Korda. Even in the sequences, rare they may be, in which the effects are subpar by the standards then prevailing (I'm thinking primarily of weak traveling mattes in the lying sequences)it doesn't matter because there is always something else to delight us: Miles Malleson's dialogue, Miklos Rosza's musical score (in spite of the famously awful lyrics for "I Want to Be a Sailor"!), Vincent Korda's sets, and a cast that actually gives its unparalleled villain, Conrad Veidt's elegantly diabolical Jaffar, top billing. Nor is it encumbered by a dull, beefcake hero (imagine Jon Hall as Ahmed!). The best sequences, the ones I most often excerpted for classroom use in my teaching days, were the Episode of the Silver Maid (Freudian kinkiness in a kiddie movie???) and the Episode of Sabu stealing the All-Seeing Eye ("Not for two thousand years will she grow another!"). Wonder and delight are here in abundance, undiminished by subsequent advances in technology, which, after all, have never been more than a means to an end.

I completely agree. As Greg Shaffer pointed out in an above post, your statement that effects should act as the 'topping rather than the pizza' was right on the money. Movies for me are a cleansing experience, as they are for many. So when a film uses CGI to quickly complete a scene or simply to show off I feel cheated and underwhelmed. There were moments from Spiderman 3 that were so phony and insincere that my feelings were actually hurt. I felt as if Sam Raimi, after his monumental success with Spiderman 2, assumed that his audience would sit through anything he threw up on the screen- like the film was manufactured solely to make mounds of money. What the third installment so desperately lacked was a sense of respect for its audience, something its predecessor glowed with. CGI, if misused, runs the risk of films tarnishing potentially decent movies. It can make films seems as homogeneous and hallow as a trip to your local mall or dropping in on the nearest applebees/olive garden/red lobster and eyeing the same menu that someone on the other side of the country is looking over. If CGI is the metaphorical pizza topping, I can only hope filmmakers can find new and unique recipes for our 'pizzas' as they continue to create (without giving us heartburn).

After the showing of 'The Dark Knight' I attended with my brother and friends, he commented to me that there was a lot less CGI than he had expected to see.

I agreed with him, but I also commented that there was probably more CGI in the film than either of us had noticed, because, of course, the ultimate goal of a special effect, whether computer generated or conventionally created, is to be indistinguishable from the 'reality' of the rest of the film. Christopher Nolan has made it no secret that he prefers using as little CGI as possible, and when he is forced to utilize it, he ensures it is as seamless as possible.

Too many directors these days use CGI as a flashy 'quick-fix' to make their movie look impressive and busy, oftentimes leading to many minutes of on-screen action that is entirely fabricated and detached from reality, and in such a way that breaks the suspension of disbelief, and enough of this leads the viewer to become detached and uninterested in the events on-screen.

I don't think I can quite agree with many of the responses in that the more traditional methods of creating visual effects are inherently better than CGI effects. There is certainly a different kind of appreciation to be had while watching an effects sequence that you can't quite figure out how it was done, but in terms of the movie-viewing experience in general, I don't feel that CGI effects themselves are really the problem.

Granted, I'm younger than I expect a large percentage of your readers are. I was born a month before Tron released in 1982, so much of my theater-going experience has been dominated by CGI-filled movies. I've come to realize that damn near anything can be represented on the screen in a movie, and convincingly so if handled well. As a result, I'm not impressed by visual effects on their own. A photo-realistic scene of something impossible does not impress me anymore.

I realized this more than ever when I was watching the recent King Kong film. The fact that there was a giant ape, giant bugs, and dinosaurs didn't impress me. The fact that the giant ape was a genuine character, however, did. The difference between what King Kong was, and where it could have gone drastically wrong, is that nobody in King Kong let the special effects do their work for them; the CGI was just the medium used to convey that artistic vision. When Kong joyfully slides across the ice in central park, I was enthralled not because it was visually plausible, but because I know where the story is going, I know what the destined end is for the character, and I know that despite how much fun he is having at that moment, it is not far off.

So are we reaching a point where CGI is being used more to convey an artistic vision, and less as the star of the film? No, probably not. But with The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Pan's Labyrinth and some other recent films, some directors seem to be getting it.

I often wonder how critics appraise 'special effects' in a movie.
The Birds (Hitchcock) for instance is one of the better horror movies I've seen. Notwithstanding its supposedly dated effects, it impacted me more deeply than more acclaimed films like King Kong (1933), Jaws, The Shining or even Jurassic Park. And yet it's seldom mentioned in the same breath as the films I've mentioned.

I agree with you that the best effects are the ones that are character-driven and gel well with the story. One reason why The Birds is so effective is that you genuinely care for the Tippi Hedren character and don't want to see her get hurt. This is in sharp contrast to the rather wooden characters in King Kong (33)/Jurassic Park or the dehumanized atmosphere in The Shining.

When we watch and/or hear a story, we are caught up in the narrative or not. The way it is told, how the storyteller connects with us, the audience, is as equally important as the quality of the story itself. We are either directly connecting with what is happening or we are distanced by veils of disconnection. With film, only two of our five physical senses are being directly addressed, the quality of sight and the quality of sound. With a film such as the 1924 "Thief of Bagdad," what we are being shown is what existed in front of a camera as it exposed the film within it to light. Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. is really there; we see him breathing, panting, taking risks. It is truly thrilling and we are enraptured. The 1939 "The Wizard of Oz" added the dimension of color to its tale in such a way that no special effects at that moment were needed and it knocked us back in our seats. In both of these examples, we, the audience were respected by the filmmakers - they trusted us to understand; that our 'human' imagination would fill in the blanks. CGI, when over-used, drops a veil over our experience by deadening our ability to use this noble facility of ours. There are no more blanks. We are given every last one of the enemy in battle in "Return of the King," so that there is nothing for us to do but sit there and be fed the visual input. CGI can also be (over-)used in such a way that it becomes part of the language with which the filmmakers choose to tell their tale, choose to distance us so that we must meet them in their ball park to fully appreciate their art: "Speed Racer."
It is, at the end of the day, not only CGI, that can be badly mishandled. The second part of the equation can be equally distancing, if not more so from the dichotomy it sets up within the film itself. To use only one film as an example of how the use of sound can both reel us in and push us away, I would choose "My Fair Lady." When Rex Harrison is speaking, or using his voice to 'sing', we are mesmerized. Again, the camera is catching the light and the microphone the sound of what is directly before us. That he is able to entrance us so allows us to surrender to the fact that there is no orchestra just out of sight accompanying him. Not so with Audrey Hepburn. Two veils cloak her performance, first that it is the voice of Marni Nixon and not her own which provides one disconnect (and having seen an outtake where it is her voice brings this doubly home). Second is that she is not using her, or anybody else's voice - she is lip-synching, Rex Harrison is not. He was recorded as he was actually 'singing' and we know it instinctively. His performance connects with us in a way that Audrey Hepburn's, or even Jeremy Brett's ("The Street Where You Live") cannot. One of the worst examples of this was the film "Evita". As good as it looked and as good as it sounded, there was only one real moment of truth - when Evita dies and we 'hear' her voice for the first time. The rest of the film was, for all extents and purposes, a silent film with an added, synchronized, soundtrack. A very recent example of this, where at least the sound is balanced to match where the characters are on the screen if not in the scene itself, is "Mamma Mia."
The fewer the veils, the more likely we will be able go outside of ourselves to that place where a fine, well-told, tale can take us. And isn't that the point? "Imagination is not only the uniquely human capacity to envision that which is not, and therefore the fount of all invention and innovation. In its arguably most transformative and revelatory capacity, it is the power that enables us to empathize with humans whose experiences we have never shared." (J.K. Rowling) This is the key to any of our artistic work, not only for filmmakers, for all human beings in whatever capacity we choose to create. Therein lies the measure of our achievement and our worth.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wasn't a great film, but I think it is a great example of how to use abundant special effects to great effect (oy). In most films, characters like the Vogons would have been CGI creations, but in HGTTG they were puppets, with real presence on the screen. I hate when directors use CGI to create creatures that would have been much more convincing as puppets. Not that puppets and other classic effects can't be abused as well, but they put certain demands on the director and the effects crew that require a little more thought (as you rightly point out in your article).

Perhaps we could shift discussion a bit to -300-?

First of all, "CGI Fridays"-- HA!!!

Second of all, there were accusations of racism and homophobia levied at this film. Persians, after all, are present-day Iranians, and here they are feminized and slaughtered for the pleasure of the viewer. Roger, you seem to hint at this in your review, in your description of the ludicrous attiring of the Persians. Care to comment more directly?

I remember seeing the trailer for -300- in the theater and thinking: ok, this is us. This is the United States. We are Sparta, bellicose for its own sake. So maybe, in some sense, not the most flattering self-portrait.

Cases in point about the 'real' model vs CGI:

"Aliens", with its little models crashing away, is by far the most impressively _felt_ action film there is. They might be miniatures and robotics, but they are crashing at force into one another. The incredible propulsiveness of the action sequences depends absolutely on the physical forces at work. Never discount that James Cameron once was a truck driver and appreciates real machinery.

"Dragonslayer", an erstwhile cheesy 1980s fantasy flick, is nonetheless to be lauded for bringing what is easily the best dragon ever to the screen. The dragon in the cave sequences moves and flails and crashes about awesomely, and yes there is blue-screening in there, but it is used only between shots of the robotic dragon.

Things need to have weight and heft, they need to be felt. I despise the weightlessness and inconsequentiality of the Matrix sequels and the smear of CGI as a lazy alternative. Sadly, I think, people born post 1980 do not feel the need for this, do not feel what they are lacking. They grew up in the post-Lucas universe. It is no coincidence that once Lucas gave up extended use of models and robotics in favour of CGI, everything turned to air-brushed fantasy magazine cover smush.

Ray Harryhausen, please come back!

Interesting discussion all around. I'm glad that someone mentioned Hitchcock's "The Birds." I've always loved hearing about Hitchcock's ingenuity in developing camera angles and other tricks for his effects (like extending the climactic descent down the staircase in "Notorious"), which always heightened the suspense and made his films so visually interesting, but without calling obvious attention to themselves. His description of such techniques, and the effort he put into designing and executing them, is one of the highlights of his conversations with Truffaut.

I've enjoyed Mr. Ebert's reviews, books, TV shows, and this website for many years, but this is my first time posting. So I'll say thanks to Mr. Ebert for so much stimulating conversation about films, which has greatly enhanced my love and appreciation of movies.

I was just watching the Ebert & Roeper review of "Battlefield Earth" (just for yucks). And you pointed out that the NY of Escape From New York looked so much better than the post-apocalyptic visuals of Travolta's dreadful camp misfire.

Case in point!

I rented "The Thief of Bagdad" as a result of tracking down every Michael Powell movie I could find. I had never heard of him before reading Mr. Ebert's review of "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp", so this is another magical movie realm that I've entered thanks to Mr. Ebert. I agree that CGI, while an important tool in today's moviemaker arsenal, can become the sole reason for being all too often. If you want to see an unbelievably fantastic film that involves no special effects and no live actors, rent "The Adventures of Prince Achmed" a 1926 film considered by some to be the first "animated" movie. All of the characters and sets were created using cardboard silhouettes, which were placed on a glass table, then illuminated and filmed from above using stop action. It's unbelievable. The characters seem totally real. And there's a flying (mechanical) horse too. It's great, a monumental achievement, and you can rent it from Netflix.

The very first movie I saw in a movie theater was King Kong. It was shown in Hartford in the early 1950s. My father took my older brothers and me to see it. I don't believe I was even five years old at the time. I still enjoying watching this film when TCM airs it. Why I find it so compelling to watch, after so many viewings over the years, is that it reminds me that when I first saw it, King Kong had no special effects. To the pre-five year old me, it was all real.

When special effects aren't "real" to the viewer, they aren't special. They are merely effects.

Have yet to see "The Thief of Bagdad" (1940), but am looking forward to it. Want to see all of the Great Movies I've missed (from all 3 editions of the book; I know one is still in progress) --

The best news on this blog entry is that "Magnolia" (1999), by Paul Thomas Anderson ("Boogie Nights," "There Will Be Blood") will be an addition to this latest collection of GREAT MOVIES essays. Rejoice! The best film of the 90's!!!

Over the weekend I went to our local dilapidated 1920's movie palace to see the second-run double feature of "Iron Man" and the recent do-over of "The Incredible Hulk". This combination made for a case study of this very subject. In terms of the CGI content itself, sure... both were CGI-heavy Marvel Superhero flicks, but there was a marked difference in quality:

In "Iron Man" the whiz-bang gadgetry looked and felt like it existed in the real world. Things shorted out, they clanged, they dented, they smoked. The "learning to fly" sequences looked very believable. The aerial dogfight felt much more like "Top Gun", than it did "Independence Day" (or, heaven forbid, "Stealth"). They really got the physics right - flying, falling, crashing or clunking around the workshop, the hardware always appeared to have "real" weight, as though it could have just as likely been knocked together in an actual prop shop.

In contrast, not only was the Hulk himself patently cartoonish, but whenever he was on the screen he seemed to inhabit a cartoon universe. Even the supposedly "real" stuff surrounding him (other actors, copious military ordinance, buildings, trees, whatever) - moved/responded/crumbled in very non-organic ways that reminded me strongly of Ebert's Laws of Cartoon Thermodynamics. I kept waiting for Roger Rabbit to pop out from somewhere. This is not a good thing in a movie like a pseudo-serious comic book flick that requires a pretty serious "suspension of disbelief" in the first place.

I agree with Mr. Ebert (and many others above) that in many ways doing with CGI what could be done in other ways actually interferes with that "suspension of disbelief". There's a real immediacy and awe that comes from knowing that thousands of extras and animals were driven across a real desert by Cecil B. DeMile for the Exodus scene in "The Ten Commandments". Teeming digital hordes swarming over a digital Middle Earth might be cool, but they just don't have the same visceral impact. Harold Lloyd's physical comedy had an energy and edge Ben Stiller or Jack Black can't really approach, because you know they were never in danger of death or injury while filming. (Lloyd, like Buster Keaton, was in constant danger doing his own stunts, and he lost a thumb and finger when a stunt went wrong).

For me it's like the difference between listening to an album or going to a concert. The difference between being in the ballpark or watching the game on TV. Both can be enjoyable, even great, but there's always something special about "the real thing". When you see Aadrman Studios (the "Chicken Run/Wallace and Grommit" folks) continue to make great movies with stop-motion clay animation year after year, or someone like Ang Lee opt for wires instead of computers for "Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon", you know they "get it". They understand the intangible appeal of the tangible.

This is not to say I'm anti-CGI. It's hard to imagine how some stories (like "The Matrix" or "Pan's Labyrinth" or the "Lord of the Rings") could ever be effectively told on screen without the limitless visual storytelling possibilities CGI provides. When I think of its best uses - things like the consistently great Pixar movies, or the subtle way the Cohen's used it in "O Brother Where Art Thou" to wash their entire full-color movie in the Dust Bowl hues of an old Sepia-toned photo - it's clear that CGI can be an amazing tool in the right hands.

I suppose for me, that's what it comes down to - good movies come from the right hands doing the right things. The Pixar movies don't work simply because of the technical prowess of their visuals. They work because they're thoughtfully conceived, witty, well scripted, and meticulously executed. In short they do all of the things any movie (from a period costume drama to a low-budget indie flick) has to do to succeed on an aesthetically pleasing level. In a well made movie, any CGI use becomes a means to an end - the enhancement of the storytelling - and not an end unto itself (or worse yet, a distraction).

An example I can think of that illustrates great physical filmmaking is one of my all-time favorites, Apollo 13. The weightless scenes are completely real because they were actually filmed in a weightless environment (for the most part). You don't even think about it while watching, you just accept the fact that the astronauts are weightless because, well, they're in space! I don't know of any particular instances of CGI used in that entire movie although I'm sure that there are some. Stock footage, extravagant sets, and clever filming techniques make for a completely believable recreation of a spaceflight. CGI actors floating would have been very obvious and not nearly as immersive.

Here's something to ponder, and speaks to the 'artistry' involved in CGI: Will a time come when you will be able to 'recognize' the CGI of certain studios/programmers/artists? The mention of Harryhausen's name in this thread made me think about how we recognize his work instantly, as we do with the work of Tex Avery, Warner Brother cartoons, Saul Bass, David Mamet, and any director worth his salt.

Ebert has eviserated '300' in true Spartan style. I am not surprised and in a way I agree. The movie is too violent, too mean spirited and single minded in its depiction of violence and carnage.

I loved it anyway. I believe the point of the movie was precisely that: exaggeration of the highest order. The film is so over the top and ridiculous it put a smile on my face. The film isn't trying to be historically accurate. It's a film about archetypes and heroes and villains that are larger than life.

For that reason the visual effects in '300' are almost cartoony and I think quite effective. We have an image about these iconic Greek heroes as being the pinnacle of the male physique. There is a grandeur to everything in the film to the point where I found '300' Olympian and blood drunk in its absurdity.

I remember Robert Zemeckis doing an interview for 'Beowulf' where he said the reason why he drastically changed the appearance of great character actor Ray Winstone into the version we see in the film was because he believed there was no actor alive who could have possibly played Beowulf; not even Russel Crowe.

'300' is by no means a great film but like 'Beowulf' its a film that I found the definition a 'guilty pleasure'.

Zack Snyder the director of '300' has set himself the impossible task of next directing the 'Citizen Kane' of comic books WATCHMEN. I recently downloaded the trailer and was both filled with exhilaration and dread. His approach to the Alan Moore/ Dave Gibbons grahic novel seems to me to be the wrong one. There just seemed to me to be too much green screen and slow motion.

I was hoping for a more realistic and gritty portrayal. I will reserve judgment until I see more footage but I remember Snyder saying in an interview that he was not bringing his '300' sensibility to bear on this project but he was going for a look and feel more akin to David Fincher's 'Se7en'.

My main issue with CGI has to do with the fact that films that don't use CGI with tact tend to look age very badly. I have found that with the new Star Wars movies. When I saw 'Phantom Menance' in theatres in 1999, the film looked cuting edge. I tried to look at the film recently and I found it almost impossible to watch. I looked like a bad videogame where everything up on the screen was done digitally.

Compare that film to Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner' which is a film that uses minature effects and matte paintings to great effect. The film has held up remarkably well over 25 years. I watched the final cut on DVD and was astounded to the look and texture of the film. 'Blade Runner' looks as good if not better than Nolan's 'Batman Begins' which is a film that took key visual inspiration from the former film and which too is built to last.

Snyder in adapting WATCHMEN should take note from Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', the current holder of the title of Best Superhero movie. This is a film that is built to last and that I believe would stand the test of time. WATCHMEN the film deserves similar treatment.

I never have felt more impressed with a movie (later I knew they were called special effects) than when I saw The Thief of Bagdad. I was only 6 years old, but in the following 60, never could I experience the same sense of wonder and amazement.

I was just watching "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" recently and it is another example of traditional effects being supreme over CGI. When Bob Hoskins walks into the club, there is the wide shot of the animated characters walking around, carrying real trays of drinks and food. Nowadays, it would be easier to do it with CGI, but it wouldn't have the same feel or emotion. And knowing that it took many people, with lots of rehearsal time, to get everything just right makes scenes like that all the more appealing. Or when the weasels come to his home to look for Roger who's hiding in the sink full of water, watching an animated character move water around still makes me smile, even though I know that it was done with air hoses and mechanical effects. And thank you to the previous poster who mentioned "Gump." That was the last time I was really in awe while watching visual effects. I knew Gary Sinise had both his legs but I loved hearing people question how 'they' put legs on the man when it was actually the other way around. Of course Tom Hanks wouldn't suddenly be a world class ping-pong player, but when I first saw the movie, I thought that he had trained really well for those scenes. Who knew he was just moving around and that the ball was added in through CGI? For me, sometimes the best effects are the ones that are just enhanced by CGI. "The Empire Strikes Back" is still my all-time favorite movie and seeing the thick matte lines never took away from the effect of watching the Hoth action scenes. But seeing the same scenes cleaned up through CGI (no more lines) has me admiring it even more. Or seeing Cloud City through the windows has me appreciating the visual effects people even more. Maybe even a better example is the directors cut of "THX: 1138." Having windows overlooking huge vistas instead of massive blank walls makes that movie more interesting to watch. Sure, I know it is CGI, but it really does make that movie easier to watch.

I have to agree about this special effects "situation". I noticed during a scene in Spider-Man (when Peter figures out where his uncle's killer is being chased by cops and goes after him), that Spider-Man looked hardly human at all and more like a 3D animated character. It put a big hole in the illusion of the film, and the experience was less enjoyable because of it. Films like "The Dark Knight" are prime examples of how effects should work: staging and stuntwork, meant to enhance the story, with only a little CGI to fill in those things to complicated to create. This makes the big chase scene in the movie all the more thrilling, because it seems so real and believable. And the action didn't take over the story, we were still concerned about Batman stopping the Joker rather than wondering if we would see a big explosion.

Is it just my imagination or does CGI feel flatter and less "real" than the pre-CGI effects? In the original Star Wars trilogy, for example, Yoda was a muppet, yet I was utterly convinced that he was a real person. (I'm also convinced that Kermit is a real person, too.) But in the new trilogy, Yoda was rendered through CGI, and to me he simply did not feel as dimensional or solid or something. Am I imagining this, or is there something else involved?

My 2¢. I've been in the effects business for 30 years and have witnessed the transition form optical to digital effects. For the record, I'm a matte painter and started as a traditional matte painter, using paint, glass or masonite, and my imagination to create the required scenes.

The argument as to whether traditional effects work was better than digital is specious. A computer is a toolbox, just as was my paintbox. The problem is not with effects, but with poor story, direction, acting, etc. Good effects serve to tell and advance the story. Period. But if the story is a stinker, nothing will save the picture, no matter how much technology is thrown at the screen. Also period.

Most of the folks I work with would agree with the above. We talk about story. We also talk about technique, but we value it in relation to how technique works to tell the story and entertain the audience.

What other good reason can there be for making a movie?

As to the distinction between "special" effects and "visual" effects, special effects have to do with live staged effects such as pyrotechnics, body rigs, etc. It all used to be called special effects, and someone got the bright idea of creating the term "visual effects".

Bottom line for me, there is nothing more boring than a visual effect, unless it is serving to enrich and advance the story. In and of itself, a visual effect is nothing. You can slap a period on that one as well.

So please stop blaming the people who create visual and special effects for bad entertainment. We just service the pictures, we don't finance them. I can't recall ever hearing anyone leave the theatre saying that the picture was wonderful but the effects stank.

And if you want different kinds of movies to watch, then support those other films by buying a ticket. This is the movie BUSINESS. It goes where the money is.

Jesse

Ebert: I appreciate the insights of an expert. Thanks for joining in.

I look at CGI as a toupee. When CGI is poorly used it's a bad toupee; hair looks fake, the color is off, etc. But even if CGI is used well, it is just a very, very, very good toupee. It looks real, but deep down inside you know it is still a toupee.

I see it this way: CGI effects are not to be pish-poshed, as they are and can be a very valuable color in a filmmaker's box.

George Lucas (I believed) used them exceedingly well in his second STAR WARS trilogy. (The years will catch up to those movies, I think they're wonderful adolescent space fantasies, and actually stand as more complex, interesting 'films' than the original, admittedly more 'fun' ones; generational angst is at the heart of the general fanboy rejection of those films - plus, there's a lot of 'baby with the bathwater' mentality in most fans refusal to admit all the good stuff about those films because of the few sore thumbs that stick out); The STAR WARS prequels greatest asset is that they are a universe sprung from the mind of (generally speaking) one man. The CGI is so complete, so EVERYWHERE, that I often feel that I'm watching a new kind of cinema with those films - that is, indeed, how that universe should look, and who would know better than Lucas? Are the actors' performances slightly affected? Sure. Is that made up for by ravishing visual imagination on display? Absolutely. The last one, REVENGE OF THE SITH, may be the CG-effects masterpiece at the moment (excluding Pixar, of course)

But then we have a movie like I AM LEGEND, which I enjoyed, but which clearly did not need to use CG effects for the monster characters. I'm not a cynical guy (as my enjoyment of the STAR WARS prequels should tell you), but it's pretty clear to me that someone on the LEGEND team said "If we don't have CG monsters, kids will think they're watching a cheap or - worse - "old" movie"... sadly, they might be right.

But would kids today really reject a practical-effects masterpiece like Carpenter's THE THING? (which Ebert shamefully rates two stars! Curmudgeon! Can't both versions be worthwhile?) And, for that matter, why the hell do i have to care about "kids today"? What about me? I'm 35, and I know what I like!

Lots of good points in the thread but I Jess Silver makes a particularly good one about the effect being in service of the story and having to have the story, etc. to make the film work.

And this may be my ignorance showing: Isn't it the director's job to keep the various components of a film—and that would include special effects—serving the story and not running out of control? It seems that some directors know how to use the tools and some aren't so good at it.

And the "Uncanny Valley"? I liken it to trying match paint colors: Further away and you can have nice contrast that's pleasing, poetic as mentioned. Too close but not dead on and it looks exactly like what it is: A failed match.

I completely agree with the spirit of this article! I was exhausted and dizzy by the end of the most recent Hulk movie which seemed to be nothing but click cut together shots with as much CGI as possible. I agree with the above that The Dark Knight has a masterful use of computer effects, but the focus is always on the characters and plot.

Panic Room is a movie that I thought had amazing special effects, using computers to make it appear a camera can travel through a key hole was used to great effect. Not the best thriller ever made, but visually one of the most interesting.

I've always seen computer effects as a tool, rather than a whole new canvas. They always work better when in conjunction with the tried and true techniques. In fact, they serve best to help perfect them, not to replace them. Just ask Steven Spielberg. Or Guillermo del Toro.

In the end, actually having something in front of the camera will always have more weight than mere pixels and foley effects.

Well said, Roger.

I don't have a problem with CGI in general. I think that sometimes it can be quite useful in bringing us new images. You have often quoted Werner Herzog saying if we don't get new images we will die. CGI is a new way of bringing them to us. I've enjoyed some CGI shots in some not very good movies (I thought Davy Jones in POTC was convincing. He was the one good thing about the second one).
I do have a problem when CGI replaces the story. I can sometimes enjoy Troy on a silly level, but I have to agree that the effects are really overdone and rather inconsistent. Same with Attack of the Clones.
I like it when CGI is at a minimum and is at the service of the story. Dark Knight obviously used CGI, but I was completely wrapped up in the story. Guillermo del Toro used effects well. I have loved animated films like WALL-E. That entire film made my jaw drop. I was so happy at the end of it. The Spider sequence in Minority Report is so exciting and amazing. I am not ashamed to say that my favorite movie is LOTR. I love the story as well as the visuals. The Balrog, the Mumakil, Shelob, Gollum, and so many more things were so terrific. I also loved the use of miniatures with the Argonath, Helms Deep, and Minas Tirith.
CGI is just another tool in a director's arsenal. It is not good or bad. That all depends on how the director uses it. If it is used well, it is good. If it is used poorly, it is bad. With movies like Dark Knight, I think we might be passing out of the experimental days of CGI. Considering the fact that Dark Knight is the 7th most popular movie of all time in the U.S., directors might catch on. More and more people are aware of CGI. Directors should be aware of that and film making will change for the better. Of course, other techniques may come about and we will soon be complaining about those, too.

Roger,

Wcmartell from the old Compuserve Showbiz Forum here. I completely agree - and talked about it in my blog entry on the new Indiana Jones movie:

http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2008/06/indiana-jones-and-digital-danger.html

I think one of the problems is that CGI is so "easy" that it's used to solve problems or just create *pointless* spectacle rather than story related spectacle. CGI is a tool like any other - put it in the hands of a genius, and you get genius. Put it in the hands of a lazy person, and you get lazy film making.

- Bill

PS: Sorry to see the show go. This will probably make you feel old (sorry) but when you guys were on PBS, I was a young film student, and a bunch of us to meet at a friend's house for dinner (he still lived at home, his mom cooked) and your show every week. From that group, two of us are now Hollywood professionals. You and Gene deserve some of the credit.

Excellent points Roger. One of my favorite examples of a pre-CGI physical effects is the sequence at the climax of Sam Raimi's "Darkman". The sequence cuts between what are obviously blue screen shots of Darkman hanging from a helicopter by a chain as the copter hurls dangerously through a cityscape and actual footage of a stunt man dangling from a real chain beneath a real helicopter flying over a real city. Because of the tangible physicality of the stunt man's presence, the blue screen shots were much easier to accept and the entire scene still gets my adrenaline racing every time. The horse is definitely flying there. CGI might enhance that image but it would never be able to register with the same visceral impact.

Few movies made as much of an impression on me during my childhood as "Jurassic Park" did. Even at the time I knew that Spielberg had used a mix of CGI and physical models to create his effects, and I was fascinated by how real and awe-inspiring the dinosaurs looked.

But that can't have been the only reason why I was so entertained by the movie, as the dinosaurs are only on screen for about a quarter of an hour. Spielberg is a master at putting the audience in the shoes of his characters, and the dinosaurs in the movie don't serve the purpose of showcasing technical craftsmanship, but are there as dramatic devices. The T-Rex's appearance evokes a sense of a tremendous, relentless natural force that dwarves the humans and decimates everything in its way; the raptors convey an intelligent, insidious threat lurking in the bushes and shadows, anticipating the right moment to strike; and the dilophosaurus, at first a seemingly harmless little critter, provides one of the movie's biggest shocks by revealing himself as an imposing, poisonous monster. There are also shots where we simply admire the beauty of some of the benevolent creatures, but we are led into those moments by shots of the awestruck characters who are gazing at them. The visual splendor of the dinosaurs in those scenes is as much a part of the story as the tension and the thrills they cause in others.

Throughout this whole cinematic rollercoaster ride I never lost sight of the humans, both because there isn't an effects overkill and because Spielberg always makes sure the story is about them. It's striking how, since "Jurassic Park" came out, there have been many effects-laden movies, including "Jurassic Park" ones, that had much more action and many more effects and creatures, but they didn't necessarily feel more real, because the effects weren't used with as much care and consideration, and they were incorporated into stories that weren't as well-constructed. Most of Spielberg's films have been a notable exception: the look of the robots in "A.I." was manipulated to evoke specific emotions, the effects in "Minority Report" were a means of bringing to life a world of infinite imagination and not an end in themselves, and the tripods in "War of the Worlds", most notably during the first attack, were rendered so realistically that they gave us the feeling we just happened to stumble upon events that were actually unfolding. And at the center of all of these images were always the characters, trying to achieve their goals, struggling with their flaws, cooperating, fighting against and interacting with each other. As much as he has pushed the boundaries of what movies can do technically, Spielberg has never lost sight of the fact that the audience's emotional response is built on the drama that arises between the characters.

In Peter Jackson's "King Kong", the most important effects were the character. Here is a huge, computer-genenerated action extravaganza, and yet its makers had the imagination to realize that the poignant core of the story would lie in how a real girl and a fake gorilla look into each other's eyes, and used CGI to create nuanced, complex facial expressions. The look of New York City was also crucial: it looks a lot like the New York of actual photographs of the 1930s, and yet it also has enough of an air of heightened reality and poetry about it to make us believe that a gorilla could actually be smashing the cars on its streets.

In terms of great special effects, I'd like to mention The Grindhouse's Death Proof. The climactic car chase was spectacular because we KNEW that there was some truth to it. Also, like Ebert mentioned, it was in no hurry to end. That chase went on forever... and I loved every second of it.

As usual, another insightful article! I find Dark City to be totally engrossing- I love the story, the acting and yes, the special effects! I think it added a special dimension to an already good film.

I also think that of all the recent movies I've watched, The Dark Knight simply rules!

Lastly, I would like to add my favorite Spielberg movie, ET. I just find the scene where Elliot and ET flew with the moon as its background to be one of my memorable film scenes ever.

I remember one of the pleasures of seeing The Matrix for the first time was walking out of the theatre after having been engrossed in the story then wondering "How the hell did they do that stuff?" During the film, I was woried about Neo, it wasn't until afterward that I thought about the amazing effects. Sadly when the sequels were released, all through the films I kept thinking "Wow, those are some amazing CGI effects..." Not once did I care about the characters. Story should always come first.

I remember one of the pleasures of seeing The Matrix for the first time was walking out of the theatre after having been engrossed in the story then wondering "How the hell did they do that stuff?" During the film, I was woried about Neo, it wasn't until afterward that I thought about the amazing effects. Sadly when the sequels were released, all through the films I kept thinking "Wow, those are some amazing CGI effects..." Not once did I care about the characters. Story should always come first.

A few thoughts:

I remember a technique called IntroVision, an enhancement of front-projection, which allowed the filmmaker to put live actors into a miniature without opticals (used for the first time, so far as i know) on "Outland". It didn't last long, because CGI was easier, but it looked more real than a lot of more-recent, technically superior CGI.

Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" (and other fims of his, as well) is an absolute feast of incredibly simply-done but convincing special visual effects. Using such simple elements as human arms thrust through holes in a wall, a stream of air to blow out candles and reverse filming, Cocteau creates magical candle sconces that reach out from the wall and light themselves as a character passes. Using reverse filming again, plus a paper wall and a low stool hidden by the hem of the actress' skirt, he creates a breath-taking "magical appearance". Simple cutting between two different shots as the Beast carries Beauty through a doorway gives the effect of a transformance taking place before our eyes. Perhaps if he had had CGI to work with, he would have done something even more dazzling - or perhaps, relieved of the necessity to produce such wonderful effects cheaply and simply, the result would have been flat and unconvincing.

While neither the original "Gone in 60 Seconds" or the 2000 "remake" will ever be taught as great films in film schools, the final stunt in the original has an impact that the remake loses, because you know that that Mustang is really flying high, that there is a real driver in it, risking his life (and, in fact, suffering a spinal compression that affected him for the rest of his regrettably short life), while the final "stunt" in the original is almost-certainly CGI, if only because it occurs in a setting which would probably be too dangerous to attempt as a practical effect.

A few thoughts about other people's remarks:

"The Uncanny Valley" -- a phrase I love. Basically, it's the principle CGI folks talk about where, the closer you get to "reality" (especially when it involves rendering flesh-and-blood creatures) the less the audience believes it. That is the "Uncanny Valley" -- where things are just close enough to "real" to look unconvincing because the differences between the effect and reality become so apparent.

This is why the films starring the regular muppets ("The Muppet Movie", etc.) work better than the Henson films featuring more humanoid creatures - Jen and Kira in "Dark Crystal" look less believable than Augra or the Skekses, because they're closer to humanity; Hoggle in "Labyrinth" is less believable than Sir Didymus.

though Harvey Dent's half-face was not a "realistic" set of images showing the aftermath of gas-fed-fire-burning-flesh, it was nevertheless convincing and impact-making because the emphasis was on making it scary and emotive (or as emotive as a few scraps of flesh over bone can be) as possible (which meant abandoning realism).

The Two-Face makeup used in Dark Knight is based heavily on the version in DC's "Adventures" books that were in the style of the brilliant animated series, but with original stories; probably the best Batman comics DC has ever done.

"Dragonslayer", an erstwhile cheesy 1980s fantasy flick, is nonetheless to be lauded for bringing what is easily the best dragon ever to the screen. The dragon in the cave sequences moves and flails and crashes about awesomely, and yes there is blue-screening in there, but it is used only between shots of the robotic dragon.

They invented a new form of stop-motion - "go-motion" - for that film, which introduces a realistic blurring in each frame; we may not consciously notice the slight blur of a fast-moving object on-screen (which occurs because the exposure for each frame is long enough that the object moves during it), but the "strobing" effect in conventional stop-motion due to the stationary models being photographed is why it looks a little off against live-action; no matter how impressive Harryhausen's fims may be, tat contrast between the effects and the real world is there, and, on some level, most people perceive it.

I was just watching "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" recently and it is another example of traditional effects being supreme over CGI. When Bob Hoskins walks into the club, there is the wide shot of the animated characters walking around, carrying real trays of drinks and food. Nowadays, it would be easier to do it with CGI, but it wouldn't have the same feel or emotion.

Of course, the animation used in that film was significantly enhanced with CGI to bring it from the 2-D cel animation format to a 3-D appearance.

I'll probably get lynched here, but, as much as I love Peter Jackson's work, the CGI camera is TOO smooth when showing panoramic vistas, therefore effectively killing the feeling of size. When we zoom over the titular Two Towers, there was no sense of weight; I knew I was looking at a model (CGI or not).

Say what you will about the film, but there's a great flying shot in Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge" where Nicole Kidman stands atop an elephant, and the camera "flies" away, every jitter and shake reminding us that someone built this grandiose set, that a cameraman had to be strapped in for his dear life, that it's something to marvel at, because it is, in fact, huge. It's the imperfections that sell the realism. Compare that to the "1 pixel at a time" smoothness of the virtual cameras flying around King Kong.

"Thief of Baghdad" and any works by Harryhausen convey this sense of weight to great "effect", even by today's standards. Their shots linger. Their shots take time to be admired.

When all is said and done, it's all about the script. If the script stinks, all the CGI and/or special effects in the world won't save the film. Just watch the Star Wars "prequels" to see full evidence.

Still, today's ADHD world loves its eye candy, doesn't it?

I think the CGI artists should wear "What would Hitchcock do?" bracelets. I am weary of scenes of massive armies, boats, planes, the dead - wasn't that already done in Gone with the Wind? It worked better in Braveheart with real people.

Also there is an almost fascist element to some fantasy epics. I mean substitute Jews for Orcs and Goblins LOTR isn't half as much fun. "What if they were Jews?" is a useful litmus test for dehumanisation, or, as the case may be, degoblinisation, since it is the phenomenon of discrimination that is most studied and proselytised; we don't even have to think. Surely not all goblins are ugly and war-like? I enjoyed Ebert's assertion that the Narnians ought to rule themselves and suggesting the Centaur as presidential candidate. On the otherhand in Star Wars I prefer the dark side. There was more glamour and better costumes. If I were going to create a Star Wars film I would make the dark side characters more resemble Goths. Most of them already look like Billy Corgan.

I still think it is best to use CGI to enhance visual effects but not always to create them. "Roger Rabbit" and "Empire Strikes Back" are two easy examples in which CGI is used to enhance effects but not to create them. "Titanic", for instance works great by having the two real actors on the bow of the ship, but using CGI to put the backgrounds behind them, and then have the camera pull back, revealing the whole length of the ship. "Cliffhanger"'s effects work well because you know that Stallone is on a rock wall, even though you also know that he's hanging on wires and cables that were removed through CGI. "The Abyss" has wonderful effects underwater because of the models of the ships. The 'probe' that was CGI works because it is part of the fantasy and James Cameron didn't go 'hog-wild' with the water effect. Instead, he kept the probe 'calm' and slow. So, for me, I prefer using good old-fashioned effects that are enhanced. You know that it took someone a long time to create them and then someone else gets to polish them with CGI. But, overall, it is definitely the story/script that captures my attention and makes a movie stay with me over time. "Ghostbusters" has some cheesy effects, but I still love watching that movie even after 24 years.

Thank you, Mr. Ebert!

Mr. Ebert, you are right on the money, as usual. I know it's a balancing act, but using anything - effects, stunts, graphic violence, nudity, has a very strong chance of taking the audience out of the story, which for my money is to be avoided at all costs. Both of the "Thief of Bagdad"s were able to show a tremendous amount, but still left so much to the imagination of the audience. Matrix mixed martial arts with special effects and it was brilliant - but they put in a reason why those people could float through the air. Then other fight movies came out with people floating for no reason and suddenly it became silly.

I remember coming out of Terminator and everyone (including me) was raving "What a great movie" and then coming out of Terminator II and everyone raving "what great effects!" I really enjoyed II, but Terminator was a spectacular movie where the characters and what happened to them was more important than the visuals - and the visuals in I were amazing, but I was so caught up in the story, the effects were part of the fabric, not a flag waving "look at me."

Good stunts without effects are more impactful than incredible stunts with CGI. Along with the great Mr. Fairbanks and the mind-boggling Buster Keaton, you had Burt Lancaster, Gene Kelly, Bruce Lee, early Jackie Chan and many others moving with jaw-dropping dexterity - but it was THEM doing it that had the impact. Knowing it was created by a computer would lose most of the impact (at least it does for me, growing up in movies - another commentor mentioned video games, and maybe the effects work with people more used to that medium).

Again, it's a balancing act, but I would be happier if current filmmakers (and the studios that pump in so much money) remembered story and character over bigger, larger, faster effects.

Thanks, Mr. Ebert! You rock!

The brilliant thing about Del Toro's work is that he frequently uses physical effects where you would expect CGI and vice versa. The complex, smoothly moving Angel of Death turns out to be a puppet; a balled-up piece of paper which uncrinkles to expose a few words is CGI.

I grew up in the 80's and so lived in the heyday of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg's films, along with the other genre directors like Wes Craven... and I can say that those "old school 80's effects" still hold up... Obviously, there was a lot of painstaking difficult work that went into those films...the extreme difficulties encountered by the effects crew for the first "Gremlins" film back in 1984 were immense, I think the main spx supervisor of that film, Chris Walas, is still traumatized, ha ha, although the guy can still laugh about it to this day...

BUT, those mechanical effects, those in-camera effects that were created, had character- they had flavor to them - and, I agree, they had a poetic-ness to them.

Here's my two examples of that...in 1984's Nightmare on Elm Street, there is the scary scene near the end of the film where Freddy Krueger comes stretching up out of the bedsheet and then slices through with the knives to emerge. Obviously, this was not a super-advanced special effect...it was simply a white colored latex-rubbver sheet that the actor, Robert Englund, was pushing up through...but with lighting, music, and in context of the scene- this effect was nightmare like and creepy- flash forward to 2007, and we get the asian imported, high tech thriller "The Messengers"...and in this film there's ALSO a scary effect with a bedsheet, where the girl makes the bed and we see CGI generated feet standing there (this effect showed up in the films tv commercial).... creepy, yes? got people's attention, yes? But, more poetic and creative than Freddy's face stretching up out of a bedsheet in Nightmare on Elm Street? No way.

Same thing with Sci Fi films...I still dont think anything in outer space battles looks better than the "dogfight" scene in Star Wars with the Millenium Falcon and the tie fighters...now that Lucas has abandoned ALL model making and motion control shots, it is MUCH HARDER to get involved into the scenes he shows us....the whole landing into the giant sinkhol of "Udapaou" (sp?) in "Revenge of the Sith", or the scene of the Scout Walkers searching the swamp for Jedi....I felt like I was looking at a PAINTING, not at a scene of the movie....contrast this with Empire Strikes Back, when those Imperial Walkers were marching forward....THAT Scene alone, which I saw for the first time in 1980 when I was 10 years old, made me first want to become a movie director when I grew up...even the old Harryhausen films with Sinbad fighting the skeletons...classic stuff-
I dont hate CGI, I know it is important, but I think now that Hollywood has proved it can create CGI characters (like Smeagel in Lord of the Rings, granted a great achievement)...they can now hoepfully bring back some of the older effects of the past that are still VERY COOL LOOKING and engaging, and just use CGI to "fill in the gaps" and make those classic effects just a little bit better.

As it stands, it seems like Hollywood has thrown out the baby with the bath water and has plunged into 100% CGI, forgetting models, matte paintings, animatronics, motion control, and all the other stuff that made those 70's and 80's films look cool....

I can still watch James Cameron's "Aliens" any day of the week...."Cloverfield",....eh, only so much.

I grew up in the 80's and so lived in the heyday of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg's films, along with the other genre directors like Wes Craven... and I can say that those "old school 80's effects" still hold up... Obviously, there was a lot of painstaking difficult work that went into those films...the extreme difficulties encountered by the effects crew for the first "Gremlins" film back in 1984 were immense, I think the main spx supervisor of that film, Chris Wallas, is still traumatized, ha ha, although the guy can still laugh about it to this day...

BUT, those mechanical effects, those in-camera effects that were created, had character- they had flavor to them - and, I agree, they had a poetic-ness to them.

Here are my two examples of that...in 1984's Nightmare on Elm Street, there is the scary scene near the end of the film where Freddy Krueger comes stretching up out of the bed sheet and then slices through with the knives to emerge. Obviously, this was not a super-advanced special effect...it was simply a white colored latex-rubber sheet that the actor, Robert Englund, was pushing up through...but with lighting, music, and in context of the scene- this effect was nightmare like and creepy- flash forward to 2007, and we get the Asian imported, high tech thriller "The Messengers"...and in this film there's ALSO a scary effect with a bed sheet, where the girl makes the bed and we see CGI generated feet standing there (this effect showed up in the films TV commercial).... creepy, yes? Got people's attention, yes? But, more poetic and creative than Freddy's face stretching up out of a bed sheet in Nightmare on Elm Street? No way.

Same thing with Sci Fi films...I still don’t think anything in outer space battles looks better than the "dogfight" scene in Star Wars with the Millennium Falcon and the tie fighters...now that Lucas has abandoned ALL model making and motion control shots, it is MUCH HARDER to get involved into the scenes he shows us....the whole landing into the giant sinkhole of "Udapaou" (sp?) in "Revenge of the Sith", or the scene of the Scout Walkers searching the swamp for Jedi....I felt like I was looking at a PAINTING, not at a scene of the movie....contrast this with Empire Strikes Back, when those Imperial Walkers were marching forward....THAT Scene alone, which I saw for the first time in 1980 when I was 10 years old, made me first want to become a movie director when I grew up...even the old Harryhausen films with Sinbad fighting the skeletons...classic stuff-
I don’t hate CGI, I know it is important, but I think now that Hollywood has proved it can create CGI characters (like Smeagel in Lord of the Rings, granted a great achievement)...they can now hopefully bring back some of the older effects of the past that are still VERY COOL LOOKING and engaging, and just use CGI to "fill in the gaps" and make those classic effects just a little bit better.

As it stands, it seems like Hollywood has thrown out the baby with the bath water and has plunged into 100% CGI, forgetting models, matte paintings, animatronics, motion control, and all the other stuff that made those 70's and 80's films look cool....

I can still watch James Cameron's "Aliens" any day of the week...."Cloverfield",....eh, only so much.

CGI is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. Talented directors with real ideas will learn how to use it effectively. Untalented directors with nothing important to say will use it as a crutch. Hopefully the moviegoing public will soon tire of their mindless pap.

I recently bought the Criterion Collection release of Thief of Bagdad (1940) and loved every minute of it. One of the bonus features shows how the special effects were created. The film was the first to use chroma key. Although the relatively-few chroma key effects are obvious, many of the other special effects are not.

It has never failed to amaze me how studio craftsmen of the period could blend partially-built sets with matte paintings and glass shots. In your commentary on Citizen Kane, you point out that the film has as many special effects, in terms of screen time I believe, as the first Star Wars film. The difference is that with rare exception, the special effects in Citizen Kane are not noticeable. They do not call attention to themselves, nor are they intended to do so. Most importantly, they were believeable.

I am glad that you cited Dark City as an example of a film that uses special effects properly. In my opinion, Dark City is one of the best films of the 1990s. The special effects advance the story and the city, created largely with special effects, becomes an important character in the story.

Pan's Labyrinth is another example of a film that uses special effect effectively. It's also the best film that I've seen so far in this decade.

It's posts like this that make me wonder if you are ever going to review the "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequels. Not many agree with me, but I think "Dead Man's Chest" had a fantastic storyline comparable with the Indiana Jones movies and the special effects were born out of the story, with CGI used only when necessary and more convincingly than most recent movies I can remember. "At World's End" tips over more into the over-done realm, though not as much as others think, I think. Your opinion on these movies would be most interesting to further the discussion on this point.