Left Header Right Header
Header 3a   Header Right End A Header Right End B Space
Header Left 3b
Movie Reviews Movie Trivia
FREE Membership MatchFlick Friday - Win Free DVDs






Member Login  [help]
 
 
 
 
 
Member Trends
 Top 10 List
 Exclusive Interviews
 Horror Club
 Zombie Club
Movie News
 Current News
 News Archives
Message Board
 Go To The Forum
Cool Statistics
 Member Stats
 Trivia Stats
Columns   [more]
 But Can She Act?...
 They're Not The ...
 Time Does Fly Wh...
 Before Minimum O...
 Column Archives
Popular Movies  [more]
 World War Z
 Mission Impossible 4
 Twilight Breaking Dawn
Popular People  [more]
 Leonardo DiCaprio
 Megan Fox
 Tom Cruise
Membership
 Join for FREE
 FAQs
 About MatchFlick
 Privacy Policy
Contests
 Guess That Scene
Syndication
 RSS Feeds
Create the Infinite
by James Shafie

Subscribe to MatchFlick Movie Columns through RSS
email this column to a friend

This is the film Lynch considers his one total failure.

This is the film Lynch considers his one total failure.
I recently watched the 1984 adaptation of DUNE, directed by David Lynch. I was a big fan of the 2000 Sci-Fi channel miniseries and of the story itself already. I was wary of the Lynch creation because, well...it was directed by Lynch. He's known for being extremely odd and confusing. However the film was easy enough to follow. Aside from all the plot differences of the two films, there was one stark contrast between them, the use of CGI versus the "organic" effects (models, animatronics, etc).

Lynch used very little digital effects in this film. Akin to his style, there were models and creatures formed from hand. He did use green screen from time to time, but the only digital effects that really stood out were the very polygon-looking shield used between characters when sparring and the Weirding Way lasers used by the Fremen characters. The rest of the film's effects were man-made.

However, if Lynch had created this film in '04 instead of '84, would it have been the same? Probably not, there is a limit of what you can do by your own hand. Would the liquid metal T-1000 ever been created if James Cameron decided that TERMINATOR 2 was to be without CGI? Also, when not using CGI, the director creates a lot more work for the film crew. The creator must find a way to make things that not only might be enormous, but from someone's imagination.

John Carpenter (HALLOWEEN, THE THING) has done amazing things with organic effects. He's known to be able to make the unreal and imaginary become more real than our surroundings. However, would he choose to create, let's say, an entire world using only materials that were tangible? To create an
The sleeper has awakened.

"The sleeper has awakened."
alien planet by hand seems like a most grueling task. Even the best directors have their limits. Not only does this amount to a great deal more labor, but films almost always have a deadline, and sometimes what is real can take a great deal of time to create.

However, does this mean that CGI is the obvious choice when creating the unknown in movies? Not necessarily. The Sci-Fi version of Dune, I believe, overused computer generated imagery. Not only were most of the buildings computer-generated, but the ships, the alien life forms (i.e. the worms) and much else were too. It reduces the emotional impact a film can have. Why cry for people inside a burning building when it looks it has come out of a video game?

Special effects are something that affects all genres, but specifically Sci-Fi and Horror. We have monsters and aliens to create! They can't look lame, if they do, the audience is gonna be saying, "Aw man, look at these monsters and aliens, they look so LAME.". And that is the worst thing that can happen to a horror/sci-fi movie. That or hiring Uwe Boll. The point of these two genres is to show the audience something it isn't expecting, something weird and maybe shocking. So which do you use, CGI or non-CGI?

To tell you the truth, there isn't a winner. There can't be. Certain films will do better with computer generated imagery; others will be hindered by it. BRAZIL would have been very bad, in my opinion, with major use of CGI, but I'm very happy that JURASSIC PARK used it as much as it could. So there you go, once again there is no clear answer to a question. Well good, that's the way life should be! "Long live the fighters!"

email this column to a friend

Comment on this Column:

Sorry, you must be a member to add comments to columns.

Join or Login.


Subscribe to MatchFlick Movie Reviews through RSS



The Lair of the Mad
Every other Tuesday

'The Lair' discusses the many aspects and qualities of the horror genre. From actors, to make-up, to music, James Shafie explores everything the "cult" genre spews up.


Other Columns
Other columns by James Shafie:

Speaking Out

Yearn For Change

Queen of Night

Too Close Enough To Touch

The Time of the Beasts

All Columns


James Shafie
James Shafie is an avid watcher of movies of all sorts, but the horror genre is closest to his heart. He loves to read and is addicted to music, mostly metal and itís thousands of sub-genres. He was once fired by Blockbuster, which we see as a strong character trait.


Contact
If you have a comment, question, or suggestion, you can send a message to James Shafie by clicking here.


Digg This Column


  Terms of Use | Press | Contact Us
Partnership and Advertising Opportunities | Movie Database | Merchandise

©2004-2017 MatchFlick®. All rights reserved.
©MOVIE IMAGES ARE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED AND THE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS

Web Analytics