Is it limitations that creates classic movies & TV?

[Coz]

Something I wonder about to myself from time to time.

Could it be that it is in fact the limitations imposed on a filmmaker due to budget, time, location or effects constraints etc, that really makes them step up to the plate and deliver a movie that really works?

Reading a bunch of making-ofs & such, I understand that movies such as Star Wars (original) went through changes prior to making it to the screen due to limitations in budget and effects.

Same can be said for the original Star Trek series, and certainly Spielberg had to work around the limitations of the shark (and created a better movie for it, IMHO).

Now, could it be this lessening of limitations that causes modern filmmakers to take the 'easy' way out? Or it it that they can come up with any idea, and through CGI put it on screen?

And does this then explain the Transformers movies?

What do you think, sirs?
C.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Working under the gun does bring everyone's game up, but it may also not be a very pleasant experience for any of them, despite the quality of the final product.

Limitations forces creativity and thinking outside the box to solve a problem.

 

[Jedi2016]

Possibly, yes. The example of Jaws is a great one, because of the handling of the shark. It was only in hindsight that Spielberg recognized that not seeing the shark made the film that much more intense. Ridley Scott used the same idea to great effect in Alien. It was partly for the same reasons, because the alien was a guy in a rubber suit, but he also knew the effect it would have to keep the thing in the shadows for as long as possible.

In general, I would say it's true simply because it makes the filmmakers deliver a good film and not just a showpiece. If it's a good story, then the rest simply doesn't matter.

The Transformers films are definitely the opposite of this. They're setpieces and spectacular visuals, with a shallow story to make sure that all those big things happen. While I'm able to enjoy the films for what they are, I have no illusions about their quality in regards to the classics.

I think today's moviegoing audience has been a bit spoiled by latter productions, to the point where they can't appreciate those old films anymore. The shark looks fake, so they can't enjoy the movie. Matte lines around bluescreen composites looks cheap and they can't enjoy the movie. A guy in a rubber suit looks cheap and they can't enjoy the movie. Hell, even early CGI from the 90s looks fake, and they can't enjoy the movie.

 

[Raza Crew]

I think one of the problems with the overuse of CGI in movies today is that what once was a way to overcome the limitations of models and stunt work has now become the cheap and easy way out. I see TV shows using green screen backgrounds and think how lazy it looks

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Limited resources can make a good crew better because everyone has to think things through more. A bad crew though? Just makes for a crappy film.

 

[Raza Crew]

I really enjoyed Robert Rodriguez's Rebel Without A Crew book that talked about how limitations make you a better filmmaker

 

[Lost in Trek]

Limitations can also be an excuse for bad film making. I don't think theres a hard rule here one way or the other.

 

[Wes R]

I agree limitations can make you and your crew better or it can make you and them worse. A good example of this is Roger Coreman's movies, not all are great but he manages to do well with what little he has. He must have done something right to have spawned so many big name directors.

 

[pengbuzz]

It depends upon the people in the production. But I do believe than when limitations exist, it forces one of 2 things:

1) you deliver crap and give up

2) you step up to the plate

For example: while folks groan about the 1979 Superman movie, for its time it delivered and the effects were top-rate. Richard Donner and crew had to devise how Superman was going to realistically fly, and worked with what they had at the time. Too many nowadays talk about how bad it looks, but I like the effects personally better than CGI. I think CGI is overused to compensate for a crappy story, and we're all spoiled on "eye candy", and I don't like how it looks anyways: I can always tell something is not quite right with it.

So, when limitations exist, you get films like the original Terminator and Star Wars.

 

[rodneyfaile]

CGI is a great tool. I couldn't imagine the Balrog in Fellowship of the Ring being any more perfect.

But sometimes they use cgi for things they dont have to use cgi on, like the beginning of Blade 2.

Balrogs don't exist, so I see the need to CGI one, but why CGI people fighting instead of just filming real people fighting?

In Alien Resurrection, Sigourney Weaver makes a no-look basketball shot. I don't think it is CGI. They must have just did take after take until she made the shot. I cant count how many other movies I have seen where something similar is done with CGi because they just don't want to do do the takes, and it takes me right out of the movie.

I don't mind CGI backgrounds of worlds that do not exist. I don't think you could find a place as grand as Moria in FotR, but they actually built Bag End. Good idea. I hate it when instead of building a set, they CGI a room. There are some pretty nice places out there. Go film them, or build something.

I would rather see the hint of a glass between Indiana Jones and the snake than have them make a CGI snake or some other computer effect to insert a real snake.

 

[Vivek]

Another good example for limitation during production is the ending clocktower sequence from BTTF. Since the extra visual effects and outdoor shooting for the original nuclear blast sequence proved to be more expensive, Gale and Zemeckis had to come up with a more creative ending which resulted in the clocktower lightning idea.

Not only did it work out cheaper by shooting on the studio back lot, but also worked great cinematically. It also made the clocktower and courthouse square an integral part of the story, which carried on for the sequels.

 

[Jeyl]

Another good example for limitation during production is the ending clocktower sequence from BTTF. Since the extra visual effects and outdoor shooting for the original nuclear blast sequence proved to be more expensive, Gale and Zemeckis had to come up with a more creative ending which resulted in the clocktower lightning idea.

Not only did it work out cheaper by shooting on the studio back lot, but also worked great cinematically. It also made the clocktower and courthouse square an integral part of the story, which carried on for the sequels.

Great example. Not only does it make those key locations more integral, but it also gets the characters more involved in the climax, especially when things go south.

 

[Solo4114]

Something I wonder about to myself from time to time.

Could it be that it is in fact the limitations imposed on a filmmaker due to budget, time, location or effects constraints etc, that really makes them step up to the plate and deliver a movie that really works?

Reading a bunch of making-ofs & such, I understand that movies such as Star Wars (original) went through changes prior to making it to the screen due to limitations in budget and effects.

Same can be said for the original Star Trek series, and certainly Spielberg had to work around the limitations of the shark (and created a better movie for it, IMHO).

Now, could it be this lessening of limitations that causes modern filmmakers to take the 'easy' way out? Or it it that they can come up with any idea, and through CGI put it on screen?

And does this then explain the Transformers movies?

What do you think, sirs?
C.

Well, first, I think you may be an MST3K fan.

Second, I agree that an unlimited budget can often produce bloat in films. Or showcases for the sake of showcases. A wise young man named George Lucas once said "A special effect without a good story is a really boring thing." And he was absolutely right. Moreover, audiences can get that from any number of sources nowadays, other than the movies. Videogames, for example, provide amazing spectacles, to the point where amazing spectacles aren't quite enough to entertain. Or if they are, they're soon forgotten. I also think that a LOT of kids are growing up simply having never seen the older stuff. As a result, they have FAR less ability to appreciate other approaches to storytelling, older films in general, and therefore lack the ability to look at older films in their historical context, so as to say "Well, of course it looks kinda fake. It was XYZ years ago that they did that!"

But back to your original question, yes, I do think limitations can frequently produce better product. Not always, of course, but I think the really talented teams come up with interesting workarounds, as has been discussed here. And the flipside is frequently that the overblown extravaganzas get so caught up in the f/x that they forget to bother with telling a coherent, compelling story.

 

[Talisen]

Funny how good ol George does an about face.

From History of Star Wars History Studio Making Secret Creation Beginning Filming Origin

"Also, Lucas states that he will direct Episode 1. This is the first time that Lucas has directed a film since the original Star Wars. The new CG technology will create a new way to make films where a writer's imagination can be fully released without restrictions. With the level of computer animation technology available, Lucas believes that he is now free to write more interesting and complex Star Wars scripts."

Directors like Lucas and more recently Ridley Scott are becoming too obsessed with the visual to care about the story. Try watching the Prometheus Making ofs, you could make a drinking game with the amount of times someone says something along the lines of Scott suddenly changing the story because of a new visual, or something he sees in his alphagetti's.

They've both become lazy in their old age. Since with CGI 'anything' can be done so why not?

 

[Jeyl]

Try watching the Prometheus Making ofs, you could make a drinking game with the amount of times someone says something along the lines of Scott suddenly changing the story because of a new visual, or something he sees in his alphagetti's.

Not to mention that Scott talks a lot about "Pacing > Story" during his commentary track.

Some movies with huge budgets seem to really throw a big chunk of expensive pieces away for various reasons.

Apocalypse Now: How much money do you think was wasted on the French Plantation sequence? We have Frances Ford Coppola working on a troubled production where if it goes over budget, he'll have to spend his own money to keep the film financed. Instead of trying to figure out a way to keep things tight, he's spewing directions to his crew on how he wants the drinks in this scene to be at the perfect serving temperature. Why? So he can WOW the French.

Superman Returns. Bryan Singer's original opening for the Superman Returns world was shot, FXd and mixed. He ends up deleting it because he's not happy about seeing it on a regular sized theater screen, or something or another.

Star Trek (2009): The entire Klingon sequence. This was a practical make up tour de force with several alien creatures homaging TOS aliens, klingons wearing newly crafted costumes, and helmets covering their heavy facial make up. It had dozens of actors, child actors and even a recognizable actor serving as the Klingon Interrogator. NOT CHEAP.

Sahara: Apparently there was a 46-second action sequence showing a vintage airplane crash that cost a reported $2 million dollars that never made it into the film. $2 million dollars for 46 seconds and never used. I doubt they cut it for the pacing.

Spoiler

There was also a 2 frame clip where Ted was in the movie!*

Heaven's Gate: Geezos Cripes. This isn't just a matter of shooting a sequence than deleting it, this is a case of the director going bat sh** crazy with the production. Filming started with an 11 million budget and ended up costing 40 million because Michael Cimino kept on making ridiculous demands and demanded everything be redone even after it was completed and filmed.

*That was a lie typed in by my friend at work.

 

[Zuiun]

Could it be that it is in fact the limitations imposed on a filmmaker due to budget, time, location or effects constraints etc, that really makes them step up to the plate and deliver a movie that really works?

I'd say that the great storytellers not only know how to work within limitations, but they also know how to get rid of something to tell a great story even when they *DO* have they money to put something more complex on screen.

Case in point: Spielberg.

Jaws -- lack of money to make a complex shark causes Spielberg to shift gears and create a more suspenseful story.

Raiders of the Lost Ark -- Ford wasn't feeling well and his question "can't I just shoot the guy?" made Spielberg realize that the scene actually works BETTER without a long, drawn out fight-scene spectacle that they did have the budget to film.

A great storyteller (Spielberg) has the ability to tell a great story regardless of budget.

A bad storyteller (Michael Bay) proves that you can't throw money at it until it's good.

 

[batguy]

"Awesome SFX are worthless without a good story."

When I hear a blockbuster director/producer saying this I just cringe. It strikes me like a politician saying "Washington needs to stop appealing to the special interests and start serving the public." If that's the most profound thing they have to say, then I suspect they are struggling with that exact problem at the time.

IMHO people who are really not prone to making that mistake are usually VERY over it. They take the idea for granted.