English Final Speech: Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) and Its Effect on the Modern Film Industry

I'm a movie fanatic; I enjoy watching movies from all genres, from horrors to comedies and from sic-fi adventures to dramas. Movies are enthralling, and I'm not the only person to think this. Motion picture films have captivated throngs of audiences for several generations now, since the first movie camera was created in 1891 by W.K.L. Dickson under the experienced direction of Thomas Edison. Over the years since that time, Hollywood has contributed some of the most memorable, well-known, and defining aspects of Western pop culture, including such classics as The Godfather and Pulp Fiction. Classics such as these have been cemented into the annals of movie history through their eloquent use of original plot lines, character development, and snappy dialogue as well as from their practical use of special effects which add depth and realism to the story. In the years preceding momentous advancements in computer technologies, most notably before the late 1990s when computer technology was yet to be invented or considered an extravagant luxury, special effects were done the old-fashioned way, with special effects artists utilizing their skill to create remarkable visual illusions. Now, however, trends in modern films have resulted in heightened reliance on computer generated imagery (or CGI for short), due to the fact that CGI is cheaper and requires less skill to integrate into the movie as a whole. But to countless movie fans, myself including, CGI lacks the realism that the older special effects techniques masterfully employed before it; movies with heavy CGI use are just not as aesthetically pleasing as the movies of old and even other modern movies that have courageously abstained from the fad afflicting many of their contemporaries. Plot and artistry do not matter now to today's Hollywood executives, only money, and impressive CGI work garners the big bucks. So, to the question that I have been meaning to pose, does CGI excuse an otherwise poor script and acting merely due to its flashy attractiveness to audiences? In my opinion, older movies—and modern movies using little to no CGI—are far superior to most movies today. The heavy reliance on CGI in the modern film industry has significantly detracted from the prior emphasis of plot, character development, and dialogue characteristic of earlier films. Furthermore, CGI lacks the subtle realism that effective special effects are known for, resulting in a jumbled mixture of digitalized wonderment that fails to deliver an enduring masterpiece.

One of the scariest movies that I have ever seen contained absolutely no CGI whatsoever, preferring instead suspenseful closeups, and incredible musical score, and a thrilling buildup that ultimately led to the terrifying reveal of the very frightening, and very realistic-looking, monster. This movie was Steven Spielberg's 1975 horror classic Jaws. Jaws was an effective thriller for several reasons. Firstly, Spielberg allowed his audience only glimpses of the nightmarish shark's dorsal fin for most of the movie, only until the film's heart pounding climax do we as the audience view the shark in all of its gargantuan entirety. By portraying the shark as an unseen predator stealthily stalking its prey (humans), Spielberg confirms that assertion that some of the most frightening visuals come from enemies and threats that are imperceivable to the human eye. Secondly, and equally important, the colossal monster terrorizing hapless beach patrons in the movie who are unlucky enough to attract the attention of its ravenous appetite, appropriately named The Shark, consisted of little more than a skeletal body modeled to resemble a shark and a propellor system; no cuter was used to render a digitalized shark. And this made The Shark a horrifying sight to behold. It looked real because it was made of real, tangible materials, not pixels. Thirdly, and finally, the acting and dialogue within the movie were top-notch, brilliant. Such lines as "We're going to need a bigger boat." and Quint's famously chilling monologue further added to the movie's thrilling tone. The point that I'm trying to make here is that Jaws, a movie totally devoid of CGI wizardry, accomplishes far more in its purpose to scare the audience through its simple, yet ingenious, use of camera angles, old-fashioned special effects, and acting/dialogue than most other horror movies employing CGI today; movies do not need CGI to be successful. As an additional example, Ridley Scott's 1978 science-fiction/horror Alien used many of the same techniques that made Jaws such a spine chilling thriller: Like Jaws, Alien featured distinctive camera angles and an antagonistic monster that seemed to blend in with is surroundings, traditional special effects with absolutely no CGI used, and suspenseful plot and acting, and it too is considered one of the scariest movies ever made. The realistic and gruesome "chestburster" scene—again filmed with no CGI— attests to this contention.

The detriment of trends in the modern film industry towards the increased reliance on CGI is not only apparent in the realm of horror; rather, it also applies to countless other films, most evidently Star Wars. You might wonder how CGI could ever prove disastrous to such a popular franchise as Star Wars; after all, CGI would seem perfectly appropriate for application in the science-fiction genre, with its focus on imaginary worlds and vivid fantasies, since some special effects may prove difficult or even impossible to produce without the support of CGI. For instance, many of the various alien world now crucial to the events of the Star Wars universe were but figments of creator George Lucas's creative imagination—that is, until the advent of CGI. Yet hardcore Star Wars enthusiasts, like Mr. Lentz, still profess their uttermost loyalty to the original trilogy, denouncing the disappointing inadequacies of the recent prequel trilogy (episodes on through three of the saga). These critics' primary arguments center around the amount of CGI used in the prequels. The critics assert that the prequels lack the subtle realistic qualities that defined the old-fashioned effects of the originals and that these movies focus far too much of their attention on CGI-related special effects, leaving essentials like plot and acting at the wayside. They believe that George Lucas, attracted by the alluring directness of CGI, has lost touch with his ability to tell stories in an interesting and creative way. Instead of focusing on plot and dialogue, as he did in the original trilogy  with the special effects adding yet more depth to the movie as a whole, Lucas lazily attempts to excuse an honestly boring and cliche script by bombarding each scene with one computer-generated image after another—as I have said, a trend that I fear is becoming the quintessential model image for movies today. I agree with these critics, and as someone who was not alive when the original films were released, I can safely say that I do not have nostalgia clouding my mind when it comes to making that judgment. There is something about the original trilogy that continues to impress me with a sense of realism that I (rather unfortunately) cannot say the same for the prequels: The aliens and robots (droids) look real, the environments look real, and the characters are considerably more believable because of this. If you're interested in comparing the dramatic difference between the old-fashioned effects of the originals and the CGI approach used in the prequels, consider Jabba the Hutt in his original form in Episode VI: Return of the Jedi and in his digitalized form as he appears in the re-edits of the original trilogy; the disparity could not by any more striking.

Thus far, I have ranted on about my opinion of the CGI controversy, what I  believe should be done. Let me now consider the opposing side's arguments in favor of CGI use in the modern film industry and offer any necessary rebuttals to these claims as I see proper. Proponents of CGI might begin their dispute by noting the relatively low cost of CGI use in movies—at least when compared to the cost of traditional special effects. While this fact may be true, CGI is usually less expensive to produce than traditional special effects of a similar nature, CGI also looks cheaper and, as I have expressed repeatedly less realistic, which is the reason why I cannot understand its continued existence in filmmaking. After all, a little extra money should not hinder the filmmaker's ability to create a masterpiece. Filmmaking is itself an art form and therefore requires the needed respect and recognition it so deserved as well as the understanding that all good things require added effort, dedication, and resources. Then there are those people who, noting the impressive grossings for movies employing heavy CGI usage (Avatar for instance), have argued for CGI primarily on the basis of its profit to the modern film industry. Now, I cannot even begin to identify the numerous erroneous thoughts contained in this thought. Like I have said, filmmaking is an art form, and the content of movies should not be determined by its ability to generate money, especially if it is detrimental to the movie as a whole. Finally, many contend that CGI allows filmmakers to experiment in ways that were not possible before its widespread use, or at least in ways that are financially advantageous. To this statement, I gain use Star Wars  as an example. Several of George Lucas's closest friends believed the special effects required in some scenes of the first Star Wars were impossible to simulate, given the technology of the time. Yet George Lucas proved them wrong once he recruited the aid of a visual effects studio willing to assume the "impossible" task, and these effects are still stunning today. This example represents my point: Visual effects can be accomplished without CGI. It takes time, patience, and money—sure—but it can be done, and it looks better.

Considering my passion for movies, it may not be entirely suprising when I tell you that I am truly concerned for the future of the film industry. If the current trends in CGI use persist, there will come a time when movies, some of the greatest contributors to and embodiments of Western pop culture, will be totally devoid of meaning and purpose, other than the purpose of generating revenue. Plot, acting, and dialogue will not matter anymore if these trends do indeed persist. Instead, filmmakers will concentrate less on these three essential facets that have constituted drama throughout the ages, preferring to focus attention on cheap special effects through CGI, as the Star Wars prequel trilogy has no doubt demonstrated. But countless other movies, including Jaws, Alien, and the original Star Wars trilogy, have revealed that CGI, while expanding the limits of what filmmakers can do, does not necessarily make a better movie. On the contrary, CGI often looks less realistic than traditional special effects. So why is it used at all? Well, it's cheaper than traditional special effects and it has, in recant years, proved very successful at the box office. However, movies like Jaws and Star Wars show that movies employing traditional special effects can also perform well while providing and enduring imprint on pop culture. For example, every time that I have been at the beach, I have always considered the possibility of a shark attack even though I know that I am more likely to be struck by lightning than experience a shark attack. While it may seem that I am absolutely against any use of CGI in movies whatsoever, this is not at all true. I believe that when used sparingly, and in conjunction with traditional special effects, CGI can create and entire universe of new possibilities and options for filmmaker to experiment with and yet still concentrate on the essential elements of a good movie.