The quality of visual effects are wildly under appreciated by an audience. $160 million was spent on ‘Godzilla’, and yet the drastic change in the quality of visual effects from the original was completely expected and no one bats an eye. But as soon as we see a film in the cinema with CGI that is below our expected threshold of photorealism, everyone loses their minds!
One of the best uses for visual effects is comparison. Many old films have recently been revisited with newer, more expensive effects that viewers would like to experience - such as; The Hobbit, Jurassic Park, Planet of the Apes, and Godzilla. The attraction to such films can be seen by the box office of ‘Godzilla’. $525 Million. I feel that the reason for such an attraction to this film was because of the promise of such excellent CGI. This was teased in the trailer, which showed barely anything of the actual monster, and gave the viewers something specific to anticipate. The film was actually awarded with a ‘Golden Trailer Award’ because of this.
Another aspect of visual effects is the way that it’s used. An example of a film that uses it sparsely is ‘Troll Hunter’ or ‘Trolljegeren’. The whole first half of the film features no CGI whatsoever, and for most of the second half you only see the legs if not just the feet of the troll (this is emphasised in the poster which features a Norwegian landscape with the bottom half of a giant troll in the background. This technique of teasing and not overdoing it with the visual effects aided the realism which worked really well with the aspect of ‘Found Footage’. The best part is that the budget was only $3.5 million, so audiences naturally expect the effects to be awful, but the film actually received ‘Best Visual Effects’ and ‘Outstanding Achievement in Filmmaking’ awards.
An example of a film that does not need visual effects to have people drawn to it is ‘Submarine’. This won a BAFTA, a ‘Directors to Watch’ award, and a ‘British Independent Film’ award. $1.9 million was the budget, and the box office came to $3.8 million, which is a considerable amount for a film with next to no marketing. The main attraction to this film was it’s creative narrative and unexpected director. Richard Ayoade is well known as a British comedian and actor, and is best recognised as the socially awkward IT technician in the ‘IT Crowd’. For audiences to imagine him making his debut in such a confident independent film is quite a driving force for ticket sales.
An example of the expectations of visual effects in films is ‘Chronicle’, a low budget American film about teenagers with superpowers. This is another example of the main attraction of the film to be less CGI and more marketing strategies, with the film winning a ‘Golden Trailer Award’. This is shown with the profit of $130 million, with a budget of $12 million. The visual effects for flying teenagers would not have generated that much box office. CGI has become obligatory and the norm, unless a film depends on it. Godzilla is an example of people essentially paying to see how far visual effects have come, whereas chronicle is just another superhero film, people are actually paying for the narrative, (The trailer reveals that it’s a modern twist on the stereotypical superpower film we know) they expect the visual effects to be a flawless accessory to the award winning story. I disagree that visual effects are a main attraction in every case, but I do agree that how and when visual effects are used play a huge part in the attraction of the audience.
638 words
