Do you include the first Matrix in that too? Because I like to think the original Matrix part of the spirit of the nineties. And it was quite innovative when it comes to special effects, I think.
Oh no not at all. The first one holds up incredibly well. You can remember all those great, iconic shots. The spin around Trinity at the start, the famous Neo bullet dodge, the Morpheus leg shot. All great effects shots. I can't think of a single effect which was as memorable in the sequels.
I don't think the problem lies with the CGI itself. What matters more to me is the use of it. I just went to the movies and saw a bunch of trailers, and they all had these slow-motion-shooting and explosions and whatnot, and I thought, so what's this film going to be about? Will it bring anything new to the table?
I'd definitely say that the problem was in the CGI. A lot of times films seemed to want to do way more than they actually could. Again, compare the car chase near the start of Terminator 2. The only effect shot in the entire scene is the liquid metal part at the end when T-1000 regenerates. A car chase a similar way in to Terminator 3 is littered with CGI effects that look neither convincing or realistic. CGI is definitely a problem if it's in no way believable.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that CGI has gotten a lot better in the past few years. It's just that horrible period from about 2000 - 2007 which has some of the absolute worst.
I actually think the prequel-SW-movies' effects look better, the old ones look a bit shabby, but that doesn't matter because the original movies are just far superior.
And, if a film is going to be about special effects, like if that's going to be the thing of the movie, then they have to be worth it. And on that I agree with you, they should put more heart in special effects movies.
Again I'd have to disagree. The effects in the prequels look so cold, sterile and lifeless. The models in the original trilogy look so real and they've got real character to them. Nothing in the prequels, particularly that huge space battle at the start of ep 3 compares to seeing the Millennium Falcon intricately maneuver in TESB or ROTJ.
I definitely agree with you on unnecessary remakes. But that's a giant discussion point and I'd like to hear some other people's opinions on it first.
So, another question: What justifies a remake? When do you deem a remake good?
Fantastic question. I'd honestly only justify a remake if it could be better than the original and excel where its predecessor failed. Dawn of the Dead is probably the only truly great remake I've ever seen and aside from there being a zombie outbreak and a mall - it's only really connected by the name. Most remakes tend to leave out more information than their original versions had which can hardly add to the mythos. Theres no point in remaking a film which did everything completely right the first time around. Why would you even consider remaking films considered as masterpieces such as Planet of the Apes, The Italian Job or The Omen when there was never a chance that any of them could have hoped to been as memorable as their originals?
I understand why a lot of movies are remade for other countries like for example, remakes of asian horror movies but even they are rarely as good as their counterparts. It's slightly more acceptable but by no means any more necessary.
The worst of the lot is when they keep threatening to remake more modern classics like Back To The Future. There is nothing that could make that film any better than it was and if there was no way that it could be any better than it's existence would be totally redundant. Some properties should forever be left alone.
I'm not nearly as negative when it comes to the subject of reboots but that is an entirely different point.