I am currently at Animal logic in Sydney working on the film adaptation of Kathryn Lasky’s award winning childrens series. The Guardians of Ga’Hoole is a tale of good versus evil in a world of owls and other assorted wildlife. With a distinctly Australian twist. I wish I could show you some of the concept art as it is just amazing.

Well the trailer is out and it’s hitting cinemas now in preparation for the christmas release.

Click here for the trailer

Feed back has all been positive so far.

An article in the guardian newspaper today is proposing the death of CG.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2281595,00.html

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the death of the CG blockbuster, like StarWars I,II,III. It talks about a grassroots backlash over unbelievable effects, scenes and characters, the ‘clunks’ as it describes the minor yet all too noticeable differences between CG and reality.

And while it goes on to talk about James Cameron’s eagerly awaited AVATAR, of which there are plenty of quotes saying it will revolutionise the stale and ‘clunky’ CG industry, it wouldn’t give much hope to many in the industry already feeling the pinch of the credit crunch, closing effect houses, the writers strike having left a long hole in production schedules till after summer and the ever increasing number of people entering the industry and competing for jobs.

But I wonder whether it is the CG to blame? Perhaps it has more to do with the lack of story, character depth and good scripts which is causing is all too foreseeable backlash.

If the script isn’t any good, if the direction is off and if the characters aren’t made to resonate with the audience then no matter how good the CG is, the experience will always be a hollow one. Or what they refer to in the industry as ‘polishing a turd’.

I’ve seen the new Ironman and amid furious debate on the work social board about it’s merits, I sadly must step to the side of dissent.

Not to say I hated the film. But I think like many of it’s species in todays market, where cg plays a major, if not necessary, part in the actual making of the film, the story (if in this case there ever was a strong story to be shown) was sacrificed. And by necessary, I mean that had the cg technology not been available would the film have been made? Probably not.

And maybe this is the truth of the matter. The industry in which I work, the skills with which I earn a living, have given rise to the ability to create, visualise and interpret what would have once been considered impossible, too expensive, or more to my point here - not worth the hassle.

So are we now making films that once we would not have bothered making because they would have involved too much effort? If this is the case, surely there is an argument that they were not worth making in the first place?

I think Ironman falls firmly into this category. While I enjoyed the film for it’s look and gadgetry, it left me feeling like I’d just watched an extended advert for a product that didn’t exist, that I’d never experience and was of no consequence to my life.

Was I looking/expecting too much? Perhaps. Maybe it’s a sign of me getting a little older than 13 when such a film would have blown me away and left me in rapture for a week (at least). But if I’m going to spend my precious time watching a film then I want to feel that my time was rewarded beyond fancy imagery and cg magic.

I realise I’m in the minority in my opinion of the Ironman film. And certainly if I was given the opportunity to watch a sequel for free I wouldn’t turn it down, such is my love for cinema. But I doubt the Hollywood wizards will be able to invent a plot thick enough to urge me to pay for another Ironman outing.

Over a small lunch with two friends we were discussing this along with other things ranging from Stalins preference in loo paper and Hillary Clinton’s cheap escapades of eating corn dogs in small town america. During the discussion I asked a question as to why audiences were applauding what I could only see was a deterioration of story and the continued push for beauty over substance. We gave up answers like; the Internet is lowering concentration times (true), audiences don’t want to have to engage with movies anymore (?), and also that audience expectations for film have become diluted through short video, computer games and the continued unrelenting media barrage that are our lives.

Yet, films, on average, are much longer than they used to be? But were exposition was once center stage, now the action sequence is king and exposition is merely the short pause for breath before the next explosion.

One of my friends gave an anecdote of a friend of his wifes’. This friend apparently thought that Casablanca was too weepy.

I’m not sure what I make of this. Sure the film is old, and it wasn’t made for the audience of today, it may seem a little slow, and black and white isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. But it struck me that this woman was more put out that this film was trying to emotionally engage her than anything else about it.

Is she an abberation? Or is she the light shining on the symptom. And if we are disengaging from film, for what ever reason (the list of which could fill a few books I’m sure), it leaves me with an uneasy feeling about where our culture is going.

But it also gives me a hint about why I didn’t like Ironman - because when I see a film, I want the explosions, I want the fight scenes, but without the emotional involvement, you may as well be trying to sell me sandals.

Welcome to my new online home. Take a look around.

Cheers

Tim