The poor feedback of Zemeckis' "Pinocchio" got me thinking. This is a director whose success in the 80's and 90's came close to matching that of Spielberg and Cameron: All three "Back to the Future" films, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Forrest Gump", and "Cast Away".
After that, he made a rather strange detour into motion capture for several years, none of which were very successful, apart from "The Polar Express" (though it's been pointed out to me that the technology developed on those films led to more convincing CG in other film franchises). And even after reverting to live action films again, he's never come close to the critical or commercial success he had before the turn of the century. "Flight", for instance, was a moderate success (though nowhere near as memorable as his earlier work), but "Allied" got mixed reviews and under-performed, as did"The Walk" (though reviews were better), while "The Witches" and "Welcome to Marwan" were outright bombs.
What happened? I wonder how "Beowulf" and "A Christmas Carol" (two films that really didn't need to be fully motion capture) would've been received had been made live action instead. Did that detour make him rusty when he finally returned to live action? Was he simply saddled with inferior projects in recent years?
Given the ironic performances we got in films like "Back to the Future" and "Forrest Gump", I don't think you can accuse him of being too technical, at the expense of actors' performances, like, say, George Lucas. Has technology advanced to the point that Zemeckis' effects simply aren't that impressive anymore?
What do you think?
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/xm79ga/the_rise_and_fall_of_robert_zemeckis/
Comments
Post a Comment