Did The Computer Graphics Keep Clint Eastwoods Flags Of Our Fathers From Being A Huge Hit?
How does Clint Eastwood's twenty-seventh trip behind the camera end up being on so many 'so so' lists?
In fact, if you look at a wide sampling of critical reviews of Flags Of Our Fathers (2006), they are VERY top heavy (loved it) and QUITE bottom heavy (didn't care for it) with not many falling in the middle. Unusual for a film of such wide release.
So, were the graphics to blame for the lackluster performance of this movie with a decidedly wonderful story behind it? Was it the reliance on all things not there that led to the box office being not there?
They just may have been.
Time after time, long shot after long shot, Eastwood framed his beach shots with the entire armada in clear view. Not edges of ships, not snippets of the fleet. Not some of it. All of all of it. The ENTIRE Army, Navy Air Force and Marines.
At first, this visual was a beautiful homage to the strength and depth of the American insistence on taking total control of that critical island. But by the ninth or tenth time, we'd 'gotten it already.'
In contrast, while Saving Private Ryan was roughly equal in scope to the taking of Iwo Jima, Spielberg didn't overindulge the folks at ILM and have them working on every last frame. Spielberg, it seems, used the long shots, and the computer graphics, sparingly...so that we would focus on the characters.
Perhaps the thing most noticeable thing about the computer graphics in Flags Of Our Fathers was that they were noticeable. They stood out. Glaringly so.
The deft hands of computer artists and graphic gurus are SUPPOSED to make their work feel seamless.
In Flags Of Our Fathers, it felt as if they were a bit heavy with those hands of theirs and that perhaps the computer graphics DID keep Flags Of Our Fathers from being the monster hit the studio had hoped for.
Share this: