Screenwriting : Have special effects and action scenes ruined storytelling? by Curt Samlaska

Hi, Curt Samlaska. I don't think special effects and action scenes ruined storytelling. I don't think storytelling is ruined. There are movies, shows, etc. with fantastic storytelling!

I think action and special effects are like spices — they can elevate a great dish, but can't replace the main ingredient: story.

Unfortunately, I believe we’re living through a decline in strong storytelling. One major reason might be the rise of comic book movies — especially recent ones, where the narrative often feels weak.

It’s much easier to impress audiences with visuals than with layered, meaningful storytelling. Most viewers just want to be entertained and rarely question the depth of what they’re watching. Studios know this, and with an already devoted fanbase, some writers have grown creatively lazy — assuming the film will be watched no matter what.

Maurice Vaughan, I agree that special effects can be important for world building, action sequences, etc., but I agree with Yasar Tasbas in that I believe that The Critical Drinker has a strong point about storytelling. Certainly there is some incredibly good work going on and I think some of this has shifted from movies to streaming series, such as: Stranger Things, The Expanse, The Silo, Breaking Bad, etc. and some of this may be a natural shift from television, like series in the past: Madmen, House of Cards, The Sopranos... There seems to be a shift in viewing from Movie theaters to homes... Still. I think a lot of Movie failures are currently a direct result of the deterioration of storytelling. Just my point of view. Love to hear other opinions...

Everything is about balance in filmmaking. Too much of any element will contribute to diluting the overall enjoyment of a story. Stake Out was a perfect balance of action, humor and suspense and made a great movie. The sequel, Another Stakeout, was not as good as the balance was off. Rosie O'Donnell was a poor addition to the cast as her character was a buffoon more than a serious agent. The humor was overdone and childish while the action was lessened and less thrilling. The balance was off.

Some people like movies and stories that are "slow burns." I am not a fan of them unless they are done really well and I cannot name a recent slow burn that I enjoyed watching. The last one I can remember was Angel Heart and maybe Sea of Love. Two films I thought had very good balance for what I like to see in films and stories.

It all boils down to personal preference and finding a balance between story and spectacle that is able to build an enthusiastic fan base.. Hopefully, future films will have the content that you will enjoy even if you enjoy watching the film 100 times.

Scott Sawitz I saw the trailer of Rogue Elements and thought it lacked originality. He literally used a line right out of Lethal Weapon AND THEN put it in the trailer. I like his reviews but I thought that was strange. It's like Roger Ebert. Great critic and I've always found value in his observations but his screenplay Beyond The Valley of The Dolls would not be considered great art. I've always said you don't have to be a chef to say you don't like the food, but you should be able to at least cook a decent cheeseburger.

LOL...I will have to admit Philip David Lee, I was unaware of the Rogue Elements association. I watched the trailer...and the comments are priceless. I have to agree it looks pretty bad, but I still think that what he presented in my post has some legitimate points. Funny comment on Rogue Elements: "I just think it's absolutely WILD to make a career shitting on other filmmakers' work and to then turn around and put out something like this."

As Philip David Lee stated: "Everything is about balance in filmmaking."

Some people go overboard one way or the other. I remember seeing the extras on the the DVD for the 2005 film "Stealth" and all the director talked about is the tech-side of the film. Lots on how cool the jets are, and the transitions, and the moving on-set cranes used to simiulate cockpits in motion... almost no mention of story. And the movie didn't really have an interesting one, so it seems they just got lost in the action-side of things and made a feature-long special effects reel.

@Curt Thanks for the share. Whilst big franchises for decades have catered for built in risk free audiences & offered them a comfort zone I find solace in unique indies. Interestingly Silo mentioned in thread is adapted from book Wool. New good IP & stories from maverick filmmakers/writers are already blowing holes in the dam. Same old will be but we don’t need drown in bottleneck.

Curt I couldn't agree with you more. Let's have no flashbacks, no FX, no stupid wormholes. Just a powerful story with unforgettable characters. BUT maybe it's not the writers' fault that we don't have that now. In today's world nothing powerful is happening. There are no unforgetable people anymore. Just a bunch of totally lost souls walking around in circles their hour upon the stage.

(BTW that's what my most recent screenplay is about!)

I agree, Special effects and action scenes ruined storytelling in a way and that's where Directors like Chris Nolan stands out. With minimal VFX he is showing the incredible storys. In India mostly films are without VFX and those films feels correct and awesome.

But I would like to stand a bit with Special effects, Directors Denis vilenue(Dune) compose a frame with great looking realistic special effects and make that frame incredible. I think if we want to show Future in our movies we need special and effects and vfx.

That's my take on this, if I am making sense at all.

Special FX and action scenes have existed for literal decades. Whether it is practical, or CGI, what matters is the purpose of them in the context of adding substance to the story. They absolutely can be in films, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon, though I do find that the growing accessibility of creating huge flashy scenes seems to enable filmmakers to get lazy and skimp on effort put into writing, and instead lean on the CGI effects to pad the run time. Put a music video in your film, if you want! AS LONG AS it moves the story/plot forward and serves a purpose.

I am a BIG pusher of practical fx, having a love affair with 70's and 80's horror. There are so many people who go into the creation of practical fx and real, physical action scenes (like the ones in the John Wick series).

The special effects of the 1930s look more impressive than today's computer graphics. Special effects have always existed, even silent films with Charlie Chaplin are full of special effects. Are they a masterpiece of drama? I don't think so. Audiences have always been attracted to spectacular cinema, and people with psychological issues try to fill it with philosophical meaning and make it boring and intellectual. These people want to appear smarter than they actually are.

I think a lot of memorable movie moments have come from budget restrictions for special effects when CGI wasn't available - it's why we barely see the shark in Jaws, which in turn made it much more frightening.

Hopefully with the arrival of an Oscars catagory for stunts (finally) it will make more filmmakers think twice about using CGI for everything.

story is the backbone of any Art. back in the days we had good stories with action scenes combined with VFX and the result was good.

now we have movies with terrible stories, by the time.action arrives people are bored and the hard work of the stunt people.goes unnoticed.

so many action movies release each year but very few are good.

Movies today may as well be video games.

A good action scene IS storytelling.