Visual effects have not only allowed the growth of original, imaginative collaborations with other key elements of filmmaking, whether it’s the pulsing sound from an explosion done entirely on a composite with a green screen or the vibrant colour palette that expresses the mood and emotions of one character or atmosphere, leaving the audience in awe and full of questions. But none of this will ever be possible without the power of storytelling, the possibilities a linear or fluctuating narrative heavily reflects on the creative decision-making process on how much visual effects should be used or the level of practicality to enhance the in set experience to fulfill the director’s vision and help immerse the actors. However, some would argue the time jumps in reviving beloved franchises as a remake or a sequel brings out the best in freshly generated narrative rather than producing a series of projects that is released between months due to high demand from fans and even critics, presenting a certain sense of nostalgia while also introducing a brand-new mix of genre and technology in visual effects presented on screen due to the respective time period. 

​

Many forms of film narrative were presented through sound, mise en scene and even colour, without considering how a visual effect might come into play. Most big film companies through generations still, to this day, fear the overwhelming inevitability in the usage of any digital effects as it’s been driven by a narrative that runs through even the audience’s consciousness and that’s the true purpose of a computer taking over a background or directly replacing an item to simply save time, money and workload amongst the production staffs, we are witnessing a surge in green screens that might make both the actors and audience uncomfortable in their performance and viewing. Alternatively, virtual sets utilising real-time renders attempts to deviate from the excessive use of composites and artificial lighting by contributing to accurate lighting and scale to further enhance and blend a perfect mix of practicality and virtually produced sets. Le Voyage Dans La Lune/ A Trip to the Moon (Méliès, 1902) introduced how we can use practicality to present our imagination through basic camera movement and layers of paintings, which reflects how our brain manages to put so many different things together, never realising their connection to be as significant. This form of storytelling deepens our understanding by looking further into a subject or item, allowing us for more exploring or even interpreting a meaning for the decision behind each frame, and it is sometimes our critique and feedback that influences the filmmaker what to do next and what to improve. This is crucial to expanding the true purpose of entertainment, is that there must be a narrative that drives every motif, characteristics, context, tone, physical setting and so much more that defines how we view each frame, listen to sounds, love these characters. And it is not until the 1980s, where the digital industry thrives to tell their story through computers, processors and motion capture, acting as a reimagining of the classic Hollywood blueprint for setting up epic scale in action sequences, worlds and creatures that draws us in as we traverse the horizon we call anything but Earth. Here we look at Tron (Lisberger, 1982) with Tron: Legacy (Kosinski, 2010) and Blade Runner: The Final Cut (Scott, 1987) with Blade Runner: 2049 (Villeneuve, 2021). A 30 year gap gives us enough evidence and range in perspective to how technology has evolved, differentiated itself and completely shifted its trajectory in creating these digital effects to capture our curiosity we never knew we had compared to static images projected with light that initiated our interest in genres such as sci-if, thriller and psychological that had its limit to elevate the versatility in a narrative-driven spectacle.

​

Walt Disney Productions was in charge for both the 1982 and 2010 film, you would at least imagine how much ambition was put in to create a digital frontier that directly echoes the real life computer takeover of the cinematic experience.  Tron (1982) was regarded to be one of the earliest blockbusters to use extensive amount of CGI, a 15 minute use of the technology was widely considered ‘lengthy’ at the time knowing how much work and time was needed to be put in executing the digital aesthetic of The Grid, the lighting and colour was crucial in differentiating the good and evil with blue and orange, combining the backlit animation technique to allow the colour glow bright through the casts’ circuitry suits had to be hand-painted with over 75,000 frames of illumination. We immediately react to the absurdity of barely seeing any tangible objects, everything is lit by the colours that defines this world, when nothing can be relatable to the real world, we put ourselves as the third person on screen rather than as audiences. 28 years later, Disney continues the story of Tron with Tron: Legacy (2010), bringing back old casts and rebuilds the narrative with a more refined, breathtaking but also harsher looking Grid. With realistic cloud and light simulation, The Grid becomes more alive but also empty, a true mashup of the legacy Tron had for the digital frontier, reflecting the 28 year gap that enhances the structure and beauty of what The Grid once was. 

​

When director Ridley Scott envisioned another sci-fi flick, it became more than an inspiration to the cyberpunk genre – a timeless classic. Any director trying to predict the future is a daunting mission, a concept that not only has to stick its landing in letting the audience know that no matter how many weirdly shaped buildings or flying cars can be seen on a daily basis, it’s fictional but feels so relatable in a sense that not long after the film’s initial release, there’s been really concrete evidence that robots and vehicles in the sky will soon stop being a myth. Like Blade Runner 2049 (2017), a lot of practical sets and models were used as scale and aesthetic meant everything to capture the essence of living in the city of Los Angeles running brutal, relentless energy full of crime and mischief. It wasn’t necessary the impressive visual effects but the props and sheer details that incapsulates what it means to be a cop that hunts robots that looks just like us, act like us and be stronger than us, the floating billboard that invites you to ‘offworld’ without ever showing you what ‘offworld’ looks like in both film allows you to reimagine yourself as a replicant, living a life that attracts hatred and nothing else. For 2049 (2017), director Denis Villeneuve was widely considered as the best choice in directing a 30 year, long awaited sequel after his acclaimed filmography of sci-fi, cerebral thrillers. Veteran VFX companies such as Weta Digital and DNEG handled most of the sequel’s effects, most notably evolving the spinner vehicles, creating human-sized miniature sets of complex architecture to accompany an even larger scale of Los Angeles that evokes a callous environment and bringing back Sean Young’s character – Rachael, as she was from the original with intense CGI technology and a body double that need to match her movement and recreate her voice to properly reflect the power of the replicant production Tyrell had in the original and Wallace in 2049. Having cinematographer Roger A. Deakins be on board brings out the biggest difference between the two films, allowing the Academy Award-winning visual effects hyper-realistically showcase our ‘inevitable future’ while Deakins transforms a replicant hunt tale into a poetic, tragic but elegant frames that is now also a cult classic.

​

In conclusion, you could state an argument in how well visual effects can be utilised depending on the passion from the director chosen by the film company that finalises the quality in telling the continuation of ambitious tales. But before the 21st century, both computer and practical effects had its limits in allowing us to put ourselves in that narrative because everything, including concepts, imagined worlds feel too new to a new era of audience. There will always be people who wants stories to be told without the highest of quality in any element of filmmaking, visual effects exist to tell the unimaginable, whether to make it look realistic or ridiculous, they have become versatile in easily evoke real human responses, we could be looking at a horned creature who can walk, a flying unicorn, flying cars in supersonic speed or robots who live among us, we can still feel fear, joy and confused witnessing these fictional entities tell their story, the audience realising the work being done to have these grand effects put to screen adds another layer of interpretation in the purpose of why a scene can be iconic, a world can be captivating, a character we can look back the old DVDs and relate to. It takes time to tell a good story, as it is to watch the power of visual effects grow.