io9 recently ran an article entitled, "Does CGI Ruin Movies?" that really got me "grinding my gears", as Peter Griffin would say. I wouldn't say that CGI necessarily ruins movies, but even 16 years after Jurassic Park, there are still some serious flaws in the technology that movie makers either don't realize or don't address.
The above article claims that CGI has a tendency to turn movies into nothing more than special effects spectacles, more so than movies from the old days with practical effects. I disagree; there were plenty of crappy visual effects spectacles back then, and the ratio of truly great special effecty movies to crappy special effecty movies is probably very much the same as it is today. It's difficult to say that a movie like Big Trouble in Little China, despite the fact that it's entertaining, is anything more than a shallow visual spectacle.
io9 also says that CGI movies lack an element of chaos. In other words, reality has a certain degree of randomness that is either difficult or impossible to create in the computer. I agree with that; CGI grass can't move like real grass because each blade of real grass is an individual with variations in size, color, flexibility, etc. that would be impossible for CGI to replicate. While this is an inherent flaw, I believe the primary problems with CGI are as follows:
Character/Environment Designs
Since filmmakers don't have to worry about physically building anything with CGI, they can go hog wild with character and environment designs. But because of this, the designs are often inherently unrealistic. How many movies have those spindly aliens/robots that can't possibly exist in reality without snapping like twigs? The Star Wars prequels are lousy with them, and it looks like the Avatar Thundersmurfs follow suit. And the robots in the Transformers movies are so insanely complicated that, no matter how cool they look, they have a feel of impossibility to them.
That goes for environment designs, too. The floating islands in Avatar are perfect examples of something that probably looked cool on paper but is so totally unrealistic that when you see it on screen it takes you out of the moment.
Character Performances
Since the animators can control everything about a CGI element, they tend to animate in a manner inconsistent with reality. This was true back in the days of the Star Wars prequels as every inch of Boss Nass' face moves when he talks, and it's still true today with movies like Transformers. When Bumblebee transforms, it's like every little part folds into itself and back again. And if you compare a shot of Bumblebee as a robot with the car he's supposed to transform into, you can see that the parts of the robot and the parts of the car can't possibly reconcile each other. There's no way for that robot to turn into that car, so the animators flub the transformation process... further removing reality from the special effect.
CGI Resolution
Blu-rays have the most resolution of any form of home entertainment at 1080p, but since the resolution of real 35mm film exceeds even that, some quality is lost in the transition. Something similar might happen with creating CGI effects for a movie. Since you're taking film elements and transferring them into the computer, I think there's a image resolution bottleneck in which the film elements are compressed. Digital film cameras might have a lower resolution than 35mm film cameras too, which might explain why a movie shot entirely with digital cameras like Revenge of the Sith looks cartoony compared with a movie shot on "real" film, like Wrath of Khan.
I'm not entirely sure about that because I can't find reliable numbers on the different resolutions. But it looks like a plausible explanation to me.
Overall, CGI effects aren't inherently bad and the technology does open up a lot of possibilities for storytelling that movie makers never had in the old days. But it's not a catch-all, and those movie makers who rely too much on CGI are missing out on the possibilities for creating a truly engaging and engrossing special effects experience.
Update 12/11/2009: If you're having trouble seeing the grotesquely over-designed Optimus Prime in the above image, here's a copy of the pic with some explanatory labels.
5 out of 5 - Simply incredible!
4 out of 5 - Pretty awesome!
3 out of 5 - Cool enough, I suppose.
2 out of 5 - Not quite good enough.
1 out of 5 - Pretty horrific!
0 out of 5 - No redeeming quality at all.
10 comments:
I have to admit I've grown more demanding with age. Perhaps a few years ago a movie like Transformers would have been OK with me, now I hate it. SO much I didn't even saw the second one (and I do film reviews for a living...)
I think now that almost everything is possible on screen, is important not to loose sight of the story. Probably if the effects cover the story of a film, that story wasn't that interesting anyway.
That's why District 9 is different, you can like it or not, but at least is a movie instead of a parade of pointless action sequences with big explosions and a nice ass to hide the fact that you have nothing to say (here's looking at you, Michael Bay).
In a personal note, I disagree with the Big Trouble in Little China that movie is awesome, and not only filled with visual effects, it has martial arts and muppetts too...
CGI can ruin movies, but doesn't ruin all movies in general. I can think of quite a few old movies that I thought were awesome when they first came out due to the CGI involved. But when I see these films again, I can't believe how cheesy these graphics look. E: Jurassic Park
However, despite the growing technology of CGI. They still aren't able to pull the cheesy out. CGI is great for static objects, but once these models start to move it's a whole new ball game. The biggest problem I see with CG in films is that, as you mention about grass, that the real elements in the films always clash with the CG elements. That's why 100% CGI films are superior to films that feature CGI effects or character models for action scenes...or transformers. The main issue is with movement. The CG animators get all super into the animation process, and tend to over-animate, or set up script movements that are 100% rehearsed to the point that motion is perfectly reflected on the character models. The natural flow of the figure is lost. Where as real actors have different takes every scene till they get it right. Once the animators get the CG right they don't tend to mess with it anymore. Unless some minor or major scene with the real actors conflicts directly with the CG.
It's basically like taking a scene from an old movie, and trying to direct a new scene to tie in with the old scene. Despite all attempts something won't connect right from one frame to the other.
Hope that makes sense. You can see plenty of examples to what I'm saying in ROTS. Such as when the Nurse bot hands the babies over to Obi-Wan, or when Clone Commander Cody is discussing plans and his CG body has difficulty flawlessly staying in motion with the actors head.
However a Few great fully CG films would be in my opinion Final Fantasy IV: Advent Children (just for great Human Models alone) And Appleseed Ex Machina (For cool affects and motion).
First thing that came to mind when I saw the title: Dreamscape.
I was watching Dreamscape earlier this week, and some of the effects in that are HORRIBLE. Not the effects themselves, mind you, which are a nicely done stop-motion animation snakeman and some rotoscoping during the transformations, but the way they are blended to the live-action film they are supposed to sync with.
The section with the snakeman is brighter than the section of film that contains Dennis Quaid, so it instantly looks wrong. They clearly are not in frame together.
Now, as a kid, I don't remember noticing that. But I remember being scared &$^%*@ by the snakeman.
Which leads me to my point - I would love to see a good cross-section of people, by age, and their thoughts on CGI. I think it is mostly people who KNOW that it is inherently fake that are bothered by it.
We know that Falcor from the Neverending Story is fake, but he is believable because there was actually something on the screen. (NES is another movie with some really bad fx compositions between miniatures and real people/places). Jabba the Hutt looks fake in the redone ANH because we can't reconcile the fact that we know that it can't be that way - we saw him live-action.
Which leads me to my final point - the biggest problems with CGI is that it depicts things which generally are not real and could not exist, so mentally, us'uns who are in our thirties (my easiest cross-section, as I have had this discussion with many people in this age bracket) and above just can't reconcile it. That leads into the nitpicky thoughts about spindly robots and 4000lb creatures slithering across the screen - they don't exist, so we cannot process them correctly.
I think that a few generations from now, CGI will be completely accepted as a style, with only really old uses complaining that we want to go back to the days of Puppetmaster and the Dark Crystal (original).
I don't understand how so many people can love the original 3 episodes of "Star Wars" and hate the newer 3 when they're all so similar.
Anyway, lousy movies are the result of lousy filmmakers and the people who keep giving them money. C.G.I. is just a tool, like any other.
What's the point of that picture above?
Some destroyed buildings and a pile of... is that...scrap metal?
A dump? Some sort of machine?
Hmm, it's titled 'prime', so I guess it's from the last (hopefully) Transformers movie?
Wait a sec...Oh I see it now. I guess that's "Optimus Prime" then...?
John - I think you make a good point about age groups. Maybe I accept the fakeness of the old effects because that's what I grew up on, but I then find the fakeness of CGI as too distracting. Whereas, a young-un might think that CGI effects are perfectly fine because that's what he/she expects for special effects.
Lee - I'm not sure if I would say I hate the prequels, or if I'm just sick and tired of them. The reasons why I'm not such a fan of the prequels are for a future rant. But I think Scumdogg over at the Little Rubber Guys forums put it nicely when he said that everything in the SW prequels are just crappier versions of the same elements in the OT. So, Grievous is a crappier version of Vader, a Battle Droid is a crappier version of a Stormtroopers, etc.
Ian - Yup, that's a screen shot of Optimus Prime from the TF2 trailer. I can understand your confusion. In fact, that screenshot above is probably the perfect image to accompany this rant. It's a perfect example of overanimation; Prime is so abstract and there's so much going on with his design that it's difficult to readily discern recognizable features like a face and a head.
Sorry Nathan, but are you sure? I can't see Optimus Prime at all... Maybe is one of those pictures that will reveal itself after you look for long enough... I'll try that...
(20 minutes later) Nope, I stared at it for 20 minutes and I swallowed some LSD and still can't see Optimus Prime... Damn!
:D It's awesome that people are having such trouble seeing Prime in that pic! I added a labelled pic above that will hopefully help.
I think Freak is kidding.
I just thought that Transformers were powered by magic, that is why they don't have to explain their stupid movie transformations.
Post a Comment
Having trouble using the comment form below? Try the Full Page Form.