CG, Or Not CG ... That Is The Question
Well, now that I am heading into the working world of computer animation and CG (hopefully), I thought I'd share a CG pet peeve of mine. Specifically that just because you CAN do a thing, does not mean you NEED to do a thing.
What do I mean by that? Well, it is my opinion that just because we do have the technology now to do many things in CG (heck, even entire movies) it does not mean that we should add CG whenever and wherever possible, particularly in the realm of live action movies.
The prime example of this can be found in Star Wars: Episode 1. Now that George Lucas has access to effects technology he previously did have on the original trilogy, he decided to go whole hog this time around and let his imagination run wild. In theory, this is fine for a filmmaker and allows him greater freedom in expressing his vision.
But let's look at the climactic battle scene at the end of Episode 1. In it you have two armies massing on the grassy plains of Naboo. HUGE armies that traditionally would have sent effects and make up people screaming for the hills. But now it can all be done in CG. Great. No problem, right?
Wrong.
In this battle you essentially have one CG army battling another CG army. Whether this point registers with the audience or not, on a very base level they can sense that something isn't quite right. They don't feel "drawn in" to the battle or feel empathy when a gungan dies.
In all previous Star Wars battles you have had Storm Troopers versus Ewoks, Tie Fighters versus X-wings, Imperial soldiers versus rebel defenders … stunt man versus stunt man. On a very visceral level, you know that is a person being flung in the air when an explosion goes off. You feel empathy towards the midget in the Ewok suit trying to wake his dead friend. You flinch when Jolly screams as his X-wing disintegrates around him. There is humanity mixed in with all the special effects.
But on the plains of Naboo, you have CG representations of characters that get shot, flung in the air, and generally die. But there is no visceral impact created by this carnage. You have Xeroxed, emotionless robots versus a race of people who all look like some guy a majority of the audience hates. You could have had CG refrigerators versus an army of CG Hitlers for all the emotional impact that scene brought.
Now , on the other end of the spectrum, let's look at a massive battle scene that is enhanced by the proper use of CG. The final battle in LOTR: Return of the King. You have Orcs versus Humans in a truly epic battle. In the long shots of the battlefield you have thousands and thousands of CG created troops. But the close up shots are of live actors. Characters you have a connection with along with actors in Orc makeup and stuntmen riding horses. Cut in with the sweeping, panoramic shots of the two waves of armies crashing together, you have shots of close up battle scenes. Stuntmen go flying, sword slams into shield, the real visceral "oomph" of battle is felt in a very visceral way through the combination of CG with gives the scene scope, and the use of live actors and stuntmen slamming into each other which gives the scene impact.
As I stated earlier, just because you can do a thing does not mean you should do a thing. Hopefully as the novelty of CG wears off, directors will use it as less of a crutch and more as a tool. Instead of replacing actors entirely (like the dismal failure that was the Final Fantasy movie), use CG to enhance movies and not be the reason FOR the movie.
What do I mean by that? Well, it is my opinion that just because we do have the technology now to do many things in CG (heck, even entire movies) it does not mean that we should add CG whenever and wherever possible, particularly in the realm of live action movies.
The prime example of this can be found in Star Wars: Episode 1. Now that George Lucas has access to effects technology he previously did have on the original trilogy, he decided to go whole hog this time around and let his imagination run wild. In theory, this is fine for a filmmaker and allows him greater freedom in expressing his vision.
But let's look at the climactic battle scene at the end of Episode 1. In it you have two armies massing on the grassy plains of Naboo. HUGE armies that traditionally would have sent effects and make up people screaming for the hills. But now it can all be done in CG. Great. No problem, right?
Wrong.
In this battle you essentially have one CG army battling another CG army. Whether this point registers with the audience or not, on a very base level they can sense that something isn't quite right. They don't feel "drawn in" to the battle or feel empathy when a gungan dies.
 Computer Generated |  And I Care Because...? |
In all previous Star Wars battles you have had Storm Troopers versus Ewoks, Tie Fighters versus X-wings, Imperial soldiers versus rebel defenders … stunt man versus stunt man. On a very visceral level, you know that is a person being flung in the air when an explosion goes off. You feel empathy towards the midget in the Ewok suit trying to wake his dead friend. You flinch when Jolly screams as his X-wing disintegrates around him. There is humanity mixed in with all the special effects.
But on the plains of Naboo, you have CG representations of characters that get shot, flung in the air, and generally die. But there is no visceral impact created by this carnage. You have Xeroxed, emotionless robots versus a race of people who all look like some guy a majority of the audience hates. You could have had CG refrigerators versus an army of CG Hitlers for all the emotional impact that scene brought.
Now , on the other end of the spectrum, let's look at a massive battle scene that is enhanced by the proper use of CG. The final battle in LOTR: Return of the King. You have Orcs versus Humans in a truly epic battle. In the long shots of the battlefield you have thousands and thousands of CG created troops. But the close up shots are of live actors. Characters you have a connection with along with actors in Orc makeup and stuntmen riding horses. Cut in with the sweeping, panoramic shots of the two waves of armies crashing together, you have shots of close up battle scenes. Stuntmen go flying, sword slams into shield, the real visceral "oomph" of battle is felt in a very visceral way through the combination of CG with gives the scene scope, and the use of live actors and stuntmen slamming into each other which gives the scene impact.
 Computer Generated |  Yay! Our Heroes! |
As I stated earlier, just because you can do a thing does not mean you should do a thing. Hopefully as the novelty of CG wears off, directors will use it as less of a crutch and more as a tool. Instead of replacing actors entirely (like the dismal failure that was the Final Fantasy movie), use CG to enhance movies and not be the reason FOR the movie.
posted by InkTank at
9:12 PM
14 Comments:
Good Lord, I like to say "viceral".
Yes. Yes you do. :P
Even so, I completely agree with you on these points... Not particularly much too add on it... Though the Final Fantasy movie might not have been a total dismal failure :P It was kinda funny to watch... For some FF addicts... maybe?
Final Fantasy was a failure mostly in the US for reasons unknown to me. If taken as a standalone (like all FF should be) it was actually pretty good. The surreal<->real look of the movie was well tied in with the surreal nature of the enemy
I don't think the reason you don't care about the fight at the end of EP1 is because of the CGs.
I think it's mainly because of the writing and character development.
We don't care about the gungans. Even if there were people in gungan suits, we still would not have cared.
There are CG movies that have been done very well and that stimulates emotional attachment. Just about any CG movie by Pixar is proof of that.
Personnally, I think George Lucas needs to have an assistant who can tell him flat out when what he does sucks.
When you're new into the realms of films, you can't just get away with anything that crosses your mind. If you don't allow people to challenge you (which is what I suspect happened), you end up with sub-par material.
George's latest installments are just very poorly written.
Notice how we don't care about the relation between Padme and Anakin as well? No CG there...
I very much enjoyed "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" and felt for the characters in the movie. As Eric said it was the writing and dare I say the DIRECTING that made it compelling. The visual setup of many of the shots drew you in and the way that the story flowed. Lucas has a bad habit of just abandoning a scene and moving on, often with a cheesy wipe effect. I don't think you can blame CG for lameness anymore than you could blame animation. I went to see The Iron Giant long ago in the theatre and I saw people choke up and cry at the scene near the end where the giant rockets skyward to save the town, eyes slowly closing and saying "superman" as he's destroyed. THAT is good cinema, good writing, good pacing and good DIRECTING.
totally agree with eric and polar_beer. The problem of the new SW movies isn't so much the CG as the bad directing of Mr. Lucas. You can create a connection to CG-created characters. Exhibit a: Basically most of the stuff Pixar produces shows that you can create sympathy for CG characters (remember those folks from "Monster Inc."? one of them wasn't even closely human (at least less than those gungans), and still we (I) cared about them). Exhibit b: You can even take pc-games as "proof", e.g. the animated sequences Blizzard creates. Take the ones from "Warcraft 3": Although they have (compared to films) very little "screen time" to establish the characters, you still can make the audience create a connection to them (personal favourite: the death scene of Hellscream after the orc campaign).
I agree absolutely with your statement, without the actual persons within the suits or just persons in general not even needing suits, the effects of a creature dying are lost on most audiences. Especially since, like you said, most of the audience wanted to see Jar Jar get blasted in the face!
The writing and directing heavily factors in as well though, and I completely forgot about that when I made my first comment. In truth, I enjoyed the FF movie as well, in retrospect... It may not have been top-notch, but it was definitely nice to watch... One cares about the characters and their problems. The new Star Wars trilogy simply glosses over the human aspects of the characters, leaving hollow shells of people... Which we don't care about.
the giant rockets skyward to save the town, eyes slowly closing and saying "superman" as he's destroyed.
I haven't seen that movie in years, and reading your comment brought that whole scene back to me. I nearly teared up just from the memory! Now THAT is a sign of a quality film!
Actually to comment on the 'Gungan Dying', after watching Episode 1 again, I recalled cheering whenever one fell in battle; "One less bugger that might *just* be annoying as Jar-Jar... why couldn't that have been Jar-Jar..."
Same here han_solo - I only saw about the last 80% of the movie, and only once, but reading that comment sends shivers through me. And what's more, the effect is repeatable! *shiver*
actually, in Lord of the Rings, it is more correct to say "stunt women riding horses" for the majority of the riders in the background and in the battle scenes were female New Zealand riders. A call was made to riders for the scenes and almost all of them were females... Just thought i'd put in my 2 cents.. however, very true. When you meantioned the Ewok waking the dead friend, it brought up sad memories of seeing that scene.
Case in point re: a CG character that can generate an actor's performance: Gollum from LotR.
Oh, wait. That IS an actor's performance. (But damn, the animators are good at what they do. Which is, of course, making it look like there are no animators involved.)
Movie: Simone
Post a Comment
<< Home