I thought I’d share a CG (Computer Generated) 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 didn’t 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 enhancedby 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. As the novelty of CG wears off, directors seem to 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), one should use CG to enhance movies and not be the reason FOR the movie.
