Yuku free message boards

If the illusion of reality is the highest level of SPFX works, and most movies fail in this regard, is there any SPFX artist who actually succeeded? I'd nominate Albert Whitlock, the matte artist, as one who often achieved reality.

Whitlock worked on a number of Hitchcock films as well as dozens of other films shot at Universal. Some of his effects pass without drawing any attention to themselves while others, by the nature of what they depict, must be effects shot but are breathtaking in the beauty of their execution. Whitlock did a number of matte painting for TORN CURTAIN which passed unnoticed.

Whitlock pulled off this same trick in the movie EARTHQUAKE, providing obvious effects like depictions of a ravaged Los Angeles complete with smoking ruins. Since we know that this never happened to L.A. we know that these must be special effects shots. On the other hand, much of the pre-earthquake scenes were shot on the Universal backlot. Here, Whitlock was asked to provide matte paintings of the Hollywood hills or paint in telephone poles and mailboxes to mask objects that would destroy the illusion of reality. These effects also pass for real.

In another film, THE HINDENBURG, Whitlock provides a huge array of matte painting to help recreate the time period and to provide the German dirigible itself. While some shots utilize a miniature Hindenburg, there is one spectacular shot of the airship passing over New York City that is composed entirely of matte composites, including a painting of the Hindenburg itself that is given motion by animating the sheet of glass on which it is rendered. This shot, despite its awesome, breathtaking beauty and complexity, betrays itself as an effects shot because of its impossibility. There is no Hindenburg to be flown over NYC nor could a camera be locked off in the sky to capture such an event.

Who are the other nominees for SPFX artists who achieved the illusion of reality?

This is a great topic ... with no easy answers!

To me, when the effects enhance the "feel" of the film, they're successful, whether they look "realistic" or not. Godzilla looking too real takes the fun out of it. I can appreciate both the Japanese approach of giving you LOTS of (maybe not convincing - but beautiful and intricate) effects - vs. the Hollywood approach of maybe making you wait an hour before seeing the "big bug" but making sure the mattes were all perfectly aligned and flawless in the few moments you did get.

Part of the problem too is the level of public awareness of how the illusions are accomplished. I doubt your average moviegoer in 1958 could explain a "matte shot". Every 12 year old knows what "CGI" is now...and posts his opinion about it on the Internet.

Godzilla looking too real takes the fun out of it

I agree with this statement. When I watch the old stop motion creatures they actually seem more frightening than today's ultra realistic CGI monsters. I can't really explain why, but it probably has something to do with the fantasy/dreamlike quality that stop motion creates. Kong's bristling fur is still really creepy looking even if it was an accidental effect of handling the puppet.

I wonder, too, if it doesn't have something to do with stop motion animating a puppet, giving it motion and apparent life, and yet it not quite looking "right." The "jerkiness" that some people complain of, strobing actually, gives stop motion a clockwork mechanism aspect. As you say, stop motion has a dreamy quality to it, not quite real, but alive anyway.

Many CGI creatures I've seen don't appear to have weight compared to their mass. And they often aren't convincingly integrated into the shot. The result is that they look like they're pasted into the shot.

The other night Arch Stanton held another of his weekly Monster Kid Meetings. If you don't follow his postings on these meetings (available two folders down in "Off Topic Discussions" in the "Movie Nights" thread) then all you really need to know is that a group of us, dubbed by one member the Monster Kid Movie Maniacs of North Texas, meet and watch the sort of films the members of this board love. Anyways, this past weekend we watched the 1976 KING KONG.

Dino de Laurentiis' film had a ton of money poured into it and it was a colossal hit upon release. His production, through Paramount, competed with another Kong film that Universal wanted to shoot. Dino's version prevailed and Universal dropped out. What that Universal movie might have been like will forever remain a mystery, a big budget remake featuring stop motion animation (ala' the original KONG) by master animator Jim Danforth. Dino's venture settled on Suitmation, the process so successfully employed by Eiji Tsuburaya in Toho Studios' films. So, how does it look now, 32 years later?

First, one cannot fault Rick Baker's Kong suit. It's very well made and looks terrific. Nor can one discredit Baker's acting. As with the Toho films, the actor inside the suit creates the personality. As Arch mentions in his posts, the eyes are particularly expressive and lend a greater depth to the reality of this creation. Baker is let down, though, in most every other way by the other effects in the movie.

Whereas Toho put an emphasis on greatly detailed miniatures, whether they be buildings, landscapes, or various forms of transport, and used these magnificent models to create a sense of scale for their monsters, this version of KONG generally fails to create this sense of scale in the earlier moments of the film, often photographing Kong against nondescript backgrounds. The scene in which Kong enters his lair, what looks like the remains of a once active volcano, do not create a sense of Kong's size, rather looking like just a bunch of boulders and such.

Another technique familiar to not just Toho but most FX technicians shooting Suitmation and/or miniatures is the use of high speed photography to visually sell the idea of great mass and size. Some call this slow motion photography and it does slow down the movements of the actor in the suit to an approximate and appropriate speed indicating a creature of enormous size and weight. Baker is given little help here as most of his footage is shot normally. It's not until Kong destroys the massive gates that keep him captive and then falls into the pit filled with chloroform that we begin to see the photographic style that usually works quite successfully.

As everyone knows, this version of KONG, unlike the original or Peter Jackson's film, doesn't include dinosaurs, only a giant snake. Fake snakes are extremely hard to pull off due to their streamlined shape and complex movements. This one is fairly worthless and uninteresting until Kong rips his jaws apart.

The original KONG used an early matte process as well as macro and micro rear screen projection. The 1976 KONG substitutes the more sophisticated blue screen matte process which, theoretically allows for a much cleaner and more believeable melding of different film elements. The film's director, John Guillermin, had used this process quite extensively in an earlier film, THE BLUE MAX (1966), to graphically convey the spectacle of WWI aerial combat. Perhaps they were up against a release deadline but the matte work here is quite noticeable. The density of the plates is fine but all too often large black lines surround the foreground elements. Actually, the density of the plates isn't very good during the helicopter attack on Kong atop the World Trade Center. Not only is it poorly composited due to the movements of both the helicopters and the original taking cameras, but the background appears lighter, washed out in comparison to the deep, black shadows on Kong.

I should mention that there are some clever shots. There are several shots in which Dwan, held in the Carlo Rambaldi Kong hand, is composited into shots in which she must interact with Baker's Kong. Most of these shots look pretty good. There's a particularly good one, in my estimation, when Kong picks up Dwan and pulls her near to him, all in one relatively short shot. The Rambaldi hand and arm manipulations, combined with the tracking in on Baker's Kong, creates a successful illusion that Kong has raised Dwan closer for inspection.

Kong in the hold of the Petrox oil tanker is fairly good, too, except when the size of Dwan's scarf changes in size during its descent to Kong. From a normal sized scarf, it lands on Kong's chest about the size of a picnic blanket. Perhaps one of the best FX moments in the film occurs when Kong "blow dries" Dwan. What appears to be the Baker head convincingly puffs out his cheeks as he then blows on Dwan to dry her after a dip at the base of a waterfall. Very well done.

The less said about Carlo Rambaldi's full size Kong the better. In it's brief few seconds of screen time it in no way convinces us of being anything other than a huge, immobile "statue." Frankly, here in Dallas, Texas, during the State Fair, a similar giant, Big Tex, is about as convincing.

Final verdict: Baker's suit is the best in any Kong Suitmation film, his acting is a major contribution, and a few worthy shots are scattered here and there, but, in general, not up to the effects work in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA, KING KONG ESCAPES (which are hurt by the quality of their Kong suits) and KING KONG LIVES.

One of the key features in Battlestar is -- dare I say it -- the occasional zoom in and out on long-range shots of the fleet, and especially the very small raptors in comparision with the huge hulking Battlestar and other space liners.

For my money, this series uses CGI the way it's supposed to be used -- as time and place support for what is otherwise a character-driven sf drama.