Maybe if Hollywood gets over its stupid CGI fetish and again starts making movies instead of computer cartoons, I might actually go to the movies again
someday.
<< The return of the real fake
Blockbuster directors, Spielberg among them, say they're tired of digital effects - they're going back to old-style props, models and stunts. Is this the end for CGI? By Ravi Somaiya
Friday May 23, 2008
The Guardian
You may have noticed some internet excitement around the new Indiana Jones film. Most of the clamour comes from fans who can't wait to see their hero return, bullwhip in hand. But take a closer look and you'll see an unexpected theme developing among the excitement. It seems that devotees of the original trilogy are upset at Steven Spielberg and George Lucas having used computer-generated images - despite assurances from Spielberg that he was "making as much of this movie practical magic rather than digital magic".
There's an increasing feeling that CGI, which promised so much, is looking increasingly clunky these days, that sophisticated audiences can see the joins and spot the jerky movements, and that these failings are cheapening the cinema experience. What began as a grumble about the CGI-heavy Star Wars prequels looking worse than the original trilogy has metamorphosed into full-grown irritation with the notion that computer wizardry is enough to make a film. It's easy to see why: was Deep Blue Sea any scarier than Jaws? Would ET have been as cute if he'd existed on a hard drive rather than as a model? The first leaked review of the new Indy film, on the Ain't It Cool News website, crystallised the feeling: "The fake stuff doesn't mix with the real stuff at all."
And it's not just fans who are sick of implausible and plasticky CGI. Gil Taylor was the cinematographer on the first Star Wars back in 1977. In fact, he's the man who made the lightsaber glow. "It was very do-it-yourself," he says. "The lightsabers were just triangular bits of wood which were covered in reflective material that I projected a spotlight on to. They've gone over to digital now, which I never used and I don't believe in. Personally, I'm incredibly bored with those effects; they've taken over everything."
Christopher Nolan, the director behind Batman Begins and its eagerly anticipated sequel, The Dark Knight (out on July 25), told one interviewer that he thinks modern blockbusters are "more and more like animation films or video games". He has very publicly returned to using mostly props, models of sets, camera movements, pyrotechnics and plain old stuntmen to give his films their bang. JJ Abrams, the creator of Lost, has also gone so far as to reassure worried fans that the new Star Trek film he's directing won't rely too much on the power of silicon chips. Even those behind the digital effects sometimes balk at what appears on the big screen. "You can use CG too much," says Dafydd Morris, a computer animator who recently worked on The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. "There's no need to green-screen everything."
One telling factor in the attitudes of Nolan and Abrams could be their ages: Nolan is 37, Abrams 41. "They grew up watching films of the 80s or the 'golden age' of creature effects like Terminator, Aliens or The Thing, and miss the tactile reality they had," suggests Oscar-nominated effects artist Alec Gillis. "These directors want audiences to have a lifelike experience, not a video-game sensory assault. They want stuntmen daring to risk their lives, full-scale buildings being blown up, totally convincing miniatures rocketing through the sky. CG often gives a physics-defying, over-nuanced, pristine-ness that defies our primal knowledge of reality. Christopher Nolan wants us to believe." Gillis is feeling the benefits of those attitudes - his skills are back in demand and he's working on X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the prequel to the X-Men series.
For Star Trek, Abrams hired Rob Burman, whose family has been in the effects business since his grandfather helped create Wolfman in 1931. "CGI had become more than just a tool over the past few years," Burman says, "but now everyone is getting used to the toy and beginning to see the limitations of it. It takes you out of the grounding of the film. If you watch the Spider-Man movies, it's great swinging through the city from his point of view, but you don't have the thrill of knowing it's a real guy doing these things. It can look utterly believable, but if what you're watching is beyond possibility, it's hard to suspend your disbelief. You want people to go to the movie and get lost in it. If you start thinking, 'Oh, that was fake,' then you're automatically back in a seat in a theatre."
He thinks that the kind of puppets and creatures he provides are better on set as well as in the cinema. "Having something practical there helps everyone involved," he says. "Actors don't have to focus on a green tennis ball on a stick and pretend it's this big monster or character." Which perhaps explains why otherwise good actors such as Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson often looked perplexed and wooden in the entirely green-screen Star Wars prequels. "It even helps the editing and it helps the framing of the shot to have a literal 3D object in front of the camera," adds Burman. "Everything is much simpler."
It may be simpler, but it's not cheaper. Even JJ Abrams has admitted that it's impossible to build sets for everything on his Star Trek movie because it would cost too much. "If you want a big cityscape," says Morris, "it's much cheaper to do it in CG than build it physically. And it means you can move the camera anywhere and do whatever you want. The technology is getting to the point where you can do almost anything."
Does he ever watch films and cringe at bad computer effects? "Yes, quite a lot. But to be honest, it can be the fault of the production design as well - CG houses don't do the designs; we're given drawings to work from. If the ideas for the design and the costumes are a bit all over the place, that means it looks bad, even if it's fine technically." Morris thinks director Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) is an example of someone who uses the technology well. "The first thing he's doing is looking at the story, then using CG where he has to, to move it along or build tension. Every piece helps the storyline."
Not everyone agrees that computers should be used sparingly. James Cameron pioneered widespread use of CGI in films such as The Abyss and Terminator 2, as well as helping to push it into overuse with Titanic. He's now working on a 3D project called Avatar, starring Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez and Giovanni Ribisi. The film, about American soldiers at war on an alien planet, will be 60% digital and 40% live action; a ratio reflected in the fact that it needs a whole two years in post-production. A well-placed source on the project, who didn't want to be named, says Avatar advances the technology to the point where even cynics and fans weary of fake-looking effects will be converted.
"The stuff that we are currently working on is completely groundbreaking, to the point of the technology being discovered and refined as we go along. It will look like nothing you have seen before," he says. It's being filmed in a studio with hundreds of cameras in the ceiling. Cameron can "view the action from any imaginable distance, point of view or speed."
He admits that "the downside is the amount of manpower and time it still takes to execute - these are early days, and to do something digital well takes a lot of work and painstaking attention to detail, and that is why you see so much bad CGI." But he still compares the advances Cameron and his team are making "to the silent era on the verge of sound. I believe there is about to be an explosion of the perfectly executed unbelievable."
Practical effects guru Alec Gillis doesn't agree. "At best CG is a moving painting. It can be beautiful, stylised and dynamic, but it still is not reality. It is a powerful tool, but it's only a tool, and should be used wisely, judiciously, over a foundation of practical effects. Nothing beats the real thing." <
<< The return of the real fake
Blockbuster directors, Spielberg among them, say they're tired of digital effects - they're going back to old-style props, models and stunts. Is this the end for CGI? By Ravi Somaiya
Friday May 23, 2008
The Guardian
You may have noticed some internet excitement around the new Indiana Jones film. Most of the clamour comes from fans who can't wait to see their hero return, bullwhip in hand. But take a closer look and you'll see an unexpected theme developing among the excitement. It seems that devotees of the original trilogy are upset at Steven Spielberg and George Lucas having used computer-generated images - despite assurances from Spielberg that he was "making as much of this movie practical magic rather than digital magic".
There's an increasing feeling that CGI, which promised so much, is looking increasingly clunky these days, that sophisticated audiences can see the joins and spot the jerky movements, and that these failings are cheapening the cinema experience. What began as a grumble about the CGI-heavy Star Wars prequels looking worse than the original trilogy has metamorphosed into full-grown irritation with the notion that computer wizardry is enough to make a film. It's easy to see why: was Deep Blue Sea any scarier than Jaws? Would ET have been as cute if he'd existed on a hard drive rather than as a model? The first leaked review of the new Indy film, on the Ain't It Cool News website, crystallised the feeling: "The fake stuff doesn't mix with the real stuff at all."
And it's not just fans who are sick of implausible and plasticky CGI. Gil Taylor was the cinematographer on the first Star Wars back in 1977. In fact, he's the man who made the lightsaber glow. "It was very do-it-yourself," he says. "The lightsabers were just triangular bits of wood which were covered in reflective material that I projected a spotlight on to. They've gone over to digital now, which I never used and I don't believe in. Personally, I'm incredibly bored with those effects; they've taken over everything."
Christopher Nolan, the director behind Batman Begins and its eagerly anticipated sequel, The Dark Knight (out on July 25), told one interviewer that he thinks modern blockbusters are "more and more like animation films or video games". He has very publicly returned to using mostly props, models of sets, camera movements, pyrotechnics and plain old stuntmen to give his films their bang. JJ Abrams, the creator of Lost, has also gone so far as to reassure worried fans that the new Star Trek film he's directing won't rely too much on the power of silicon chips. Even those behind the digital effects sometimes balk at what appears on the big screen. "You can use CG too much," says Dafydd Morris, a computer animator who recently worked on The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. "There's no need to green-screen everything."
One telling factor in the attitudes of Nolan and Abrams could be their ages: Nolan is 37, Abrams 41. "They grew up watching films of the 80s or the 'golden age' of creature effects like Terminator, Aliens or The Thing, and miss the tactile reality they had," suggests Oscar-nominated effects artist Alec Gillis. "These directors want audiences to have a lifelike experience, not a video-game sensory assault. They want stuntmen daring to risk their lives, full-scale buildings being blown up, totally convincing miniatures rocketing through the sky. CG often gives a physics-defying, over-nuanced, pristine-ness that defies our primal knowledge of reality. Christopher Nolan wants us to believe." Gillis is feeling the benefits of those attitudes - his skills are back in demand and he's working on X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the prequel to the X-Men series.
For Star Trek, Abrams hired Rob Burman, whose family has been in the effects business since his grandfather helped create Wolfman in 1931. "CGI had become more than just a tool over the past few years," Burman says, "but now everyone is getting used to the toy and beginning to see the limitations of it. It takes you out of the grounding of the film. If you watch the Spider-Man movies, it's great swinging through the city from his point of view, but you don't have the thrill of knowing it's a real guy doing these things. It can look utterly believable, but if what you're watching is beyond possibility, it's hard to suspend your disbelief. You want people to go to the movie and get lost in it. If you start thinking, 'Oh, that was fake,' then you're automatically back in a seat in a theatre."
He thinks that the kind of puppets and creatures he provides are better on set as well as in the cinema. "Having something practical there helps everyone involved," he says. "Actors don't have to focus on a green tennis ball on a stick and pretend it's this big monster or character." Which perhaps explains why otherwise good actors such as Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson often looked perplexed and wooden in the entirely green-screen Star Wars prequels. "It even helps the editing and it helps the framing of the shot to have a literal 3D object in front of the camera," adds Burman. "Everything is much simpler."
It may be simpler, but it's not cheaper. Even JJ Abrams has admitted that it's impossible to build sets for everything on his Star Trek movie because it would cost too much. "If you want a big cityscape," says Morris, "it's much cheaper to do it in CG than build it physically. And it means you can move the camera anywhere and do whatever you want. The technology is getting to the point where you can do almost anything."
Does he ever watch films and cringe at bad computer effects? "Yes, quite a lot. But to be honest, it can be the fault of the production design as well - CG houses don't do the designs; we're given drawings to work from. If the ideas for the design and the costumes are a bit all over the place, that means it looks bad, even if it's fine technically." Morris thinks director Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) is an example of someone who uses the technology well. "The first thing he's doing is looking at the story, then using CG where he has to, to move it along or build tension. Every piece helps the storyline."
Not everyone agrees that computers should be used sparingly. James Cameron pioneered widespread use of CGI in films such as The Abyss and Terminator 2, as well as helping to push it into overuse with Titanic. He's now working on a 3D project called Avatar, starring Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez and Giovanni Ribisi. The film, about American soldiers at war on an alien planet, will be 60% digital and 40% live action; a ratio reflected in the fact that it needs a whole two years in post-production. A well-placed source on the project, who didn't want to be named, says Avatar advances the technology to the point where even cynics and fans weary of fake-looking effects will be converted.
"The stuff that we are currently working on is completely groundbreaking, to the point of the technology being discovered and refined as we go along. It will look like nothing you have seen before," he says. It's being filmed in a studio with hundreds of cameras in the ceiling. Cameron can "view the action from any imaginable distance, point of view or speed."
He admits that "the downside is the amount of manpower and time it still takes to execute - these are early days, and to do something digital well takes a lot of work and painstaking attention to detail, and that is why you see so much bad CGI." But he still compares the advances Cameron and his team are making "to the silent era on the verge of sound. I believe there is about to be an explosion of the perfectly executed unbelievable."
Practical effects guru Alec Gillis doesn't agree. "At best CG is a moving painting. It can be beautiful, stylised and dynamic, but it still is not reality. It is a powerful tool, but it's only a tool, and should be used wisely, judiciously, over a foundation of practical effects. Nothing beats the real thing." <
