Wednesday, September 01, 2004
The future's so bright, I'm gonna need shades
Godzilla: Final Wars update! Remember the American Godzilla movie? You know, the one that sucked? When it came out, a lot of people noted that it wouldn't be that bad of a cheesy monster movie, if only they hadn't slapped the Godzilla label onto it. Because I know Godzilla, I've worked with Godzilla, and you, sir, are no Godzilla! How many among us prayed to the Gods of Monster Isle that the real G would show up and atomic blast that iguanian wannabe into oblivion? Lo, six years later, our prayers are answered! As if this movie wasn't already a fanboy's dream come true. So, apparently they're calling the US monster "Zilla" (because it is unworthy of the deity prefix)--goofy, but I dig it. Also, the quote, "I want to overwhelm the American Godzilla (which is a symbol of CG) with the Japanese technique of suitmation" brings a tear to this old monster lover's eye. CGI: we hates it! I should qualify that statement. I do not, outright, hate the use of computer imagery in movie special effects. Far from it--computer effects have gone a long way towards making modern movies so spectacular. But I am continually saddened by those who view CGI as some sort of FX panacea, the go-to technique for anything that a human actor can't handle. Let's look back at Jurassic Park, definitely one of my favorite films and one that made judicious use of CGI. Jurassic Park really put CGI on the map. Sure, it had been done extensively before (e.g. The Abyss), but never as impressively or on such a scale. And it was only following Jurassic Park that the CGI "craze" in movies got started. But people forget the key phrase "judicious use" in describing why Jurassic Park looked so good. In that movie, computer effects were only use when there was no other option. There are some things that puppets, people in suits, and models simply cannot do (like showing a running herd of Gallimimus, for instance). But when you start using CGI for all the things that puppets, et al., CAN do, you start to notice that it just doesn't look as real. Too glossy, too slick, and often with a blatant disregard for the laws of physics. The all-time worst offender for "bad use of CGI" occurs in Dungeons and Dragons, where a dragon gets squashed under a gate and we see its blood run down the staircase. CGI blood, looking so fake you can almost see the pixellation. Come now! How hard is it to take any of the classic theatrical blood substitutes (or even cow's blood, go nuts) and pour them down a staircase?!? That sort of egregious overuse of computer effects is completely uncalled for. Furthermore, because you can "do anything" with CGI, I believe older, but no less important, effects techniques have suffered developmental retardation. Look at the huge advances in animatronic technology that were being made in the '80s. Jim Henson Creature Shop was out-of-control with effects prowess. Now that technology has hit a plateau phase, but not, I would argue, because it has reached its possible apogee, but because there has been no call for further development when CGI is much cheaper and easier. The "cheaper and easier" line has, of course, made big waves in the B-movie world, much to my chagrin. All the bargain basement Nu-Image and UFO Entertainment killer animal movies coming out with their blurry computer critters just don't hold a candle to the screwball fun of some guy in a suit. With that in mind, I salute the makers of such films as Arachnia and Ice Crawlers, who prove that zero-budget monster movies can still have a little class. At the other end of the stick, I must also recognize those films where CGI has been used to its fullest potential, while staying within reason. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is the clear example here. You just can't make a 10,000-orc army or a balrog, a being composed entirely of smoke and fire, look believable with traditional effects. Here you need CGI, and by golly, it was amazing. Similarly, to stay true to the emaciated wretch described in the books, you can't really get a suited actor to play Gollum. I'd say the film Gollum represents the high-water mark for CGI, but a lot of that comes from the fact that he wasn't just a computer image--use of a motion capture suit allowed the mechanics of human motion to be taken into account. If only other filmmakers could learn from this example, rather than taking away all the wrong lessons as was done with Jurassic Park.
To the above statements I would append complaints about major production companies talking about closing down their cel animation houses in favor of pure computer animation, but I'm about ranted out, and I think that the last few chunks of horse gristle here have finally been beat into oblivion. Perhaps another day.
Godzilla: Final Wars update! Remember the American Godzilla movie? You know, the one that sucked? When it came out, a lot of people noted that it wouldn't be that bad of a cheesy monster movie, if only they hadn't slapped the Godzilla label onto it. Because I know Godzilla, I've worked with Godzilla, and you, sir, are no Godzilla! How many among us prayed to the Gods of Monster Isle that the real G would show up and atomic blast that iguanian wannabe into oblivion? Lo, six years later, our prayers are answered! As if this movie wasn't already a fanboy's dream come true. So, apparently they're calling the US monster "Zilla" (because it is unworthy of the deity prefix)--goofy, but I dig it. Also, the quote, "I want to overwhelm the American Godzilla (which is a symbol of CG) with the Japanese technique of suitmation" brings a tear to this old monster lover's eye. CGI: we hates it! I should qualify that statement. I do not, outright, hate the use of computer imagery in movie special effects. Far from it--computer effects have gone a long way towards making modern movies so spectacular. But I am continually saddened by those who view CGI as some sort of FX panacea, the go-to technique for anything that a human actor can't handle. Let's look back at Jurassic Park, definitely one of my favorite films and one that made judicious use of CGI. Jurassic Park really put CGI on the map. Sure, it had been done extensively before (e.g. The Abyss), but never as impressively or on such a scale. And it was only following Jurassic Park that the CGI "craze" in movies got started. But people forget the key phrase "judicious use" in describing why Jurassic Park looked so good. In that movie, computer effects were only use when there was no other option. There are some things that puppets, people in suits, and models simply cannot do (like showing a running herd of Gallimimus, for instance). But when you start using CGI for all the things that puppets, et al., CAN do, you start to notice that it just doesn't look as real. Too glossy, too slick, and often with a blatant disregard for the laws of physics. The all-time worst offender for "bad use of CGI" occurs in Dungeons and Dragons, where a dragon gets squashed under a gate and we see its blood run down the staircase. CGI blood, looking so fake you can almost see the pixellation. Come now! How hard is it to take any of the classic theatrical blood substitutes (or even cow's blood, go nuts) and pour them down a staircase?!? That sort of egregious overuse of computer effects is completely uncalled for. Furthermore, because you can "do anything" with CGI, I believe older, but no less important, effects techniques have suffered developmental retardation. Look at the huge advances in animatronic technology that were being made in the '80s. Jim Henson Creature Shop was out-of-control with effects prowess. Now that technology has hit a plateau phase, but not, I would argue, because it has reached its possible apogee, but because there has been no call for further development when CGI is much cheaper and easier. The "cheaper and easier" line has, of course, made big waves in the B-movie world, much to my chagrin. All the bargain basement Nu-Image and UFO Entertainment killer animal movies coming out with their blurry computer critters just don't hold a candle to the screwball fun of some guy in a suit. With that in mind, I salute the makers of such films as Arachnia and Ice Crawlers, who prove that zero-budget monster movies can still have a little class. At the other end of the stick, I must also recognize those films where CGI has been used to its fullest potential, while staying within reason. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is the clear example here. You just can't make a 10,000-orc army or a balrog, a being composed entirely of smoke and fire, look believable with traditional effects. Here you need CGI, and by golly, it was amazing. Similarly, to stay true to the emaciated wretch described in the books, you can't really get a suited actor to play Gollum. I'd say the film Gollum represents the high-water mark for CGI, but a lot of that comes from the fact that he wasn't just a computer image--use of a motion capture suit allowed the mechanics of human motion to be taken into account. If only other filmmakers could learn from this example, rather than taking away all the wrong lessons as was done with Jurassic Park.
To the above statements I would append complaints about major production companies talking about closing down their cel animation houses in favor of pure computer animation, but I'm about ranted out, and I think that the last few chunks of horse gristle here have finally been beat into oblivion. Perhaps another day.
Comments:
Post a Comment
