CGI is killing the art

[Dash X]

I've just read that MirrorMask, supposedly following the tradition of DC and The Labyrinth, will be a combination of live action and CG animation.

I don't know about anyone else, but that sent a shudder down my spine - not that i have anything against CGI in the hands of a master craftsman (Speilberg; Jurassic Park) - However am I wrong in thinking that part, if not most of the charm of DC and The Labyrinth was in its complex puppetry, animatronics, matte paintings and practical effects?

A good example to point out would be Yoda;
in The Empire Strikes Back, mesmorizing, magical and incredibly emotive
in Attack Of The Clones, a ridiculous video game reject

The creativity and craftmanship of practical, optical, and creature effects of movies such as the Star Wars Trilogy, Henson Productions, Ghostbusters, Back To The Future, ET, Roger Rabbit, Blade Runner etc - most of which are 20 - 25 years old, look far superior to CG movies from less than 5 years ago.

MirrorMask - continuation of a legacy, or final proof that the magic has died?

 

[AndyWan Kenobi]

I don't know--I'm of two minds about this. I disagree about CGI Yoday in Attack of the Clones--I thought they did terrific work with him. I do love practical effects, but there's also a lot that can be accomplished with CG that can't really be done in other ways. Also, in a lot of ways, CG animation is more like puppetry than it is like regular animation. Maybe CG is just an evolutionary step...

That being said, I do hope that practical puppetry and effects stick around. I know that for a number of effects in the Harry Potter movies, the directors have tried to use practical techniques as much as possible to create more of a magical world.

 

[scarylarrywolf]

I am totally in agreement with you, Dash. I have very strong feelings about the proper use of CGI. I have no problem with completely animated features -- I applaud Shrek and Monsters Inc., but in live action films I think it should be used only when all else fails -- not as a substitute for a quick and easy effect (i.e. Matrix Reloaded ). There's something about a tangible object (like a puppet) that computers just cannot reproduce. Jim Henson's insistance on using a puppet butterfly on a string in M3D is a good example of this.

The use of CGI is also cause for the waning of the creative photography of the past. For example, I saw the previews for Troy and cringed at the shot of the fleets. Those CG ships are just unbelieveable when the director takes time out of the movie to show you how much he or she can show you with our "new computer technology". I'll admit, I didn't see how the shot was used in the movie, but it turned me off in the previews. Spielberg's use of limitted footage of the shark in Jaws causes far more interest than it would have if his focus had been showing the action of the shark rather than the effects of it. Although these films are different genres, the fleet of Troy and the shark of Jaws are similar in their functions, namely to elicit a sense of forboding power. From what I've seen, Jaws was much more effective.

Also, I hated Yoda in Episode 2 -- his movement was completely off, and his speed and agility in that fight scene was absolutely ridiculous. I believe that CGI is just a modern form of the model stop animation of the past and kids in the next generation will look back on it and laugh at us for thinking it was so advanced.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

CGI is NOT killing the art

Don't believe the hype folks. Puppetry has been around in one form or another since the dawn of human civilization. It's mankind's oldest art form. At it's most basic CG is just another form of puppetry. I do completely agree that CG shouldn't be used just for the sake of CG, but it's vastly superior to animatronic puppetry in terms of what you can do with a character. I just saw "I, Robot" today and there is no way you could have done that film with animatronic robots.

A few more thoughts:

I've just read that MirrorMask, supposedly following the tradition of DC and The Labyrinth, will be a combination of live action and CG animation...I don't know about anyone else, but that sent a shudder down my spine

You know what? I'd wager that Dave McKean knows what he's doing. He's a very well respected artist. Mirrormask was intended to be a fantasy movie, but not necessarily a creature effects movie (though McKean and Neil Gaiman have been reportedly heavily influenced by Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal).

- not that i have anything against CGI in the hands of a master craftsman (Speilberg; Jurassic Park)

Spielburg is a master filmmaker, but not a master animator. Speilberg himself has said most of the credit for Jurassic Park's animation goes to Steve Williams and the rest of folks at ILM. Also, Jurassic Park was as much an animatronics FX movie as it was a CG film. Most people don't know that most of the footage of the Dinosaurs in the JP films is actually puppetry by Stan Winston's company. The genius of a guy like Spielburg is he gets people like ILM and Stan Winston and then trusts them to do their thing and realize his vision.

...However am I wrong in thinking that part, if not most of the charm of DC and The Labyrinth was in its complex puppetry, animatronics, matte paintings and practical effects?

Yup, you're right. But it's a style - and it's an expensive, technically limited style. Just like a marionette can't give as realistic peformance as, say, a Muppet style puppet animatronic puppets can't do everything a CG character can. Of course it would be silly to get rid of marionette theatre just because it has certain technical limitations - in the hands of someone like Ronnie Burkett it's an incredible artform. Animatronics isn't going away either.

Using puppets for the sake of puppets or CG for the sake of CG is the wrong way to go. Filmmakers should use what best enables them to tell their story. Being prejudiced against one technique or the other is like refusing to use a screwdriver because you love hammers. Silly, silly, silly.

One thing we're definately lacking these days is directors that have a proper understanding of both CG and puppetry and know how to use them appropriately.

A good example to point out would be Yoda;
in The Empire Strikes Back, mesmorizing, magical and incredibly emotive in Attack Of The Clones, a ridiculous video game reject

But what about Yoda in Episode I - Yoda as an ugly, unemotive freak? After the **** they went through to shoot Yoda in the original trilogy and the disappointing puppet in TPM it's no wonder Lucas went Digital. Frank Oz (who, let's face it ought to know a few more things about this than us) has praised the team that did Yoda for what they were able to achieve.

Granted, I do think that Yoda wasn't *quite* ready for prime time in episode II and Lucas tends to go overboard with CG too much (Jar Jar anyone?). Still, there's no way you could have done Yoda in that movie with conventional animatronic puppetry.

The creativity and craftmanship of practical, optical, and creature effects of movies such as the Star Wars Trilogy, Henson Productions, Ghostbusters, Back To The Future, ET, Roger Rabbit, Blade Runner etc - most of which are 20 - 25 years old, look far superior to CG movies from less than 5 years ago.

I totally agree those are incredibly well made movies - Roger Rabbit and Blade Runner hold up today especially well. But how many horrible FX movies were made the 80s? Hundreds, maybe even thousands. We remember the good ones but then just like now really great movies are generally the exception to the rule.

I watched Ghostbusters a few weeks ago for the first time in years. Even as a kid I thought that the GO motion creatures in it were kind of hokey, but this time I was struck by how incredibly lame it looks today. It's still a great movie and Staypuff and Slimer are great characters, but again like I said - pick the right techniques for the right effects.

What's interesting to me is the trend towards blending CG and puppetry; using motion capture to animate (or "puppeteer") digital characters like Gollum in LOTR or Sonny in I, Robot. Eventually I think CG will just be seen as another extension of puppetry.

I suspect that many puppeteers a generation from now will wonder why people agrued about things like this.

That's my $2.50 anyway.

 

[scarylarrywolf]

Wow... make that $2.50 US

 

[Buck-Beaver]

I really need to learn to be more concise.

 

[AndyWan Kenobi]

I really need to learn to be more concise.

Indeed.

Still, I quite agree with you.

 

[Dash X]

Buck-Beaver - dude you blew me away with your analysis;

Its nice to hear some optimism - i myself am pessimistic with the prospect - a recent interview with Joe Dante whose success was at its height in the 80s, and of course most famous for the Gremlins movies, said that he WOULD'NT and COULD'NT make a third Gremlins movie because studio involvement would force the creatures to be CGI and added 'the prosaicness of the puppetry and all that stuff we had in the first two movies really defined those pictures'

You were right about Stan Winston and ILM's influence on Jurassic Park, filmmaking on that scale, is a collaborative art, however the director does have, for the most part, ultimate creative control (other than studio involvement).


'I think it should be used only when all else fails -- not as a substitute for a quick and easy effect'
Scarylarrywolf - i completely agree with this, right effect for the right shot, but CG is now, by some degree the cheapest option, studios ofcourse love this , and CG is 'in-vogue' its on adverts and music videos - ofcourse that doesn't mean its any good.

Even Quentin Tarantino, like him or not, has had his say....
"This CGI bulls**t is the death knell of cinema. If i'd wanted all that computer game bulls**t, I'd have stuck my d**k in a Nintendo"

But he does miss the point, because "Blaming the medium is akin to blaming your tailor because you gained a few pounds"

Blade Runner (1982) is an excellent example, beautiful and timeless effects - at the helm Ridley Scott, well known as being the best visual director of the past twenty years, HOWEVER, Gladiator (1999) he used CG, and used it poorly (those shots of the colleseum look amatuerish)

The same arguement goes for Pixar style fully CG animated movies - some people say that the new technology is killing traditional cell animation - which is patently untrue, just look what Hayao Miyazaki is doing.

Granted Gollum was a triumph, however *many* of the other CG based effects in the LOTR trilogy looked 'hokey'
IMDB this week did a poll asking which current movie stereotype are you sick of, and 'CG armies in battle' came in top.



Saying that 'CGI is killing the art' was a bit melodramatic on my part, but do you blame me for my pessimism?
Because, i haven't seen a 'Hayao Miyazaki' waving the flag for Jim or the creature workshop.

 

[Dash X]

"No-one steps on a Church in my town!"

Dont criticise Ghostbusters, even in the least bit - its the best movie ever made!

 

[Muppetsdownunder]

I just hope they dont go replacing the muppets with CG. They wouldnt be the muppets then.