Let's start with the big film news of the day, namely that the Sundance 2010 slate has been announced (the Auteurs rounds up links to the various sections here) and that James Franco makes for a damn good looking Allen Ginsberg (see above still from Howl).
Second, check out House contributor Jaime Christley's Out, damned spot! post "CGI and green screen." Great read, much food for thought. Here's his intro:"I know, it's boring to decry CGI, but it's starting to impact some films that I—or friends of mine—really, really like, and that's unpleasant. So, a few words:
"For a lot of films I've liked over the past, I would say, almost 20 years, CGI actually ages more painfully than any effect from "the old days." And under that umbrella, I would include everything from early Melies to '80s Cronenberg. More fairly recent films than I can ignore seem not a little spoiled by the fact that digital and greenscreen effects seem "Scotch-taped" in, like the matte shots in the original Star Wars.
"What is going on here? Do effects rot, like fruit, or laserdiscs, or AA batteries? It was acceptable in the theater…or were we just tricking our minds, selling ourselves the feat of Hollywood magicians? This is, admittedly, easier for younger moviegoers—and some of my older colleagues probably have zero sympathy whatever."
"Links for the Day": Each day (more or less) the House editors post a link/links to items that we hope will spark discussion. We encourage our readers to submit candidates for consideration to keithuhlich@gmail.com and to converse in the comments section.
Posts
10 comments:
Hey, Jamie--
I wanted to leave comment this on your blog but wasn't able to because I got a "team members only" message. Hope you see it here.
I've been thinking about this issue myself, and while I don't know enough about theatrical and home projection to be definitive, I've been formulating my own theory. Here is is.
The special effects were produced with a big screen in mind. That means the effects were produced digitally, then incorporated into a film (or high def video) element with the understanding that it would ultimately be projected on a huge movie theater screen at exactly 24 frames per second (which creates a slight blurring effect that might help the CGI blend in with the real stuff in the shot). The slight strobe effect of the movie screen probably helps sell the effects even more.
But when the movie ends up on DVD or television, the entire projection apparatus is different, and the effects weren't designed to be seen that way. Sure, they're made with the understanding that one day they'll be seen on a smaller screen with a different method of displaying the image, different environmental conditions and so on. But ultimately the effects are created with the theatrical experience in mind (and all the little things that help the audience to believe a little more in what they're seeing).
Or to put it another way, when you see CGI in a theater, it's like looking at Blanche DuBois with the nice paper lampshade over the bulb. Watching it on television takes away the lampshade.
Sorry to be so geeky in my hypothesis, but this has been obsessing me, too, every since I passed through an electronics store TV department in about 2003. The big screen TVs were all showing "The Two Towers." I remember thinking, "Wow, the effects in that looked astounding in the theater, but now they look like shit. What happened?"
To add to what Matt said, the images on video are more processed and cleaned up. Once you remove grain and increase sharpness, composite effects are not going to hold up. You wind up with the outlines of actors being too sharp, which makes them look like they don't belong in front of the background placed behind them. Also, the versions of most films you see in theaters are more dark and contrasty prints than what gets used for video.
Of course, this brings up the bigger question about whether the special effects-driven movies of today will hold up once the effects themselves are ineffective and whether empty visual stimulus is used to distract from a story that doesn't work.
Jamie, I certainly concur with you on your general premise; perhaps, as “The Pixar story” illustrates, the first cgi folks were involved in either the hardware itself or had extensive education in the arts. Many years later, more animation houses have cropped up and you get less inspired results. I still think the first Matrix was the worst of the lot (as Slavoj Zizek put it; “I want a third pill,” and that the sequels are in fact far more oblique in their methaphores than the audience would think.
It's never boring to decry CGI, Jaime.
Surprised to read some of the other comments here which seem slightly apologetic (for lack of a better term). Especially since I always get the same visual thrill from a film like Lawrence of Arabia, for example, whether it be a crisp new print on the big screen or the dvd/blue-ray releases. Isn't it the fault of the filmmakers of these modern films if their special effects cant stand up to home viewing?
At the risk of pointing out the obvious; it's amazing how anything that is "real" (whether it be a model, a man in a bear suit, or a matte painting background) looks much more real and feels much more real than most things done via CGI, no matter how long ago the film was made or how impressive the new technologies become.
Real is real, our brains know it, and there is no way around it.
Hey everybody
Reception here in Boonies, NY is brutal, so I can't reply at length, so just a few thoughts:
* thanks once again to Mr Uhlich for giving me the impression that my halfassed ramblings can be read by >2 people
* @ Matt - 1) I deactivated all comments b/c when I started my blog, the only comments were from spammers, so... 2) yr observations sound on-point and probably cd have dissolved the impetus for my post, but Big Picture-wise, I think it's important to get these issues (fx projected 35mm vs home viewing; the role of grain with Blu-ray) in the public forum.
* @ you other cats - what's up mofos. I'll respond when I'm not using a handheld device
* @ say what you will, the FAMILY GUY spoof of POLTERGEIST is really good
MZS: ...I passed through an electronics store TV department in about 2003. The big screen TVs were all showing "The Two Towers." I remember thinking, "Wow, the effects in that looked astounding in the theater, but now they look like shit. What happened?"
It's important to note that this could very well be the result of poor calibration, in addition to the various other factors already mentioned. I experienced much the same thing in an electronics store after the Blu-ray release of Spider-Man 3. There it was, playing on one of the store's top TV models, and the picture was so "clean" that you could pick out every FX element in the frame: the actors in the studio, the green-screened backgrounds, the CG foreground effects, an actor's head/face pasted onto a "double's" body (whether real or CG), etc., etc., and even during ostensibly set-bound, 100% "real" in-studio shots, the image had an "unfiltered" quality that made it eminently clear that, well, we were just looking at actors on a set as opposed to anything else. It was all I could do not to picture the crew standing just out of frame. I couldn't believe my eyes.
Why on earth should a brand-new, state-of-the-art effects film look this awful on Blu-ray?
It wasn't until more family and friends started jumping on the HD bandwagon that I began to learn about all the so-called "image enhancement" settings on some of these sets. LCD screens in particular are especially notorious for their frame-rate boosting, image-sharpening, colour-correcting antics. Switch on all of those "special" settings -- for the very best home-viewing picture experience, of course -- and all of a sudden your movie looks like shit instead of how it's supposed to look: like a film, not a scrubbed image file.
Anyway, just another thought to add to the chorus of disgruntled home viewers...
Franco looks precisely like the sort of dude Allen was crazy about. If there's an afterlife he's grinning from ear to ear.
Franco, BTW, is quite a seriosu character and has done a great deal of research on The Beats.
It's interesting that whenever people want to jump on the "CGI is bad" bandwagon they cite some of the most obviously piss-poor effects in modern films. Yep, the "burly brawl" or the highway sequences in the second Matrix film are great examples of pushing a technology well beyond it's limits. And the blood effects in Zatoichi are laughably bad (although I'm a little surprised to read anyone liked that the first time through).
Bad effects are bad effects. We can romanticize the practical effects of yesteryear, but there's just as many examples of cheap or poorly produced effects in the days pre-dating CGI as now. I recently watched the original Dawn of the Dead in HD at home. Many of Savini's make-up effects look laughably bad in high definition. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the movie, but high definition reveals the limitations of Romero's low budget opus (and I know it's unfair to compare high definition to the original theatrical presentation, which I have not seen, but high definition is as close as I will come to that). The same can be said for watching the original King Kong in high definition, where the clarity of the presentation thoroughly reveals the artifice of the craft, as impressive as it is for its time. I'm not a big fan of Jackson's recent remake, but it's hard to deny that his Kong has an emotional realism and authenticity (even in Jackson's surreal storybook visuals) that the original lacks.
But back to my point. I don't ever read complaints about understated, quality CGI and that's because CGI by itself isn't the problem. It's the overuse of blatantly unreal (or simply poor) CGI that stands out and looks painfully bad. I have as yet to hear anyone complain that the creeping blood pool at the end of There Will Be Blood is a bad effect (it's completely CGI) because it looks very real and it's very effective. Or the extra oil derricks shown in one establishing shot midway through the film are obviously CGI.
Good special effects, practical or CGI, are simply good effects. We should be decrying the poor application of CGI, not the use of it in general.
Joel E, I actually thought the CGI oil derrick explosions in TWBB were literally the worst parts of the film; i'm not kidding. (i love the film). they just didn't look good, CGI or no. so, I will, and have, gladly complain(ed) about that.
however, i had no clue the blood at the end was CGI and would need to see some proof before i believed that one. just doesn't seem like large enough of an effect that would require CGI instead of the real thing (unless they were worried about multiple takes and repeated clean-up and such).
Believe what you see or don't, but most of that oil derrick explosion was very real whereas a substantial portion of the blood scene was digital. I read about this in an effects magazine, but this is the best I can do to prove it to you now.
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mil/features/video_oldfashioned_filmmaking/index5.html
http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynamic/January2008/ThereWillBeBlood/page6.php
Post a Comment