CGI VS. Practical Effects

If you look back at movies from the past 30 years you can witness the gradual decline of practical effects and the sequential growth of CGI (Computer-generated Imagery). Some people have chosen sides in the matter and have embraced CGI completely forgetting Practical effects (I'm looking at you, George Lucas) or they have decided to stay under the rock in which they live and not geo with the ever changing technology.

Great directors realize that the area in which they should fall is in between. They need to meet half way and realize if it can be done practically and realistically, maybe it's not the best time to call your buddies at Industrial Light and Magic. CGI can be used for good, but it shouldn't be used for everything.

If you ask me, the effects looked more realistic in 1983.

I am cursed with the ability to pick out what is Computer-generated and what isn't. To me, "Avatar" just looked like a video game, albeit a very well made video game (I just vomited a little). Every time I am reminded that something is computer generated, it takes me out of the story and makes me enjoy the movie less. The transition from reality to computers should be flawless and in my mind, unless it's an animated film, there should never be a shot that is 100% CGI. Not even 90%.  Unfortunately, very few movies will be like that.

I really respect a director that will do everything to make the world he is creating real and who will only use CGI as a last resort. Check out this featurette for "The Cabin in the Woods".

This is a great example of using a combination of CGI and Practical Effects. They shot each individual elevator with a real, physical thing and then used computers to put them all together into one shot. If this has been all CGI, it would have looked terrible.

I understand that some movies cannot be done without CGI. "Life of Pi", one of my favorite movies of last year, is one of them. They have been trying to make that book into a film since it was first published in 2001. But no one could figure out how to do it. Even 10 years ago, technology was not advanced enough, and no one was going to throw an actor into a boat with a full grown tiger and throw water onto the both of them. That's just crazy.

Even with all of the CGI in "Life of Pi", they still did a lot of things practically. Water effects that could have easily been done with computers were done practically. Parts of the carnivorous island were actually built. And of course, the life boat was always real.

This generation has forgotten how much can actually be done practically, if they even knew at all. Up until the 80s, computers were never used to create an image on a screen. When "Tron" came out, it was nominated for Best Costume Design and Best Sound, but not Best Visual Effects. Many people thought that it would be unfair to put the film in because they "cheated by using computers". Yet before "Tron",  we saw Luke Skywalker destroy the Death Star. We saw a Great White Shark terrorize the town of Amity. We saw Roy Neary interact with with UFOs.

And there has been plenty of classic scenes after the integration of computers into film.

"Jurassic Park" is a perfect example of how CGI should be used. The only time you see a Computer-generated image is when you see the entire body of a dinosaur or if it's moving. And even then, not always.

I love watching how movies are made, and I find it so much less fascinating when the answer is "We did it all with computers". While I admire the talent it takes to create images using computers, the answer, when broken down to the very core, is always the same with computers. When things are done practically, there are always new challenges and new innovative ways to achieve different things.

The hours and hours of hard work that goes into making practical effects is simply amazing and has an amazing story. Movies with mostly CGI special effects don't have interesting stories behind them. As much as I love "Life of Pi" the behind-the-scenes featurettes are not nearly as intriguing as "Jurassic Park" or "Cabin in the Woods".

The reason I wanted to write this was the video below. And even though it will be mostly CGI, "Pacific Rim" still has this... and Guillermo del Toro reads my mind at 0:53.

Breaking the Curse: The Character Trap

I haven't posted in awhile for a few reasons. Number 1, This month has been terrible for new releases, in my opinion. Nothing, other than The Avengers has peaked my interest enough to go spend $10.50 to go see it. Number two is that I haven't really had any topics to write about. I recently watched the entire Mission: Impossible series for the first time, but that wasn't enough to write anything anyone would want to read. But now I have something to talk about. There is one major problem with Blockbusters.

That is the fact that the main stars from them (if it is one of their first major roles) have a hard time breaking from the character, making it hard for producers and directors to visualize them as another character. Mark Hamill is the perfect example of this. He was relatively unknown on the Big Screen when he starred as Luke Skywalker in Star Wars: Episode IV. He had a successful stage career prior to it, but nothing really other than a few TV gigs that paid the bills.

Everyone knows that he hasn't done much other than voice acting since Star Wars. Luckily he's talented enough to get a lot of jobs doing that. But what few people know is the amount of rolls he was turned down for because he was Luke Skywalker. He was the most famous person to ever play Mozart in the play Amadeus, next to Tim Curry. And when that play was being prepped for the silver screen, most people, including Hamill, thought he would play the title role.

But there was just one problem. Despite having played Mozart on Broadway for years, Mark Hamill had a ghost following him, named Luke Skywalker. The producers did not want Mozart to be played by the famous Jedi. So they went with Tom Hulce, who was eventually cursed by the role of Mozart, mainly because he played him so well. He even received an Oscar Nomination for the role.

Mark Hamill was one of the Lucky ones. At least the films and character that cursed him are loved by nearly every single person that watches them. He is still remembered today despite his lack of on screen appearances. Not all are as lucky.

Now, it is extremely early to say he is in the character trap, but  will bring him up regardless, because the beginnings of the curse are afoot. Robert Pattinson is close to being type cast as a emotionless vampire in a terrible franchise. The only fans of these film will one day grow up and realize how bad they are. There is no escaping it. At least I hope that happens.

Call me crazy, but I don't what Robert Pattinson to be forever known for that crappy role in that crappy movie based on that crappy book. I think he deserves more. Think about it. What was he doing prior to Twilight? A couple Harry Potter movies, but his role was not that impressive and easily forgettable to the majority of the audience, since most of the audience didn't read the books. You can whine all you want, but thats a fact.

And before that, he had a few roles, but nothing that really gave him that green light to producers and directors to start casting him in other roles. Twilight was the first. And if anyone reading this is thinking "I still wouldn't take a role in that dumb movie even if I was starving to death", you're lying. If someone offered you $2 million to be the leading role in a movie when no one knew your name, and you wouldn't take it, you are an idiot and deserve to starve. Plus he's made $12 million for the subsequent 3 sequels.

I know I would do it in a heart beat. I don't blame Mr. Pattinson at all. But that's not why I want him to be successful. I want him to be successful after Twilight because of what he's doing outside of Twilight.

He played the great artist, Salvador Dali in Little Ashes. He starred along side Reese Witherspoon and, more importantly, the great Christoph Waltz, in Water for Elephants. He also worked with director David Cronenberg (Eastern Promises, The History of Violence) in Cosmopolis which premiered at the Cannes Film festival this year.

My point is the guy is taking risks. Most people his age would just try to do more block busters. They would use the role that gave them fame as a reason they are entitled to roles. But he is doing things that are usually done by actors twice his age. He is taking roles in films that would be considered more "artistic" than they would money makers. And I respect that. Who couldn't respect that? It seems like he is praying for the day he's finally done with Twilight so he can create a name for himself and not a name synonymous with crazy, crying and screaming teenage girls.

I hope he can do it.

No specific release date has been given at this time, but Cosmopolis is scheduled to come out this year.