Frontpage La Floridiana Matt's Rail Digital Divide Mike's Rant PCR Archives 2002 2001 2000 Crazed Fanboy homepage PCR 2002 Home

CGI - Computer Graphic Imaging: Friend or Foe.

Prompted by the "CGI in movies" discussions of late (and in the past), I thought I'd throw in my two-cents (more like $2, I know...I need to work on my verbosity).

I wondered if some of the folks that like to whine about CGI have ever really thought about what the core of their arguments consist of. It's not my intent to change anyone's minds about the topic, nor even try and open anyone's eyes. I just wanted to point out some of the things that at least APPEAR to be overlooked by the hardcore "anti-CGI" folks.

Predominately, I've noticed a trend towards using blanket comments like: "It’s not art," "it looks fake/unrealistic", "it's overused, and irritating", and "it's a cop-out"

"It's not art"
Let's look at each statement, starting with "it's not art". Unfortunately, there are very few things that are manmade that are not considered art by SOMEONE. Excrement can be considered artistic by some, in fact some of these umm.. "Art enthusiasts" even have their own websites. Let's QUICKLY move away from that example and look at a very basic definition of art: The human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature in any medium.

Even a complete, and utter, Clockwork Orange fan has to see that this is precisely what CGI is. So, anyone arguing to the contrary can kiss my ass. (Clockwork Orange fan.. heh heh.. I slay me)

Obviously, there are other definitions of "Art" which are probably closer to what CGI-haters are referring to, specifically, "It's not Art" meaning that "I am unable to appreciate the artistic value of what I'm looking at". Just because you don't like it, or haven't evolved to a point where you can actually appreciate art (just kidding), doesn't mean it's not art.

I, for one, have fairly extensive knowledge of how CGI in movies are achieved, and know that, essentially, ARTISTS are creating art on a computer. A science degree isn't needed to make 3d animations, or animations of any sort, for that matter. An Art Degree is highly sought after for those creating CGI. Granted, there are stages that the computer handles all by itself (with human-created programs) to alter what a human artist has done, in-order to "enhance" the basic image and shapes, but by suggesting that CGI is not art, you're also suggesting that directors cannot create art with film. It is the same art, but more complicated. Rather than a low budget director simply telling an actor to walk across the stage, and possibly determine which angles to light and film from, the CGI-"director" has to create the ENTIRE actor and the COMPLETE environment that the actor acts in, and decide precisely HOW that actor moves, and what mannerisms it uses, etc., and THEN "tell" that actor to move to a specified location, and light/film the scene.

Despite what anyone's personal view of the character might be, Jar Jar Binks was more art than anyone gave him credit for. Sure, you might not LIKE the art, but it's definitely still art. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Jar Jar was an excellent creation with a very entertaining personality (for the young kids he was "aimed" at). In fact, polls have shown that kids 9-12 actually really DID love Jar Jar. That's reassuring to Lucas, I'm sure, considering all the crap everyone's thrown at him for including Jar Jar in Episode I. Of course, LUCAS understood that he had aimed the character to appeal to 9 - 12 year olds, even though noone else seems to understand that point. Gee, does anyone here like Barney the Dinosaur? or the Power Rangers? No? gee, what a freakin' shock. Extra surprising to note that those franchises seem to be doing wonderfully without your support, guess that's because they really suck, and the parent companies really let everyone down by releasing them, eh? Bite me!

It's funny, if you didn't like, or care about Star Wars, you'd have stopped raggin' on Jar Jar a long time ago (in a galaxy far far.. nevermind). It's almost as though people have additional hatred towards Jar Jar because he spoils the environment that they feel strongly towards. (You have to care about something in-order to hate it). Well, sorry to dispell anyone's magic, but despite anything you may feel to the contrary, it IS still just a movie, and Jar Jar is just a special effect for children, get OVER it.. geez...

Is Jar Jar art? You bet yer ass he is!

"It looks fake/unrealisitc"
This leads inevitably to the next typical blanket-statement; "It looks fake/unrealistic". Yes, in some cases, more than others, CGI can certainly appear to be fake. Of course, I'm not one of the people that was fooled by CGI animation's predecessors, namely stop-motion and go-motion. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly able to appreciate the effort involved in each of these, but I can honestly say that to my knowledge I've NEVER been fooled by the realism of them either (hmm.. unless I WAS fooled?). Standard props, including, for example the ET prop, never had me saying:"wow.. where'd they find such a goofy-looking dude? That must be a real alien!"

Am I the only one here that is RARELY ever fooled by special effects? I have to say that the only special effects I've ever fallen for (that I'm aware of) have been CGI effects (aside from fast special effect "jump cuts" that appear and disappear before your brain can really evaluate them). True, not all CGI is convincing, nor is it only used to imitate realism, but in my eyes it's the only form of special effects that's even HAD the potential to fool me for more than an instant. Personally, I think that speaks VOLUMES all by itself.

Realism is an interesting concept, you might be surprised at the level of realism that appears in movie special effects. By that, I don't mean that the realism is high, I mean that the realism tends to take a backseat for effect. This is true of any medium though, not just CGI effects. For example, on the old "CHiPS" TV show, there was rarely a car that went off the road without a massive unrealistic explosion. I'm not saying that a car can't explode, but they CERTAINLY don't explode the way they did on CHiPs, or Miami Vice. I especially loved it when the film sped-up (creating slow motion) during the explosion, and you see details like car doors exploding to hell as though they were packed full of TNT (which they probably WERE, in some instances).

Realism in a movie, or TV show is dictated BY that movie or show. First off, how real is the storyline to begin with? Even assuming it isn't whacked-out like the Matrix, or something, it's still not necessarily realistic. If the story's not realistic, then why should the effects be?

Besides, how many viewers have actually seen events like a guy being torn in half? How does anyone know what the reality would look like then? Sure, we might have IDEAS of what it might look like (ironically, probably partially based on previous special effects gags we saw in a movie somewhere). Tom Savini (the special effects guy from various notorious horror films, including Friday the 13th, part 1) himself was a photographer in Vietnam during the war, and saw the reality, and used that to add authenticity to his special effects work, but he'll even tell you himself, the fiction is typically more entertaining, and therefore more widely used.

For example, in "The Mummy" there's a series of scenes where a CGI wound was applied to an actor's face to simulate a torn-away cheek. The reality behind that sort of wound is that you would essentially lose the control of most of your face, your whole mouth would draw to one side, and you'd be drooling like crazy. I've seen a wound similar to that in a car accident. In the movie, there's nothing wrong with the actor's control of his face, because he'd have looked like a slack-jawed idiot. BUT, the view inside the actor's cheek was pretty realistic, and well done, presumably it could be argued that the mummy's supernatural powers kept him from looking silly. Nevertheless, it wasn't a realistic event, but for the most part, no one had a problem with it, because they "bought into" it, not realizing what such a wound should actually be doing.

A GREAT CGI film effect was found in "Fight Club" where the lead character shot himself in the head, and the camera follows the bullet through his jaw. Is it realistic? Very few people have enough of a detailed understanding of the ballistics involving that type of bullet, and the components of a human face to tell you for certain. Is it an artistic approach? Hell yeah! Did I rewind it and watch it frame-by-frame a few times? Hell Yeah! When I initially saw it in the theater, it did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do, it made me flinch in horror at the instant unexpected brutality. A usual treatment to filming a lead character committing suicide is generally a sad one, emphasized by the fact that most folks can't relate to discharging a weapon in their mouth. it distances them from the scene and the character slightly, and that would have been inappropriate in this scene.

This, and some of the other questions of realism actually fall into the next category though, (CGI-film tricks) read on:

"It's overused"
The other use of CGI that get's heat is when a CGI effect is used as a filming trick, i.e. "Matrix-style" cgi stuff like "Bullet-time". I think that's a very artistic usage of CGI, though I will readily agree that some of it has been overused, Personally, I don't thing that overuse automatically damns the entire thing though. How many times have we all seen the same panning and trucking effects normally used in films? Or how about the whole "truck away from the subject while zooming into a wide angle shot?" I don't think I've seen the "dreaded" "bullet-time" even a third as much as I've seen that non-cgi gag. I loved the cgi-filming uses found in the Matrix, even though they were certainly repeated.

I went to see "(The?) Panic Room" last night, it was a very good film, and certainly due to get at least a single Oscar this year for it's wonderful usage of CGI filming. I mean it when I tell you that the movie is ALMOST worth seeing just for the intro titles alone. Beyond that, it's got cgi camera trucking that's not possible with a regular camera, and it's astounding. The movie itself, without CGI is very good on it's own, but with the CGI, it adds to the visualization of the storyline. By saying that it's good, I'm not implying that the movie is something that everyone will like, but I suspect that a lot of folks will.

I remember how impressed I was while watching "Evil Dead" and seeing a shot where the camera actually travels through the front windshield of a car, and out it's rear windshield within the same trucking move. It was a very difficult shot, but apparently worth the effort. However, it can't hold a candle to seeing a standard viewpoint travel from the ground floor, lift up within a stairwell, while rotating to face the banister on the next floor, and THEN travel through a gap in the banister and carry-on across a kitchen, THROUGH the handle of the a coffeepot, and come to rest on the main character, within a single fluid movement. There are a few matrix-style tricks like that in there, but none of the "bullet-time" stuff, it's astounding.

It always seems to end-up coming down to whether, or not, a CGI effect is interesting enough, "cool" enough, or appealing enough, to be used in a movie. The answer to that is ALWAYS going to be a matter of personal preference. I've seen all kinds of filmmaking techniques used over and over. I'm always amazed at how CGI seems to get so much flak for that, I'm forced to suggest that some people have a hard-on against CGI effects because they're computer-based, and aren't giving it a fair shake. (you know.. a fear of being replaced by computers or something.. sigh..)

"It's a cop out"
You can film things with CGI that would otherwise be impossible to film. It's an additional tool for any filmmaker to use as they can dream to use it (and afford it). Yes, it cuts costs on productions like "Braveheart" where crowd scenes are replicated to show 1000's of folks where only 100 exist. Ok, so that's the cop-out? The days of films like "Ben Hur" are essentially long gone. It's simply not possible to budget a film that includes 1000's of extras, and have elaborate full-scale sets for them to all interact with these days. (It's the unions that killed that stuff). CGI offers a way to create that heavily populated full-scale coliseum as seen in "Gladiator," and gives filmmakers back the opportunities that have otherwise remained lost to them.

Scenes in "The Patriot" showed cannonballs being fired into people in a highly dramatic way. It could have been filmed using dummies, and fake blood, but only "dummies" would have fallen for it (assuming it was presented in the same flowing shot). It was done on computer, and tweaked until it was "just right" and then printed to film, composited with live actors and settings. If dummies were used, several attempts may have been needed, and the scene would have consiste of serveral men marching along while 2 or 3 of them are stiffly standing there getting hit by a cannonball. "Tweaking" a "live" scene while filming means re-take after re-take with a whole bunch of people that are drawing paychecks from the film's budget, while trusting environment conditions to hold, and hoping that if THIS take doesn't work, that the dummies will be intact enough to re-use them. It's a risky business, and CGI helps minimize those risks considerably. Sure, it's possible to break it down into separate shots where the dummy could be isolated and hit in the studio, but that certainly detracts from the feel of a continuous shot on something like that.

In any event, yes, CGI enables idiots to put-out crappy films, and encourages Hollywood to make projects with little, or no, thought to anything beyond a soundtrack and weird visuals, but many of the films that ARE worthy of being seen, and/or are of epic proportions, could NOT have been made without it. Again, the poor quality of a movie is not the fault of CGI, it's bad judgement on the part of filmmakers.

A final note about CGI usage in films is that I want to comment on the way it was used for the re-release of ET. The re-release of a film is not feasible unless there's a "hook" added to it, or if it's incredibly cheap to "upgrade" the film and/or sound qualities. Otherwise, there's little way to entice folks to go see it. Yes, some people would pay to see ET is it's original form, but would there be enough folks to make the re-release worth it's while? I know that, even WITH the hook, I haven't seen it yet, and I probably won't bother with it until my son is old enough to appreciate it. I can also name a few other people that won't EVER bother with it, just because they don't give a crap about ET in the first place. Also, when you're releasing a children's movie, it's probably a good idea to ensure that the effects are on par with other films that the children may have seen recently, otherwise it's a dreaded "old-fashioned" movie, which will probably appeal to very few of the children. Remember, most kids could care less about an old-fashioned movie, it's only appealing to those that caught it the first time around, or those kids that have been on the ET ride at Universal Studios.

Granted, the CGI-ET may have been as horrible as many have stated, but that's what the effect should be graded on, not the mere fact that it's computer generated. All I'm saying is that CGI effects never seem to get a fair shake.

On a related note, I partially agree with Terence's comment that filmmakers shouldn't go back to change things in movies that they've already released. (As he vigorously argued last issue.---N)  I personally think it's OK to add to it, but not to actually change even minor events, unless it's a direct special effects enhancement (not a replacement, or a rewrite). In other words, I hated the fact that in Star Wars, they made Han Solo shoot AFTER the alien shot at him. It not only looks jarringly fake, but it alters the scene, and even Han's character. However, I loved the additional scenes of the Millenium Falcon lifting off from Mos Eisley a few moments later. In "The Empire Strikes Back," I loved the additional scenes of the Wampa (Wampa= snow monster.. essentially a Yeti), but hated the seemingly senseless dialogue changes made to other parts of the movie. I agree that an original story, and its overall content should not be changed, except through additions which alter only the pacing of the film and portray events that were at least alluded to in the original film.