io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 8:34 PM
Wed Dec 9
28 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10:14 AM
08:22 AM
i found the special edition 'updated' star wars to be horrific, and i felt strongly that ep 1-3 should have been filmed using only technology that was available in the late 70s, to preserve the look and feel. and that means models. they just look better.
08:31 AM
As far as the new trilogy goes, I was fine with them using modern technology. As a huge Star Wars nerd, I was pretty estatic to see lightsaber fights that actually looked like they were being fought by Jedi.
The CGI was way overused in those films, too, though. An even balance (CGI lightsabers and forcelightning, puppet Yoda and Gungans, etc) would have been much better.
10:16 AM
we can't even get non-vhs/laserdisk editions of the unaltered trilogy. It's a crime.
10:48 AM
One of my favorite, nostalgic scenes of the original trilogy is the very end of Return of the Jedi, where the Ewoks and Rebels are partying on Endor. The song the Ewoks play and sing is awesome. In the new version, however, that scene has been done over with a montage of scenes from around the Empire - which is actually a really awesome montage, don't get me wrong. The problem is, they took out the freaking song! They put in some other song over it, so now when I watch Return of the Jedi, I don't get my "aww, I remember this from when I was 10" moment, and that makes me a sad Star Wars nerd.
11:11 AM
One of the dvd sets touts having the "Original unaltered exactly as in theaters" regular editions of the films in special features.
Which is a lie, because they are skewed low quality laser disc rips.
I would pay quite a bit for blu ray unaltered editions of the original trilogy. And DVD versions.
06:37 AM
if the tiny innacuracies or inconsistancies are what you like about films and pop-music then i suggest you catch some live theater or a concert.
06:53 AM
But I think all that is necessary to fully understand the new technology and find a proper place for it amongst all the other tools that artists have available to them. If you don't go kinda overboard with it then you can't really find where the limits are or what works and what doesn't.
People will get tired of style-over-substance CGI extravaganzas eventually, and when filmmakers realize they can't rest an entire movie's success on CGI special effects alone it will become just another filmmaking tool.
06:55 AM
A new shiny tool can often put the user in a mode of "look at all the neat things I can do" rather than what they SHOULD do (I'd even point to the "special editions" of E.T. and Star Wars as examples of that). A lot of directors have been guilty of that with CG, which is probably, in part, what Graeme's push back is about.
That said, Cameron has generally used his shiny new toys to good effect so I'm betting that's the case with Avatar as well.
03:08 AM
It's also what allows to see who can sing and who can't. Hearing to a ton of marketing before you actually hear the artist in question helps.
01:54 AM
06:14 AM
I don't like watching a movie and thinking, "There's the CGI" like all through Phantom Menace or I am legend.
09:43 AM
12:34 AM
My point is simply that CGI is nothing new in cinema, in the sense that cinema has always been about incorporating the latest and greatest technology in the service of wowing the audience. CGI is another step in that evolution -- but the key word here is "evolution." When you say, "it will always lack the element of chaos, the potential for mistakes, that makes it something we can believe (and lose ourselves) in," I suspect that's one of those quotes someone will dig up in 10 or 15 years, when movies with photorealistic CG actors are the norm, to illustrate how wrongheaded some critics were, back in the 00's.
I think you make wrong assumptions about what filmmakers who use CGI are trying to do. They aren't striving for the kind of sterile perfection described in your Wolk quote. They are fully aware that the "element of chaos" you mention is the gap (or uncanny valley, if you will) between the current state of the art and true realism. They are closing that gap a little more every year.
CGI is still a topic of discussion because we're presently still in that uncanny valley where true realism has yet to be achieved. But I think it's also because we as viewers -- at least the older of us -- haven't yet become fully acclimated to what CGI brings us. What I mean is, when you and I see some fantastic, eye-popping CGI sequence, we automatically disbelieve it, not because the effects aren't realistic, but, I would argue, because they are. When I'm watching fifteen kajilion orcs rampaging across a battlefield the size of Kansas, part of me is taken out of the movie. Not because the effects look fake, but because they don't -- the scene looks pretty real to me, and that in itself disrupts my suspension of disbelief, because I know it's not real. In a weird way, in some of these movies I'd actually be more comfortable with unrealistic old school effects, because that's a world I understand. CGI, with its ability to create visions and worlds that would be impossible or impractical to realistically portray without computers, can, in my opinion, actually disrupt the normal functioning of the human imagination. But if that's true, it's not CGI's fault, just the fact that we haven't yet grown into the technology.
Just to make this comment a bit more longwinded, I haven't seen any mention here about Firefly or Battlestar Galactica. I think the CGI in these series is worth mentioning, because they're groovy examples of deliberately inserting imperfections (shaky cam, blurring, lens flares, etc.) into visual effects in order to enhance realism. I do wonder though if that's the future of CGI realism or just a stopgap. As we continue our voyage into a world where consumer video cameras have motion stabilization and all kinds of image enhancing gizmos, maybe the sterile perfection we detest is actually on its way to becoming the new normal. Future generations will have no idea of what we mean by the "chaos" of real life. Do you think that Wolk rant will mean anything to the average teenager of 2025?
07:53 PM
Introducing sound to films fundamentally changed the way a film was presented, shot, acted, and written. It changed how they were distributed as well. No longer could a film made in French be presented to a Spanish speaking audience and still have them understand it. It separated countries in terms of story telling and film making because of the language barrier and cultural differences inherit to language. Many critics were vocal on that front. They liked the universal appeal of the silent films. They liked that film was a completely different medium than stage with it's lack of sound. (Never mind that silents were rarely silent... but that's another topic.)
It allowed for much different stories to be told on an astronomical scale.
Many movies made with CG today still could have been made 30 years ago with that existing technology and been done just as well.
This argument is more of an aesthetic one more than anything else.
12/08/09
In recent years (many, many years), I've been so disillusioned by the crappy quality of hollywood sci-fi that all I really want now is just a really good story.
When I think of movies such as Close Encounters, ET, Terminators 1 and 2, the original Star Wars trilogy, the Back to the Future trilogy, 2010, The Abyss, even Minority Report, and Contact, all of which are favorites of mine, the common reason why I like them all is that they have really well-constructed stories.
Of course, there have been exceptions to the recent trend of bad-writing. Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, and Batman: The Dark Knight are obvious examples, but these are exceptions, not the norm.
Special effects are great and enhance the quality of a movie, but only if there is quality to be enhanced to begin with.
I'm somewhat excited by the prospect of Avatar, because Cameron is known to deliver good stories, but I'm also concerned that there is so much emphasis on the special effects and how revolutionary they're being promoted to be that the movie might end up being a flop, story-wise, despite the box-office success that I'm sure it's going to be.
So, to reiterate my answer to your question, I want to see really well-written original stories. It doesn't matter what about, where, or when.
03:40 AM
05:21 AM
12/08/09
Now as for out-of-focus scenes, that's a different story and it seems to be cropping up a lot from the movies lately *cough* star trek! *cough*
12/08/09
Although the rules for effects used to be 1) use the most appropriate tool available for each shot and 2) never use the same technique so often that the audience can detect the 'trick'.
Too often producers insist that CG be used because it is the most technically contemporary tool. They aren't effects artists so they are often unaware of better and sometimes cheaper tools that will more convincingly sell the shot. Peter Jackson is one of the few who is aware and he uses EVERYTHING.
12/08/09
If you have to freeze the frame and point at it with a laser before someone noticed it, then why the fuck do you care about it?
"No movie in a million years has had such advanced imaginary beaded-headdress technology. I am a film-making genius."
12/08/09
12/08/09
12:09 AM
Or what about that woman who knitted tiny sweaters for Coroline? The attention detail makes it special.
05:27 AM
Or, no, that's not true, maybe I have met people who care about things like that--but haven't you missed the point of the movie, if you care about the beads on the headdress?
But, whatever, James Cameron can exchange technical precision for good storytelling if he wants, I don't care. This movie looks tedious as shit.
08:24 AM
Here's an example: when the reissue of Blade Runner came out (was that just a year or two years ago?) I went and saw it again. Now admittedly I think parts of Blade Runner are a little slow but watching it on the big screen? It was amazing. Every second. There were so many details that I never saw when I watched it on DVD and video just the depth and texture alone, every frame was alive in a way I had never seen until then. Seeing it that way enriched the film and my apprectiation for the artistry that went into it.
That stuff is important, good actors create histories and backstory for the characters they play that bring added depth and weight, it's what make a performance real. And you never see it but you feel it. Great filmmakers do the same.
12/08/09
Back to models, I say.
12/08/09
It can ruin movies, just like bad acting, directing or props can. It's just a tool like everything else: it does no good or bad by itself, depends on how it's used.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
I think there is a lack of emphasis on story. Especially in a lot of blockbuster movies. But I feel that blaming CGI is misplaced anger. Because you could just as easily take issue with the incredible effort put into all of the previously mentioned techniques LotR used. And some do. Look up Dogme 95 for an idea of what some folks consider to be "pure" film. And frankly, I think Dogme 95 is a great idea and I'd love to take a crack at a Dogme 95 film myself given the time and opportunity if nothing for the challenge. But unless you'd like to claim anything but Dogme 95 is cheap and soulless (which it's not), you have to accept that CGI can have its place in film just as much as puppets, mood music and lighting, and costumes. They should be used for their purpose and nothing more. Sometimes they are overused, but you simply can't dismiss it for that reason.
I think there are movies that use CGI well. And I think calling out summer blockbusters for their misuse of CGI is a bit of an easy tactic to take. But no one really expected Transformers 2 to have a fantastic story. None of the millions of people who saw that movie expected to connect with the characters or find a compelling story. As much as I can't stand Michael Bay or his empty, soulless movies, he did exactly what we expected him to. He made stuff blow up, laid scantily clad hot girls on cars, and made penis jokes.
CGI is just a tool. Question an implementation of it, if you must. Even call out Cameron's priorities on the unreleased movie if you feel so compelled. But to argue that CGI itself is chipping away at the foundation of movies is disingenuous. Unless you believe that Dogme 95 is the only real way to make movies.
There's just a lot of crappy movies out there is all. And that will always be true.
12/08/09
If anything the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a great example of how to properly use CGI in a film. Where Star Wars episodes 1, 2, and 3 are excellent examples of a lousy director trying to show off great special effects with a lousy story.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
District 9 comes to mind as a particularly good example. WETA knows their stuff when it comes to CGI, and there were more than a few moments in that movie where the line between fantasy and reality disappeared and I actually connected with this alien, rather than obsessively picking out the matte lines (as is my custom).
12/08/09
It's passe and repetitive.
Did you know he also predicted that Aliens would land and lead us into a new era of peace and prosperity shortly before out final evolution and merger with the galactic Overmind?
Arthur C. Clarke predicted tons of junk he LITERALLY made a living off of doing it.
Also, Him predicting something has no bearing on the topic at hand, why do we need to know!!!!
12/08/09
06:59 AM
09:53 AM
12/08/09
12/08/09
Otherweise, spot on Graeme! It seems that filmakers do better when they have to work to create something rahter than just program it. Star Wars vs the prequels is, of course, the best example. Since Lucas couldn't do everything he wanted exactly how he wanted, he spent more effort on silly things like story and direction to convey his message. CGI has made people lazy.
It seems to me that the old saw "show, don't tell" has become outdated. It's now possible to show to much and not let the audience fill in the gaps with their own imagination. This is especially true of genre where imagination is so important.
12/08/09
08:51 AM