This is not unrelated to CGI, but it’s unrelated to a lot of things this forum is about (and it also has a slight aroma of controversy), so I decided to post it here. I believe a lot of people here know about StoryBrain’s “The WETA” effect video. I am making my (late) response to it in a video format, however, I want to make sure my counterarguments aren’t garbage and that I’m not propagating misinformation, so I’m posting it here first, in order to get some critiques from you guys. Please, be as harsh as you want. If you think me making this video was a total mistake, say it!
Anyway, here’s my response video (it’s currently unlisted):
That’s an interesting response, well-presented and all of that. But I never really cottoned to the original “WETA Effect” video to start with. If there’s anything that today I object to, it might be one of these two things:
The “Marvel Comics®” effect. (Apparently there’s not a single thing that Stan Lee (RIP…) ever had a part of, which isn’t going to be made into a movie. And, every other movie will look like a Marvel Comic, too!)
The “video game sales pitch” effect. Why was “The Hobbit” three reels long? Probably so that it could include lengthy, CG-riddled scenes which obviously would appear in the accompanying video games – scenes which were never part of the book’s plot and which did nothing to advance it. (Even LOTR was guilty of that sometimes, especially by the third movie of that franchise, when funding and success was assured.)
As this video briefly points out, many digital effects today are completely mundane and unnoticeable. They simply serve to make the image look much better and to do it at less cost than would be associated with miniatures or other practical-based effects. You simply cannot pick them out in the finished scene unless you watch a “shot breakdown.”
Another interesting observation that I’ve read elsewhere is that in some cases we remember how a scene that was shot with miniatures looked – and we still notice when a CG rendering has been used to correct those visual artifacts. (The biggest trouble with miniatures has always been the scale and the lighting of shadows. The computer can of course calculate exactly what the proper effect should be. But that means it probably does not look like miniatures.
“Story-telling” is always going to be a basic issue with movies, but let’s face financial facts: “blockbusters sell tickets.” Sometimes what you really want on a hot summer afternoon is to watch a “comic-book extravaganza” that goes over-the-top and keeps right on going, thanks to modern CG. As long as such productions fill theaters, studios are going to continue to make them. But movie-makers also tell great stories, sometimes, and in telling those stories these days they often use computers in such a way that you simply cannot detect that they have done so. "That’s art!"
I really couldn’t agree more. I do think some modern movies have some recurring new problems. When it comes to CGI, in my opinion, most of the issues I see are usually due to much broader predicaments, such as a tight deadline or inconvenient studio interference. These days, it’s very rare to see (in movies) bad CGI that can solely be attributed to the nature of computer graphics.
I could not finish your video, I am a lawyer and even I do not use such formal language bathed in complicated words in front of the court as you do in this video.
Overall there is little reason to criticise people who are critical of CGI, afterall they watch CGI heavy movies even though they do not like heavy CGI movies just for the shake of criticising the heavy usage of CGI. Well unless its LOTR, apparently LOTR has immunity of some sort even though it also suffer from its fair usage of CGI. Also the fact that people love CGI movies apparently or else they would go to the cinema to watch them which has become pretty much the only reason to go to the cinema nowadays.
Another problem I have with your video is that you are too quick to jump into technical explanations on the usage of CGI. Instead he gives you with he usage of Titanic footage a chance to explain the immense value of “invisible art” in CGI and how much of what we find as “practical” or “realistic” in films is actually CGI.
My personal opinion is that nowadays the term CGI , is practically meaningless since everything including, photographs and video is computer generated imagery. So the tendency to limit this term only on the usage of 3d graphics of the fantastic kind that do not incorporate any form of photography is unfair and plain useless.
Overall the production value of your video is very high but I have to say even though I am a CGI fan myself I find it easier it pick his side because at least I find it easier to understand what he is talking about. As I usually tell people “dont be a movie lawyer be a real lawyer” , real lawyer actually ensure to use the easiest to understand language cause nothing loses a case faster than a simple misunderstanding.
Dang, those are some excellent points. I suppose I got too obsessed while writing the script. I might have to redo it if I really wanted to finally publish my response. But, thinking about it, it is as you said, it’s pointless to critique people who complain about a kind of film while regularly paying to watch them.
Either way, I’ll think about whether I should edit the script or not upload the video. The more I reflect on this, the more I think the best decision would be for me to make a totally different video on the subject-matter. One that actually addresses what people think about CGI; not something this specific.
Now, if we want to expand this to “movie rants relating to computers” … … I have two:
George Lucas:('nuff said) I watched “Star Wars” when there was no “Episode IV.” Special effects were done using motion-control cameras. There was an economy to it because there had to be – and, we’d seen nothing like it in this world. The original film made it to the US National Archives, but The George™ still could not leave well enough alone. He destroyed it, IMHO, by filling it with digital effects and added scenes – even replacing the original actor who played Anakin Skywalker (long before the present-day actor was born). Han Solo now encounters Jabba the Hutt twice (entirely without explanation) when in the original movie he didn’t actually encounter him at all and the puppet manifestation of him had never yet been dreamed-of.
Unwanted Color “Correction”: I watched an original 35mm print of Raiders of the Lost Ark and immediately remembered the look – a distinctive look caused by the narrow tonal-range and red shift of film stock in those days. Costume designers knew about this and planned for it, as did stage decorators. But now, all those colors have been “corrected,” and with it, the original effect is lost. This has happened to many other “legendary” movies.
CG is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it is unwanted. (At least, by me.)
You asked for critique, so I’ll try. Keep in mind that I’m not a professional artist and don’t understand anything about making movies.
Overall I think your video is fair. You have concrete arguments to defend your view, and you always show exactly what you’re arguing against. I also think you were clear in stating that CGI is a tool and is not in itself bad, depending only on how it is used. This seems to be the main issue with the original video.
My main critique of your video is with respect to that part were two versions of Hulk are compared. You start to show several movies which do similar things, and “prove” your point by showing IMDB ratings and similar ratings. That part looked a lot more like just ranting, specially since those ratings are known to be bogus. The argument that complete realism is not necessary is sound (otherwise sci-fi and fantasy just wouldn’t work), but I think you presented this point poorly.
Also, I loved that part when you expanded Hulk’s image to show his trousers. That made it clear that the original movie also had its limitations.
One thing that I see in both writing and CGI/Game dev communities is there is a…“lack” of practical real world experience, for instance with practical effects you are often working with the real thing, want to make something boom for the camera well…you go and find a pyrotechnic artist, said person who often has some other related background and now you not only have the real thing to work with, but a subject matter expert to bounce ideas off of.
But today movies are under tighter and tighter timelines to get things done, there is less time for such water-cooler discussions. and quite frankly…CGI makes some writers lazy, back inthe 90s and before a huge part of the art was finding a way to tell the story with the capabilities and limitations of the day, today there is such an availability of CG talent that writers have come to lean on it more and more.
I think in the next few years we will start to see more of a story/substance focus in media, people are already starting to voice their desire for it, but also quite frankly people today churn through an amount of media that even 20 years ago was unimaginable.
… I have two: