After weeks and weeks of tirelessly scouring the internet - studio websites, film websites, fan sites, blogs, video searches, images searches - Iâve succumbed to the unfortunate fact (as have many other like-minded movie fans) that the new film in the Jurassic Park franchise, Jurassic world, will feature little, if any, live-action, animatronic dinosaurs. This, in my opinion, is a sad deviation away from the effects techniques used in its predecessors i.e. the combination of live-action animatronics and CGI dinosaurs. But if I am to be honest with myself, with the direction most summer âblockbusterâ films are taking these days, I will be preparing myself for a CGI-fest dino romp; perhaps little in common with its original.
The original film in my opinion, blended live-action and CGI special effects (sfx) superbly; effects that stand-up to scrutiny even by todayâs standards. In fact, many people often point out, ironically I may add, that those used in the first film stand-up far better than those of the second, third and (I suspect) fourth instalments. I suspect however, that this view is coloured by the fact that Jurassic Park is simply a better film: better story, better script, better director etc. You canât blame CGI for the lameness that was Jurassic Park III. Jurassic Park III failed because of Jurassic Park III. Even JP III, not to mention the Lost World, made extensive use of live-action animatronics, although in III it faired less well.
This is why I was a little apprehensive, and to a certain degree disappointed, when I learned that the Jurassic World team had pretty much gone all-out CGI. Perhaps itâs just me. I look back longingly to JP. Iâve never been so excited during the run-up to a film and at its release. And the film itself has never been surpassed, in my experience, in terms of its effectiveness in the sfx department. Or maybe, growing up during the transition from practical to digital effects has made me more wary, sceptical even, about CGI effects: my visual palette is not so desensitised to âglossyâ digital effects.
I would regret if this post were to be read as another rant against CGI. I would rather it be read as a counterweight to the increasing dominance of CGI in film. Great CGI, when relevant, looks fantastic, and it has to be said that many films would simply not have been made without it. There are however, I believe, certain dangers and pitfalls when using CGI. This is not necessarily the fault of the CGI artists, or for that matter, the images themselves. Rather, all sfx are context specific and can only be truly successful in the right hands i.e. the directorâs.
Recent advances in CGI have produced impressive results with regard to the simulation of water and fire/explosions. These days it is rare to see âreal worldâ inanimate objects, such as buildings, cars, rendered poorly in mainstream films in CGI. In this regard it does seem, to the lament of practical-effects technicians, difficult to distinguish CGI from reality. One must presume that from henceforth films with possible costly production design, will be heavily reliant on CGI interiors and exteriors. Sadly, with regard to the rendering of animate objects, of living, breathing, organic âsubjectsâ, this is not the case (some notable exceptions e.g. Rhythm & Huesâ Richard Parker in Life of Pi). Despite some great CGI, including some used in Jurassic world, I find it pretty easy to distinguish CGI from reality, and thus, in terms of my âmentalâ experience of the film, it triggers my âdisbeliefâ mode, and I am transported outside of that escapist trance-like state that films claim are constitutive of their raison dâetre (these days rarely experienced) into the realm of the âreal worldâ. Donât get me wrong, this doesnât necessarily negate the enjoyment of a decent film, and in no way is it requisite for a film to be an escapist âdrugâ to alleviate the hardships of modern world/real life. No doubt, if the story is entertaining and the CGI is half-decent, I find that I can still be throughly entertained. Rather, I would posit a spectrum of disbelief, where one is able to tolerate âanomaliesâ, âunnaturalismsâ e.g. sfx, poor acting etc., to a certain degree until one become completely conscious of the filmic qualities on screen.
In fact, one of my arguments against unnecessary extravagant CGI is that it leads increasingly to the viewer becoming a passive participant in the experience. The imaginative use of live-action effects - imaginative in some respects due to its limitations - induces the viewer to create their own mental âexperiencesâ of what does, or could be happening, on screen. How many times have you heard the argument that âbecause I couldnât see the monster in fullâ, or âbecause it was so dark that I couldnât see it, the film was so much more scarierâ. Think of Ridley Scottâs Alien for example. Personally I think filmmakers tend to underestimate the viewers ability to create, mentally, an internal visual interpretation of actions appearing on screen, and for that matter, underestimate their ability to spot âanomaliesâ in sfx.
In passing I would also like to acknowledge the declining appeal of, or the decline in the âaweâ factor of, CGI effects in opposition to the tenacity and memorability of practical effects with regard, again, to animate objects i.e. creatures e.g. Jaws, Aliens. Lets first deal with why one can generally distinguish CGI from the real thing (including its live-action counterparts). Â
Â
Why is CGI fake? Or why does CGI look fake? It seems to me that the answer can be found in the question. CGI looks fake because it is fake. Itâs entirely fake. If one were to put all the dinosaur props from Jurassic World into an exhibition, there would be little if not nothing else to exhibit. One could possibly put some CGI images up on a screen may be, but in any respect, it would make a crappy exhibition. It goes without saying that live-action animatronics are also fake, but with regard to the nature their processing, CGI images - by their very nature - are fake: it is the manipulation of the pixels on screen by a CGI artist post production. Live-action effects on the other hand, are real to the extent of their physicality in the âreal worldâ. Thus, all âreal worldâ processes e.g. gravity, light etc. act on them. In theory, if an CGI artist had the time and money, he could manipulate every pixel on the screen, thereby creating an exact copy, digitally, of a real subject, so much so that one couldnât possibly tell the difference between either (this is not how CGI artists bring CGI âsubjectsâ to life however). For this the artist would need a âreal worldâ reference.
So one explanation might possibly involve the limitations of the artist/technician, or their computerâs simulation, in bringing their CGI âsubjectâ to life. By limitations Iâm not suggesting that CGI artists/technicians lack, or fail to reach, certain qualities or standards. Rather, they attempt, but cannot possibly recreate (or simulate), all âreal worldâ processes. The human brain is an extremely sophisticated visualising instrument that senses and interprets the âreal worldâ around us; so attuned to the tangibility and physicality of the âreal worldâ and its processes i.e. physics. We take this mental process for granted seeing that we do this constantly. This makes one extremely sensitive to âanomaliesâ; anomalies that appear unnatural.
I must add that by âphysical environmentâ, I am also including our mental interpretation of how certain âsubjectsâ (or rather species of animal) move. For example, because a âsubjectâ may look bird-like or lizard-like, we anticipate certain characteristics of movement. These movements are  normally taken from previous experiences with similar creatures and partly based on the animalâs physiognomy e.g. we anticipate a cat to move like a cat, not like a bird, because we have seen (what resembles) a cat and how it moves before. In consequence our senses are so sensitive to these types of stimuli that even one tiny anomaly, whether it be a movement by a âsubjectâ, a movement of the subject corresponding to its physical environment, or a a subjectâs visual representation in light of the physical environment, can trigger the conscious part of our brain to say âthereâs something not quite right hereâ. It is this which triggers my âdisbeliefâ mode, and my corresponding conclusion that what I am seeing isnât real: itâs faked.
Live-action animatronics, on the other hand, are completely at the mercy of the physical processes of their environment (in the scene). Thus, we would presumably interpret their movements within this environment as natural. However, despite their realism and physicality, for obvious reasons animatronics have their limitations (thatâs why we use CGI). These limitations, in the form of robot-like movements and static-like posture, should, if my thinking is correct, trigger the âdisbeliefâ mode in my brain. Although this true, I personally find that live-action effects do this to a lesser degree. Successful live-action effects are well shot, and because of this our âdisbeliefâ is alleviated somewhat. In the past, live-action and CGI âsubjectsâ were shot differently. One would rarely see a full animatronic in the wide, making multiple sweeping movements e.g. walking. Whereas CGI up-close could be easily recognised. In JP you never saw the T-rex animatronic from the nose to the tip of the tail. Again, we must recognise the viewerâs mental role in conjuring up effective âsubjectsâ in the âmindâs eyeâ with regard to the limitations of live-action animatronics. But why do live-action effects have this advantage over CGI, and if this is the case, how is it that modern day directors rely more and more on CGI and less on live-action? Â Â Â Â
Could there be another explanation for the fallibility of CGI? In what might seem an about-turn, a contradiction to my first argument, could it be that CGI might be too real? Is it simply the fact that because we have no point of reference, in âreal worldâ terms, a mental blueprint, of say a T-rex running, that we must assume that this âsubjectâ isnât real? We recognise that the live-action sfx team couldnât possibly have constructed a convincing full-size running T-rex, technology being what it is, so our brains simply revert to the next logical explanation: that thing must be CGI, it isnât real. This deduction then triggers our âdisbeliefâ mode. Perhaps we should tweak this thesis.
Rather than being too real, CGI is beyond real. Thus, if we have no point of âreal worldâ reference, and we acknowledge the improbability of using live-action effects, our brains simply deduce that the scene before us must be faked. Despite the realism of modern CGI, our brains label the scene âfakeâ because it refuses to belief it. According to this argument, there is nothing inherent in CGI which seems âfakeâ, it is simply the âdisbeliefâ of our brains. This only applies to good CGI in dis-believable contexts.
For example, in Peter Jacksonâs King Kong, the CGI, I find, is pretty good. However, a particular scene involving a stampede of long-necked dinosaurs, with the troop of human adventurers scrambling between their legs, comes across not necessarily as âfakeâ, but more importantly as âfakedâ. This unfortunate sequenceâs failure is primarily due to poor compositing and lighting of the scenes âlayersâ. Other âdis-believableâ elements include a âcorrespondence-gapâ between the acting and the sceneâs context (its a frigging dinosaur stampede), and unnatural camera movements. At best the scene is completely over-the-top, but seems lacking when compared to other over-the-top scenes throughout the rest of the film. Should we blame the limitations of the technicians?, or might we point to the director himself. Â Â
We should also mention here the use of CGI in camera movements. Again, if there is nothing inherent in CGI images which are âfakeâ, perhaps its use with regard to direction is the culprit. Increasingly, directors feel the need to create the most exhilarating shots. These days traditional techniques, most often done on set e.g. track and pan, flip, or slow-motion, isnât enough. Thus directors are increasingly resorting to shots in which camera movements are clearly impossible in the âreal worldâ or âon setâ. These shots wreak of CGI and instantly shout âfakeâ. Donât get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the use of âfantasyâ CGI, or the use of extravagant complicated âfantasyâ camera movements, or a combination of both. Some shots, if well done, can be quite immersive (and ultimately effective). But their use must be in context. The juxtaposition of these types of shots is most effective in fantasy films. In the fantasy genre, âdisbeliefâ is not a problem: itâs expected. But to insert these into a film with the pretension of reality e.g. Jurassic Park, films which tempt you into believing that these things could happen (vital in horror/thriller/action films to induce the desired effect), breaks the sense of realism by inducing our âdisbeliefâ mode. Jurassic World I would rather label a fantasy film, an off-shoot of Jurassic Park, rather than a sequel, being abundant and extravagant CGI images. But if we talk of it as a sequel, even when compared to the other films and their flaws, it seems somewhat jarring. If CGI images themselves arenât necessarily 100% of the problem, is the context in which they appear, the directorâs vision, also contributing to the problem?
This leads me to the well trodden axiom with which most CGI artists validate the use of CGI in films: it allows the director to realise his/her vision. This no doubt is true somewhat. But before Jurassic Park, I was unaware of a director that had complained that he/she was unable to satisfy, or bring to fruition, their creative compulsion due to a lack of sfx or CGI. Iâve never heard it said that Orson Wells, or his critics for that matter, felt his film inadequate or ânot up to scratchâ because of the limitations of current techniques in sfx. Directors, like most artists, develop their creative ideas through current technologies building gradually on their predecessorsâ achievements. CGI however, due to the nature of its process, of its manipulation i.e. the possibility to manipulate every pixel on the screen, it seems, leaves little else to be desired. Rather, CGI opens up the possibility of putting anything and everything on screen with no limitations. It is this which is perhaps CGIâs achillesâ heal. The profusion of CGI has lead to viewer apathy with regard to sfx. Long-gone are the days when the use of new innovative sfx were a key selling-point, or the âstarâ even, of a given film. After JP a string of films then attempted to top their predecessor, again, in the arena of sfx e.g. Independence Day, The Matrix, Titanic etc. Sadly, modern-day summer âblockbustersâ do not necessarily emphasise their sfx or captivating storylines. Rather, they secure their audience numbers through franchises and adaptations i.e. sequels, films with a guaranteed fan base e.g. the Avengers, Spiderman, and not to mention the JP franchise itself. A new âenticementâ in films, especially those of the âblockbusterâ variety, is the introduction of a 3D (Iâm not convinced these are what you call proper three dimensional films). This has replaced the wanning âpull factorâ of jaw-dropping sfx.
But why do directors nowadays consistently forgo live-action effects and instead go CGI? Even the most traditional film-making elements, some not so difficult to achieve practically, are ousted in favour of CGI e.g. location shooting. We should acknowledge however, that CGI creates its own workload, a lot of which is done by artists who had previously been practical effects artists. Is CGI cheaper? With the plethora of studios and overseas departments (taking advantage of less stringent labour laws, tax breaks and cheaper workforce) vying for the same projects, CGI must have become a lot cheaper and flexible since the days of Jurassic Park. Is it simply quicker and simpler to put in the desired elements post-production rather than on set e.g. backdrops, lighting etc.? Or, is it that directors are simply âhighâ on CGI? Their frames of reference have equally been compromised thanks to the limitless possibilities of shots, characters, sfx etc. CGI has opened up. I suspect that directors always need to be directors and never fully attempt to empathise with their audience as viewers (lets not rule out enforcement from studio executives). I suspect, as mentioned above, that if all points of reference are lost and âfantasyâ filming ensues, the viewer can be easily disorientated with regard to how a scene or shot fits into a certain genre of film.
At this point, I would like to mention one scene from which I have found a number of stills, or photos rather, online. This is the raptor attack sequence towards the end of Jurassic Park. Of all the CGI shots in Jurassic Park, I felt that these were the least successful ones. Not that the scene fails; the CGI here seems decent when compared to some modern-day stuff, but it faired less well in context compared to other scenes in the film. The lighting of the CGI characters is a bit off, as is some of the on-screen geometry, especially when the raptors change profile. All in all the character movements are pretty good. The shot I especially want to concentrate on is the shot of Timmy amongst the spoons, with one spoon lying on the ground recently fallen from its hanger. Both raptors approach the spoon and are about to come across Timmy when they are distracted by Lex. In the film the shot is done with CGI, which I think works pretty well. The movements however, are not so complex or revealing that Iâm certain a similarly effective shot could have been achieved with Stan Winstonâs live action puppets and animatronics. We must not forget that Winston made numerous raptor mechanisms or puppets: fully animatronic, raptor suits for actors, and probably a specialised raptor head and neck animatronic. Online however, if Iâm not mistaken (which would negate this whole argument), there are âstillsâ or photos of the shot but with Winstonâs puppets. How are we to explain this. I must stress however, these photos are not exactly similar to the shot seen in the film: in the photos the camera achieves a much wider angle encompassing pretty much the entirety of the action.
When I first came across the image with the live-action puppets, because I had no understanding of such complex sfx (plus most kids my age had never experienced CGI), I assumed that Spielberg had filmed everything with puppets and then either replaced them completely with CGI, or enhanced the live-action puppets with CGI. I then began to think it just a rehearsal shot, played out with puppets to get the actors, and the CGI artists may I add, prepared for the final take. I now see this photo as either being a publicity shot, or more importantly, as a hopeful first take as it were (online there are many similar shots but with slightly different poses suggesting the puppets were not intentionally shot in a static pose). Perhaps Spielberg shot the scene originally using puppets; dissatisfied with the performance of the puppets, perhaps âhighâ on CGI, he opted to reshoot using CGI characters instead. It is worth mentioning that both puppet raptors were substituted with CGI, you never never see both types in the same shot in Jurassic Park, presumably because the comparisons would quickly show-up the inconsistencies and defects in both live-action and CGI techniques. Unfortunately in JP III this is not the case e.g. the raptor scenes. Throughout the whole scene, I thought the puppet raptors did rather well. Why would Spielberg replace them?
Is there a lack of appreciation for CGI? Are we so desensitised to it, because of its saturation? When watching the Avenger movies, there are hundreds if not thousands of sfx shots mostly done in the computer. And if I'm being honest, it comes across pretty realistically. But, I personally, Â found the film to be somewhat lacking. Despite the aliens and explosions, I got pretty bored. Maybe I just wasnât that engaged with the film itself. On the whole it wasnât a great film. But how can one not be awed by flying robot ships, aliens with guns and exploding skyscrapers? If itâs not a lack of realism, then maybe a lack of something else? Something substantial: a soul? I know these CGI things couldnât have happened; Iâm not so naive. So I recognise that these things were done in the computer; there is nothing real about them: they cannot harm me etc. Thereâs no intrigue: âhow did they do thatâ, only âoh yeah, they probably just did it in the computer, no biggieâ. A guy sits on a computer 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, banging out these images, whatâs interesting about that? Donât get me wrong, thereâs real artistry in CGI. But if everything can now be done within the computer, can we be shocked anymore, can we be awed? Avatar is thought to be a live action film. But where do we draw the line in the face of the profusion of CGI images? Toy Story is classed as an animated film. I suspect more than half of Avatar is completely âanimatedâ in the computer, but to call it âanimatedâ seems to discredit its achievement as a film?
Is there something more authentic, more true, when we see live-action effects? Although Iâm aware of its artificialness, I am also aware of its âbeingâ, its physicality, its presence within the âreal worldâ. Although I will probably never get to experience an animatronic from JP in âreal lifeâ, I know if I could, I would be able to see it with my own eyes, see it from all perspectives, touch it, sees its mechanism, its workings. There is something to cherish in this I think. It wreaks of trickery, even laziness, when we learn that actors act out there scenes in rooms filled with green screens instead of proper sets. In the words of John Hammond, âI wanted to create something that was real, something that they could see and touch.â Â
CGI still has someway to go. But because of its usefulness in everything from compositing to character creation, it has a long life ahead of it. It will no doubt achieve that realism all of us crave for. But this shouldnât be left to CGI artists and technicians only. Those outside the sfx world will need to heed to the call for realism in film not just CGI. Successful CGI is shot well, and only when needed. It should still be sought as a last resort.
Never before had I been so excited to see a film. During the run up to the the release of Jurassic Park in the theatres, the British newspapers had been issuing titbits of info on the film, most notably the spectacular sfx. The in-article images were always those of the animatronics, not the CGI. I have always felt that the use of live-action animatronics in the Jurassic franchise added to, or for that matter, gave it its sense of gravitas: its soul perhaps; a set of standards which other âmonster-moviesâ either neednât require - because theyâre in it just to make a quick buck - or have unfortunately failed to rise to. I should note that I do not label Jurassic Park a âmonster-movieâ; it has always embodied something much more substantial than a film about helpless humans fleeing bloodthirsty monsters: it is rather a Science-Fiction horror film; something that neither of its two sequels come close to achieving in a similar manner, or for that matter, had the intention of ever realising. I feel that the live-action animatronics used in the first film, and how they were shot and utilised, were a key part to the making of its âsoulâ.
sugurugetos
gummygunk
areudirty
yousharknotpass
tangentwithtanner
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
pixelskylines
germansingergirl
snowghoul
andulkaphoto