The Evolution of Visual Effects
“You know the first attraction I ever built when I came down south from Scotland? It was a Flea Circus, Petticoat Lane. Really quite wonderful. We had a wee trapeze, and a merry-go... carousel and a seesaw. They all moved, motorized of course, but people would say they could see the fleas. "Oh, I see the fleas, mummy! Can't you see the fleas?" Clown fleas and high wire fleas and fleas on parade... But with this place, I wanted to show them something that wasn't an illusion. Something that was real.” – John Hammond, Jurassic Park (1993)
Jurassic Park, directed by Steven Spielberg, was released in 1993 to an astonishing audience and critical reception. For the first time in film history, a studio had successfully implemented computer animation technology to create onscreen creatures that actually appeared real. More than two decades and two sequels later, Jurassic World brought the franchise roaring back to life in 2015, attempting vigorously to take advantage of the success of its predecessor. The recent film utilized the latest advancements in motion capture and digital detail rendering in an attempt to create life-like dinosaurs. Yet, even with advancements in the technology used to create visual effects, Jurassic World was notably criticized for lackluster CGI (computer generated imagery) and its poor integration into the narrative. The major question that arises from this is why, with the ability to craft such realistic character CGI as that found in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe’s (2005) Aslan, The Pirates of the Caribbean’s Davy Jones, and Transformers’ (2007) alien robots, was a film made in 2015 not able to accurately depict dinosaurs to the satisfaction of the audience? Especially when they were so critical to the film? In my paper, I will claim that, the differences in criticism of CGI between the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are indicative of a change in relationship that the audience shares with these two films. This change is a result of the evolution of multiple factors including the utilization of visual effects within films by their creators, the shift in America’s film audience culture, and the changing expectations of the audience. In particular focus is the evolving definition and expectation of “realism” that a movie-going crowd holds of a particular film.
While special effects have existed as long as films have been created, computer visual effects – that is, the effects that are added on in post-production rather than on set – are a comparatively new development in recent film history. However, this fact has not let it escape its own analysis and criticism by many important film scholars, who often focus on how the development of CGI reveals not only new possibilities for storytelling but also underlying motivations for movie creators and the audiences that watch them. There are many viewpoints on the current state of visual effects in film today, with many focusing on the effect that CGI has had on an audience’s relationship with the films they watch. Dr. Greg Singh of the University of Sterling highlights the dangers of using CGI inappropriately, and how that can negatively influence how we perceive a film (Singh 546-549.) More, specifically, he argues that visual effects that are poorly integrated into a film create a subconscious separation of effects and narrative, which removes the viewer from the intent of the creators (Singh 548.) The fear is that viewers, namely the entire American movie-going audience, are then continuously exposed to poor effects – negatively and irrevocably altering the future filmmaking landscape. Other scholars, such as Stephen Prince of the University of Virginia, believe that the end-goal of visual effects – to be as immersive as possible – signifies important clues about the nature of humanity and its need to surround itself with perfection (Prince 183-220.) This in turn helps show the underlying needs of an audience and how those needs correlate with their reactions to certain films (Prince 183-220.) And some, such as Michele Pierson of the University of Queensland, believe that the faults of CGI lay in the faults of the creators that produce them (Pierson 152.) More specifically, it is the poor integration of CGI into its relative film narrative (special effects that are not “special”) that garners a poor reaction from an audience and not a fault with an ill-conditioned public (Pierson 152.) However, the question still remains as to how is it that a viewer’s relationship with a visual effects-heavy film is affected by its objective use of CGI. To understand this fully, I will be exploring the significance of “realism” and its connection to how films are able to influence those that watch them.
There are various definitions for realism used in the study of film. Kirsten Whissel, a renowned film professor, believes in a more objective definition that considers the ability of an image to successfully model reality in a way that is visually accurate (Longo.) Others, such as Michele Pierson believes that the definition should not be limited purely by the physical, but that it should be extended to consider the ability of a film to accurately instill a belief in the viewer (Pierson 150.) I will be considering both these definitions and, for the purposes of this paper, realism is the ability of a special effect to depict a character, place, or action in a way as to not remove or overwhelm the viewer in a scene. In the world of visual effects, the difficulty in achieving realism is compounded by the occasional necessity to create things purely from imagination. The trick therein lies in making that which is unbelievable believable to the viewer. The fact that this can be done with some films signifies that there is some aspect of a viewer’s experience of a film that allows them to suspend their real-world expectations. Audiences react poorly to both fantasy and “real-world” CGI, so there must be some unifying and underlying flaw that characterizes a negative viewer reaction. The search for realism is important because it can be expanded as a metaphor for the entire filmmaking process throughout its long history. If the true goal of film is to represent the visual realm in order to communicate ideas, then it must always strive to maintain a certain degree of realism to connect those ideas with an audience. With the advent of the ability to depict even greater levels of realism in visual effects, the creators and viewers begin to evolve their methods of making and watching movies.
For my paper, I will use the films Jurassic Park (1993) and Jurassic World (2015) to help explore the sources of their respective acclaim and criticism, which I will then relate to the state of visual effects in cinema as a whole. It is first important to note that the use of visual effects between the two films varies greatly and it will be the natures of these respective uses that help characterize their respective reactions from the audience. Jurassic Park was released as a groundbreaking film in cinema, singlehandedly representing a massive shift in the state of visual effects within film history. Before the film, the use of acceptable digital effects was only applied for large budget blockbusters and even then only to a small degree. Creating full-sized digitally rendered creatures that moved and owned their environments was a daunting task that only became a reality when some animators tested it with a computer during production. When Spielberg saw the possibilities, he immediately converted all stop-motion animation of the dinosaurs to fully digital renditions. Integrated with the special effects of dinosaur puppetry, Jurassic Park successfully changed the way entire films would be approached from the date of its release in 1993 to the present. Jurassic World was released to an expectant crowd and sought to capitalize on the success of its predecessor. Unlike Jurassic Park, Jurassic World did not use puppetry for the vast majority of the film, instead relying on the latest in visual effects technology to depict its dinosaurs. Various technologies, such as motion capture, color grading, and detailed rendering were all heavily utilized within the film. Widely held criticism of the film involved its poor script and flat characters, which Jurassic Park did not share at the time of its release.
In exploring the relationship that these two films share with each other and with their respective audiences, I will analyze the various ways in which these films chose to engage their audience through their use of visual effects. The films will first be evaluated for their ability to successfully integrate their visual effects into the narrative. The differences between them helps highlight the objective differences in CGI and story. Evaluating these qualities emphasizes the narrative’s importance to a film and its relationship with CGI. Next, I will deal with the change in quality of visual effects between Jurassic Park and Jurassic World. The ways in which the effects exist onscreen varies greatly and the visual evolution of 20 years of animation technology helps exemplify the effects differences between the films. Lastly, my argument will involve analyzing the audience in place of the film in order to better understand how factors independent of the actual picture can influence the perception of visual effects. Together, all of these factors help characterize the unique qualities and reactions to both Jurassic Park and Jurassic World. Using my analysis, I will then be able to relate it to the perceived state of visual effects in the industry as a whole.
Living in the current era, the special effects of yesterday’s Hollywood might seem painfully fake. Watching The Wizard of Oz today – with its obvious use of walls to extend sets, people dressed up as flying monkeys, or witches on strings – makes it seem old and outdated if one were to simply judge it based on the quality of its special effects. However, there is some feature of the film that makes it easier to accept these visual short falls and have us still engrossed in what is happening onscreen; story. Great story and characters can help an audience overlook shortcomings in special effects, as evidenced by many classics that are still lauded today. If a film’s narrative is good, the quality of the special effects will stand up to audiences. When Jurassic Park was released in 1993, the dinosaurs overshadowed the cast and became the real stars of the film. The New York Times’ chief critic noted that “the dinosaurs dominate "Jurassic Park" in every way, setting a “sky-high new standard for computer-generated special effects” (Maslin.) 20 years later, The New York Times’ critical review can’t escape comparing Jurassic World to its overshadowing predecessor (Dargis.) Dargis labels the film as standard popcorn fare, but “with more flab than muscle” (Dargis.). She also notes the irony of how a character “might as well be referring to all the special effects and other blockbuster add-ons that moviemakers use to try to blow the audience’s collective mind” when they talk about spikes in attendance for new attractions (Dargis.) The importance of these two reviews helps characterize the exact relationship that visual effects and the narrative structure share. While great special effects can assist a story and fascinate an audience, CGI cannot make a movie better than its story. That is not to say at all that movies with bad CGI can’t be good, but movies need to make sure that narrative comes first because that is what the audience relates with. Thus, it is important to look at the way that narrative influences the perception of visual effects. When films are criticized for having terrible CGI, it might be true that the root source of the problem may not be the CGI. Where Jurassic Park has the comfort of basing its narrative on a solid script with satisfying characters, Jurassic World failed to pay adequate attention to its own, instead focusing a significant amount of effort purely on the special effects. The reason why Jurassic World was criticized for its visual effects could actually stem from its trouble in telling a satisfying story for the audience. Stephen Prince emphasizes that narrative is the most critical part of a film due to the fact that, without it, the illusion of realism cannot be maintained and therefore the audience will become disengaged with the story that the film attempts to show (Prince 183-185.) Narrative is used as an extension of film to extend the illusion of film itself (Prince 185.) If the goal of special effects is to maintain a level of realism for the audience, then a poor narrative will remove the audience and subsequently make the shortcomings in the visual effects all the more painfully obvious.
In comparing the two films directly in their story, it becomes immediately obvious which one is inferior. Jurassic World, with its formulaic plot derived from Jurassic Park and its non-existent characterization, was not helped by its CGI. Even though its directors used the latest in computer animation technology, this focus was made futile by the failure to focus on more basic film qualities. This helps build the argument for why the one was beloved and the other was criticized, but how does this relate to the evolution of visual effects and the perception of realism as a whole? The most critical lesson from the two films’ comparison is that narrative must come first if the audience is to accept any form of CGI. Without a good story, at the current level of technology, realism still derives from how well visual effects serve the narrative and the characters within it. If CGI doesn’t aim to make the story better, and just exists for its own sake, then it fails to add to the realism of the film as a whole. The consequence of this is that it detracts from the audience’s experience of the movie and easily allows for criticism that goes beyond the plotline. The point of this is to show that visual effects do not simply exist on their own. Regardless of whether they are good or bad, they exist deeply interconnected with other aspects of a film, such as narrative and characters. So, when comparing Jurassic World and Jurassic Park, it is critical to consider other aspects of the film that don’t appear to be related at first glance.
In the era of technological availability, the ability to create computer graphics imagery lays in the hand of anyone that has a computer. It used to be that animating acceptable special effects in films would take months using outrageously priced software, but now that same thing can take as little as a few weeks with the right artists. As a result, the ubiquity of decent special effects has led to a shift in the way that movies are directed and produced. This pervading theme of sameness has not gone unnoticed by industry professionals. In an interview with professional visual effects supervisor Terry Clotiaux, Mollie Gregory relates this phenomenon to a parallel occurring in the stunt industry (Gregory 247.) Digital motion capture, or Mo-Cap, is a technology that allows the computer to record the physical movements of human actors. The main advantage of this is that dangerous stunts can be performed in a safe environment, protecting the lives of the stuntworkers, and the motion of digitally rendered characters appears more life-like (Gregory 255.) However, even with its ability to improve the quality of visual effects in film, it has had some unintended consequences. As the database of stunt work grows, old work can be recycled and studios can save money by not hiring new workers, eventually resulting in a loss of input from new sources (Gregory 256.) Gregory’s interview highlights a fear of pervading sameness in the industry by professionals, which stems mainly as a result of the studios need to save money. Her work also serves as a parallel to the same events occurring in the visual effects industry. The main consequence of this is highlighted by Michele Pierson’s idea of a special effect’s need to be “special” within a film (Pierson 150.) Utilizing Star Wars: A Phantom Menace as an example, she shows that the need to include visual effects as a significant point of the entire production rendered that CGI unable to engage its audience due to its level of sameness (Pierson 152.) Connecting this to Jurassic World, we can find that it too failed to engage its audience in the same way. Where Jurassic Park cleverly intertwined use of realistic puppetry with digitally rendered dinosaurs, Jurassic World glutted itself on near ever-present images of CG dinosaurs with nearly no use of practical effects. Between the two films, the best example of this occurrence would be the differences in the presentation of the velociraptors. Indeed, the first film blended animatronics and puppetry with the use of CGI raptors, creating a seamless blend between the two mediums. The main result of this is that the use of practical effects demands realism in visual effects from the animators. The practical serves as a real-life stand-in for how the raptor should look under realistic looking lighting conditions. Jurassic World, which never employed the use of practical effects for its velociraptors, could not utilize this advantage, resulting in less than satisfactory visual animation for the audience. The unrealistic blue and orange color grading scheme of Jurassic World in comparison with Jurassic Park’s more neutral and realistic color grade did not help mimic a realistic environment either. However, even with the criticism directed at the film, Jurassic World was superior to its predecessor in some areas, such as increased detail and fluid motions of animated dinosaurs. Connecting this to the overall development of visual effects between the two films, one can see that there is a drastic change in how creators are approaching making their films.
The influence of the studio in dictating the creative process of filmmakers is a critical element of the development of visual effects. Implementing CGI for an entire film is an enormously expensive process, which causes many studios to outsource the work to cheaper companies and to utilize cheaper methods to create them. This phenomenon has been fueled exponentially by the audience’s desire for big budget films with extensive use of visual effects. Although the American viewers can complain about the visual overload of computer generated imagery onscreen, it is a growing staple of the American film landscape in the modern era. The shift that Jurassic Park represented signified a movement away from traditional storytelling to that which sought to dazzle the viewer. This trend is exemplified by Jurassic World’s approach to implementing visual effects in its films.
The study of film has traditionally entailed examining a piece of work and its subsequent effect on its audience. However, films can also be analyzed for the cultural climate of the time period that they are released in and the weight of that climate on its reception. The different audiences that viewed Jurassic Park and Jurassic World, respectively, were a result of their differing exposures to prior film culture. The shiny new toy that was computer generated imagery in 1993 has since become commonplace in the movie industry today. No longer are audiences simply impressed by the idea of a dead creature coming back to life through the work of effects artists – that creature and the quality of their animation has to inspire a sensation in the audience that keeps them engaged in the film (Longo.) UC Berkeley film studies professor Kristen Whissel notes that good CGI is a result of creators focusing on the most basic needs of an audience, which she believes can be categorized using successful historical reactions to books, plays, and other films (Longo.) To understand the viewer in context is the most important first step in understanding why the two films were received differently in the first place. Jurassic Park was released to an audience that had little exposure to computer integrated visual effects in their films, much less photorealistic ones. However, this doesn’t appear to be the entire explanation for why Jurassic World was criticized for its CGI, as Jurassic Park is still applauded today for its accuracy and attention to detail. Even though, objectively, the animation itself can be criticized as not being able to hold up to a critical viewing on the latest HD television, it is still able to satisfy an audience, which Jurassic World could not seem to do. This signifies that giving the viewers themselves a closer look would be more effective in analyzing the reason for that discrepancy. Story and CGI quality have their place in explaining the differences between the two films, but the audience is the largest factor that has changed and is, subsequently, has had the largest influence on how the films are received. The idea of “cultural conditioning” deals with the effect that film has had on a theater-going audience, which then influences their views towards later films that they see (Sobchack 288.) Dr. Greg Singh of the University of Sterling makes an important point about this phenomenon’s relevance to CGI and its existence in the film industry. He believes that film’s ability to communicate meaning is hampered by the evolution of visual effects in that it forces creators and audiences to view the image onscreen and the film itself as separate and distinct elements (Singh 548.) This result is in contrast to what he believes should be a permanent and unbreakable relationship in order to facilitate the most basic goals of the art form (Singh 546-553.) His ideas are in agreement with Prince’s belief in film maintaining an illusion as it highlights the necessity for CGI to maintain a certain level of realism that elicits a positive reaction from the audience, serving the narrative power of the film. Thus, the negative reaction that Jurassic World’s CGI incited signifies the relationship between films and viewers changing. This change is a result of the nature of visual effects and the influence that they have had in desensitizing both the creators and American audience member.
Film is art that has allowed ideas to transform the world through a visual medium. Film itself is subject to its own evolution and its history shows that evolution in both its production and content. Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are direct representations of the way that film undergoes changes and how those changes affect film’s relationship with an audience. In evaluating the narrative, physical, and cultural aspects of visual effects and their use in the film industry, the reasons for the differences in criticism between the two films become clear. These differences signify a broader change overall in the way that audiences experience movies by altering their expectations of what the role visual effects should play within them. The significance of visual effects is irrevocably linked with an audience’s experience of a film and creators must use that power responsibly in order to effectively communicate their ideas through the medium. This realization raises broader questions about the future of film itself and the role it will play in the human experience of mass media. The evolution from Jurassic Park to Jurassic World is a very visual reminder of the progress that film has undergone and a very telling indicator of the roles it must fulfill in order to remain relevant and coherent to the American viewer.
Dargis, Manohla. "Review: In ‘Jurassic World,’ the Franchise Feeds the Beast." The New York Times 11 June 2015. Web. Feburary 2016. <http://nyti.ms/1GuWZOr>.
Gregory, Mollie. “Computer-generated Imagery and the Future of Stunt Work”. “Computer- generated Imagery and the Future of Stunt Work”. Stuntwomen: The Untold Hollywood Story. University Press of Kentucky, 2015. 247–264. Web.
“Jurassic Park”. 1993. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Universal Pictures Studio. Film.
“Jurassic World”. 2015. Directed by Collin Trevorrow. Universal Pictures Studio. Film.
Longo, Regina. "KRISTEN WHISSEL TALKS ABOUT SPECTACULAR DIGITAL EFFECTS: CGI AND CONTEMPORARY CINEMA." Film Quarterly Fall 2014. Web. Feburary 2016. <http://www.filmquarterly.org/2014/10/kristen-whissel-talks-about- spectacular-digital-effects-cgi-and-contemporary-cinema/>.
Maslin, Janet. "Jurassic Park (1993); Review/Film; Screen Stars With Teeth To Spare." The New York Times 11 June 1993. Web Archive. February 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F0CE1D71E3DF932A25755C0A965958 260#>.
Pierson, Michele. Special Effects: Still in Search of Wonder. Columbia University Press, 2002. 150-153. Web.
Prince, Stephen. “Immersive Aesthetics”. Digital Visual Effects in Cinema: The Seduction of Reality. Rutgers University Press, 2012. 183–220. Web.
Singh, Greg. "CGI: A Future History of Assimilation in Mainstream Science Fiction Film." Extrapolation (University Of Texas at Brownsville) 48.3 (2007): 543- 557. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.
Sobchack, Vivian. "Sci-Why?: On The Decline Of A Film Genre In An Age Of Technological Wizardry." Science Fiction Studies 41.2 (2014): 284-300. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.
tangentwithtanner
vaporwave
dailybridgerton
annaxmalina
theartofmadeline
romaincrisis
andulkaphoto
