An Understanding of Digital Visual Effects for the Independent Filmmaker
This is written in response to No CGI Films and other indepedent filmmakers with a limited understanding of Digital Visual Effects and Computer Graphics (CG).
Out of everything I've seen in the face of independent film-making. No CGI Films has perhaps got to be one of the most offensive start-up companies I've encountered. Outdated in their mission and misinformed in their claims.
I became aware of them after being invited to a film they helped produce called THE MILLENIUM BUG and while I respect the film and the talents behind it, I can't help but talk about the stance of NO CGI Films. Does WETA really need to make its digital visual effects branch, the CGI-ONLY studio? Really now?
Let's examine some of their claims shall we? "Can you imagine if Jaws had been made today? Do you really think they would have used a mechanical shark? No way. They would have used computer-generated sharks. You saw that movie - it was called Deep Blue Sea - and it sucked." - No CGI Films (http://www.nocgifilms.com/) First of all Deep Blue Sea came out in 1999 - hardly "today" by any standard and second, it clearly just wasn't written and executed well. Digital Visual Effects have immensely improved since then from one cinematic landmark to another. In so many ways, CGI has improved to the point where the audience half the time probably don't even realize that they're looking at CG. Whether it's an animal being hit by a vehicle* or sprawling vistas with distant castles. Just take a look at the digital visual effects found in HBO's Game of Thrones HERE. While watching this, audience could not possible tell that they were "digital visual effects" there hence the term invisible effects. Whether using applications such as Realflow for Digital Water, Shave and Haircut for Digital Fur, or Vue for Digital Terrains and Vegetation, Digital Visual Effects are here to stay and are the way forward. Allowing filmmakers, not to completely change, but rather augment films in ways that could have never been possible in the past. Most of the reasons behind the criticisms behind the "unrealism" of CGI is the fact that it's still in its relative early stages. Additionally, due to the larger accessibility that comes with advancements in technology, along with the good, we're naturally seeing badly done CG work. But in retrospect let me ask you this, can you honestly say that every film done with practical effects were done well? Obviously not. The quality comes with the craft of the artists behind each endeavor and, as we move to a future where more and more people are formally trained in the many respective areas of creating Digital Visual Effects, we're much closer to a point in time when we'll see less of what characterized the early days of computer graphics.
Whether companies like No CGI Films would like to admit it or not, we are at a stage in the industry where digital visual effects are now an integral part of the filmmaking process creating groundbreaking films such as Avatar and, most recently, Rise of the Planet of the Apes which would have been virtually impossible to create with practical effects alone. The point is that each discipline deserves its respect and come hand in hand behind the scenes in creating movie magic. Simply bashing one art form in favor of another like a 5 year old child when you are clearly misinformed is utterly ridiculous and, not to mention, unprofessional.
In my humble opinion, if No CGI Films would like to gain a greater respect in the industry, I would caution their approach as I personally find it offensive. Sure they say that they respect the work done by Weta, yet, at the same time, criticize everything else just proves to point how much they really don't know. Plus I'm sure they approached their post-production work using the likes of Final Cut Pro and a digital compositing software (Shake, Nuke, or After Effects) which arguably fall into the CGI aspect of filmmaking. As filmmakers do we really want to go back to the approaches of cutting film manually and using rear projection screens as opposed to modern blue and green screen techniques?
I know I've said this already but I'll say it again - gone are the old days of CGI in filmmaking. Now, more than ever, has it just proven itself as in infinitely valuable resource in the filmmaking process along with the likes of Photography, Direction, and Editing.
Those who find themselves outside the proper knowledge-base and acceptance of this are living in the past and in every sense are shooting themselves in the foot. You either move forward and accept what is now or fall behind and become obsolete.
-MarkFX/
*For a particular film where an animal gets hit by a vehicle, Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had to be invited to the digital effects studio to see how the animal was created in CG and composited into the shot in question. Terms: CG - Computer Graphics CGI - Computer Graphics Imagery