Reading through Below the Line's review of the year's big visual effects movies, one sentence jumped out:
... [O]ne problem ... making visual effects a victim, in a sense, of their own success – is that a “consistent level of knock-your-socks-off has made us numb.” ...
There's another problem for effects in the digital age. When people aren't numb from apes or dinosaurs or mind-bending airplane crashes, they are unimpressed with shots that used to jerk them upright in their theater seats.
Think about the long take. In the old days of film, a lengthy tracking shot that ran seamlessly for three or four minutes was truly impressive, because you knew that the actors were exchanging big blocks of dialogue for the entire scene, that the background elements were choreographed in real time, that you were, in short, watching an actual event.
Now the same tracking shot might be cobbled together from multiple takes, but computers humming in dark rooms make it appear as one. Audiences know this, so the real-time "Wow!" factor is gone. Now it's all tricks with pixels.
Posts
10 comments:
"Audiences know this, so the real-time "Wow!" factor is gone."
It's common sense. Familiarity breeds contempt ... or boredom. Too many "making-of" extra features and promotional television shows that go behind the scenes to show how we do it. It's the same as those idiotic tv shows that purport to expose how magic tricks are done. Audiences may initially be titillated with being promised that "all the secrets will be revealed", but after that what ... ? No more fun. No more wonder. The audience becomes blase. Remove the "wow" factor and audiences are not impressed or entertained anymore. Mystery is what keeps an audience intrigued. ("How do they do that?!!") We show too much.
I had this discussion once at a Disney animation retreat with a certain Disney exec. , who in his typically patronizing way assured poor lil' ol' me that such shows were not harmful and only make the general audience "appreciate the artistry even more".
To build upon the previous comment, didn't both film and animation already go through this stage?
Moving pictures used to be a magic novelty in themselves. Then audiences demanded more to hold their attention.
Animation started with novelties like "The Enchanted Drawing" and "Gertie the Dinosaur", but a few decades later it took Snow White and Looney Tunes to maintain the interest of an audience.
Like animation and film, I think VFX still has the ability to wow and delight an audience. It just needs the emotional context of a good story told well.
You're right that heavy use of CG has made audiences blase.
If you look at the chariot races in either version of "Ben Hur," you get a visceral jolt (at least, I do.) The action is REAL.
In the '25 version, there's a huge pileup of chariots on a curve (just like in ancient times!) that is horrific. There are production workers running out on the track, clearly visible, trying to help injured stunt people, but the film-makers use the shot anyway because it's effective. It's got the "wow!" factor. In spades.
Then look at the vehicle race in Stars Wars, Episode I. Same kind of dynamics as "Ben Hur" (1959), with the big crowds in stands, crashes, and many of the same angles. But I don't get the same sweaty palms I do with the chariot races because I know it's not real.
This is true.
I became MUCH more interested in the latest Mission Impossible movie when I found out that Cruise actually DID hang out of the Bahrain skyscraper, in harnesses, and actually did fall a distance to capture the shot.
When watching the movie, this made the sequence far more compelling and dangerous than if it had all been safely shot with green screens and CG.
To think about it another way, I went to the movie because that effect WASN'T just a pure special effect.
/Yes, I know CG was used to further enhance the practical effect.
Then look at the vehicle race in Stars Wars, Episode I. Same kind of dynamics as "Ben Hur" (1959), with the big crowds in stands, crashes, and many of the same angles. But I don't get the same sweaty palms I do with the chariot races because I know it's not real.
I'd blame the lousy storytelling of EPISODE I more than the fact that the race was CG. I think it's OK for the visuals of a film to be "not real" as long as it feels real.
Otherwise a 100%-CG animated feature would have no shot at wowing an audience because it's all "fake."
Special effects are no longer special.
As to the first comment, about the secrets being revealed; The cat has been out of the bag on that issue for decades. It used to be that there were very few VFX artists, and they mostly kept their "magician's secrets". Now they teach it in school! Pretty hard to keep that a secret. But I don't think the average moviegoer pays much attention to how it is all done. People have lost the sense of wonder because of over-saturation.
... Otherwise a 100%-CG animated feature would have no shot at wowing an audience because it's all "fake."
True.
For me, it applies more to live-action. We couldn't have gotten teary-eyed at Snow White in the glass coffin if the fact it isn't "real" undercut our empathetic responses.
No set rules, obviously. Just a general observation about how audiences react to movies. (Okay. How I react to movies ...)
Steve Hulett said...
... Otherwise a 100%-CG animated feature would have no shot at wowing an audience because it's all "fake."
True.
AND, it's all done by puppetiers...
To the anonymous above, try to get a grip. Hulett didn't say that, and what the hell are 'puppetiers'? If you're going to the trouble of writing a comment, at least try to be slightly coherent.
Amen. And what's wrong with puppeteers? Some of the best animators alive are puppeteers.
Post a Comment