CGI or Practical Effects?
I feel that there has been two sides of an argument that have been presented to me in this class-- one that CGI has been diminishing jobs for cartoonists and classical animators, and the curiosity of why people are so interested in "realism" that 1) isn't convincing enough for the viewer to ever truly believe it is real (aka Jurassic Park), and 2) has the same effectiveness in engulfing the viewer as forms of animation that aren't as realistic.
The other side is that CGI is a new and emerging form of art that is getting more and more advanced every year, the possibilities spanning out further and further and should be recognized as an art and a science.
Personally, I have never been a fan of CGI, although I'm also positive some great films have used it. I follow entire blogs and instagram accounts called "anti-CGI"and am part of practical effect enthusiast communities. I even strive to use only practical effects in my own films.
Reading and watching everything we have about CGI, it has made me appreciate it in my own way, but also become conflicted. I think there is always enough room in the film community for every type of medium and art, but which will make money and be successful? I think that art shouldn't be about money, as much as it would be great to make money off of your passions.
Personally, I hope to bring practical effects back into the spotlight of film, in ways that we haven't seen in decades. I was having a discussion with a friend about the original Yoda puppet vs the CGI one. They thought that the audience was able to see Yoda in all his glory in CGI form because he was able to do things a puppet wouldn't be able to do. I don't know if I can agree with him. If you've ever seen "The Thing" (Carpenter, 1982), you know there are lots of things you can do with a puppet.
When it comes to CGI, I'm wondering if it truly is the art form that is attracting people, or if it is the companies that are releasing these films. I'm wondering if Disney released more films that were made with a mix of practical effects and CGI, how well those would go? Or movies classically animated. I think what attracts me to CGI'd movies, when I am, is how glossy they look. They are very crisp and clear and it can look photographic at times, with very bright and clear colors. Wondering what everyone else thinks?
The other side is that CGI is a new and emerging form of art that is getting more and more advanced every year, the possibilities spanning out further and further and should be recognized as an art and a science.
Personally, I have never been a fan of CGI, although I'm also positive some great films have used it. I follow entire blogs and instagram accounts called "anti-CGI"and am part of practical effect enthusiast communities. I even strive to use only practical effects in my own films.
Reading and watching everything we have about CGI, it has made me appreciate it in my own way, but also become conflicted. I think there is always enough room in the film community for every type of medium and art, but which will make money and be successful? I think that art shouldn't be about money, as much as it would be great to make money off of your passions.
Personally, I hope to bring practical effects back into the spotlight of film, in ways that we haven't seen in decades. I was having a discussion with a friend about the original Yoda puppet vs the CGI one. They thought that the audience was able to see Yoda in all his glory in CGI form because he was able to do things a puppet wouldn't be able to do. I don't know if I can agree with him. If you've ever seen "The Thing" (Carpenter, 1982), you know there are lots of things you can do with a puppet.
When it comes to CGI, I'm wondering if it truly is the art form that is attracting people, or if it is the companies that are releasing these films. I'm wondering if Disney released more films that were made with a mix of practical effects and CGI, how well those would go? Or movies classically animated. I think what attracts me to CGI'd movies, when I am, is how glossy they look. They are very crisp and clear and it can look photographic at times, with very bright and clear colors. Wondering what everyone else thinks?
I totally agree with the importance you place on practical effects and their use in film. I also believe that movies should not be made in a completely CGI world. That being said, I am a believer in the CGI practical effect symbiosis, and that the combination of both of these art forms produces the best result. CGI absolutely has a place in the greater art of film making, but it shouldn't be a substitute for everything.
ReplyDeleteI find your thoughts on the subject very interesting even though they diverge slightly from mine. I've always thought of CGI as a natural progression of practical effects; and a lot of the time effects are a combination of CGI and practical. I think practical effects to CGI is similar to Film vs Digital cinema; film isn't better or worse than digital, it is just different and should be used for different things. I don't think every transformer should be practical, and I don't think every effect should be CGI. Though I do agree that the hollywood does lean on CGI a bit too heavily.
ReplyDelete