The Backstage Pass: CGI Overload: Hollywood In A Digital World
There’s no denying that technology has made everything we can imagine more attainable; and no where is it more prevalent than in big studio blockbusters. As large studios demand bigger and bigger pictures, seeking higher payouts, and pulling larger audiences than ever before, Hollywood movies are relying more and more on Computer Generated Images; or CGI. While it’s an amazing tool that allows the storyteller to flex the boundaries of the imagination, it can also backfire. For me, this begs the question: Is it being used too much?
I look back at the movies that impacted me as a kid. Many of these pictures were so effective in pulling me into the world of the movie, that, for the entirety of the film, my brain was able to convince me that the characters, locations, and occurrences of the movie were real and that I should care. The filmmakers were able to successfully connect with me emotionally because they used the tools at their disposal to convince me that everything I saw on screen was possible. This is called suspension of disbelief; and for me, it’s the most important factor when creating any work of fiction. So how did Spielberg, Cameron, and Scott successfully accomplish what so many directors today are failing to do?
Jurassic Park (1993)
Jurassic World (2015)
For me the answer is simple: they used CGI and practical effects as tools to enhance their story, not relying on them as mediums. CGI, is undoubtedly, better today. From motion capture to completely computer generated environments, CGI has been flexed to the point that it is sometimes indistinguishable from real in-camera images. Yet, I find myself seeing movies and feeling “wow, this looks totally fake.” At the same time, I’ll watch Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 and thinking, “how did this age so well?”
The trick for those films was to shoot as much of the movie as possible practically. Most of the people, elements, environments, and action occurred within the camera’s perspective. CGI was then used to enhance the things that the directors wanted us to see or compensate for what could not be created practically because of the limitations set by real-world factors.
That is what makes Arnie peeling off his arm in T2 so realistic and the final scene in Marvel Studio’s Black Panther so fake. I know, everyone loved Black Panther, and I’m probably going to get a lot of flack for saying something negative about the MCU and the beloved Black Panther movie. The truth is, I enjoyed the movie a lot, until the very end. There were other points in the pictures that made me lose that suspension of disbelief required for me to care, but enough of the movie had elements that pulled me back, but the end lost me completely. It had nothing to do with the story, characters, or plot and everything to do with the fact that the characters looked fake.
You know exactly what I’m talking about. Glossy, almost plastic-looking characters, “floating” in an environment that doesn’t seem to connect with them in any physical way. It’s just layered images that, to me, are obviously fake to the point where I don’t think the director expects me to believe they’re real… so I don’t. When this happens, you’ve managed to make the viewer stop caring for everything else the preceded it. The story, the integrity of the picture, and the emotional connection to the world on screen and its characters is lost. This is the difference between a “pretty good” movie and a “great” movie. Here are two examples of modern movies that both used CGI and practical effects. One was highly successful cinematically, in the box office, and in connecting with its audience and adoring fans.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Man of Steel (2013)
Putting aside all of the story and character issues that made MOS a disappointment to DC Comics fans, the film was just… too fake. Zack Snyder was so worried about creating a world where a man can feasibly fly, run faster than a speeding bullet, and leap tall buildings that he forgot how physics work. Moreover, the pressure to create technology and costumes that were over-the-top different from what we have here on Earth, made him elect to use CGI even when he didn’t have to. Case and point, costumes… You’d think Green Lantern would have taught them better!
CGI Ninja Turtle Left (2014) vs. Practical Effect Ninja Turtle (1990)
Conversely, you had the hyper-realistic world that Christopher Nolan created. Here we have a man gliding through the city dressed like a bat, driving a completely ridiculous looking vehicle, and yet, we believed it was possible for all of it to happen. The difference? Besides better writing, character research, and better overall story-telling, the characters, their abilities, and how they interacted with their environment all looked real. The Dark Knight was full of CGI, but it also relied on what was on screen. On the flipside, Man of Steel went as far as using CGI to make the cape move. I mean, we all love a majestic cape flowing in the wind, but Bryan Singer managed that with PAs in green suits waiving the cape in a choreographed manner for the same character just a few years before.
Chris Nolan used CGI to enhance he built, not unlike Spielberg did with JP; Zack Snyder relied on it to carry his movie because the world he built would not exist without it. And that, true believers, is the pattern Hollywood been following. Whether it’s budget, timeline, or weak storytelling, big blockbusters are now relying almost entirely on CGI and it’s hurting the quality of the movies being put out. Let’s hope more directors take note and push the trend back in a positive direction. If not, animated movies will end up being more “realistic” than live action motion pictures.
