Slashdot Mirror
CGI About to Boom In Hollywood
FortKnox writes "Because of the success of "Monsters Inc" and "Shrek", many major hollywood studios are scrambling getting on the CGI bandwagon. Looks like we're about to get smothered by CGI movies left and right. For those that like to tinker with CG, it might be a good time to go jobhunting..." Several upcoming movies mentioned. Some ven
look like they might have potential ;)
Of course, as ususal many studios will slap together formulaic, crummy projects driven by the idea that CGI means a movie on the cheap (no locations! no actors!). They'll tank, and some burned studios will think twice before the next one. And even if the product is decent - I watched "Osmosis Jones" on video this weekend and enjoyed it quite a bit - it may pan because there are no sure things in entertainment.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Movies like Shrek and Final Fantasy (especially Final Fantasy) have done a lot to show what total CG movies can be, but movies like Lord of the Rings and (to a lesser extent, IMHO) Star Wars: Episode One have shown how the effective use of CG can not only compliment human acting, it can bring the immersion and suspension of disbelief to another level.
:)
I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the scenery and cinematography in Lord of the Rings was fantastic. Granted, the perspective (swooping high above in many cases) allows for loss of detail in such a way that you fool the eyes of the audience in a lot of cases, but the close-up scenes have become finely detailed as well, showing that the possibilities for effectively integrating CG in a live action scene are greater than in previous years.
I agree that a bumper crop of CG movies are coming, but here's another trend to watch out for: actors that do especially well with blue-screens and acting with things/people that aren't really there.
Oh, and just a side note...I think all this effective CG stuff is going to really hurt the traditional latex/foam rubber movie monster special effects industry. In years past, things like the cave troll in LotR would have been done with a guy in a suit, or hydraulics or such. But, it probably wouldn't have seemed as fluid or expressive, so, eh no loss, right?
My sigs always suck.
Any real animation fan will tell you that using CGI (or conventional cell animation) doesn't eliminate the need for good actors. The quality of the voice acting in an animated feature can make a huge difference in its overall quality.
To take a particularly strong negative example, consider JarJar Binks. His antics in Phantom Menace were certainly distracting, but it was the awful voice acting that made him so utterly annoying. On the positive side, look at your examples of Shrek and Toy Story. Both movies had top name actors providing the voices for key characters. In Japan, the best seiyuu (voice actors) in anime can be nationally famous just for their vocal talents.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
What the article fails to mention is that PDI and Pixar both have been working toward these CG animated films for 20 years; the article makes it sound like Dreamworks was able to make their first animated film very quickly and easily -- it could only do so because they bought Pacific Data Images who had been laying the foundations for these films beginning in 1980 (disclaimer -- I was at PDI from 1983 'til 1995).
Ed Catmull, the president of Pixar, has been trying to make animated films since the mid-70's, starting at the University of Utah, then going to the New York Institute of Technology's Computer Graphics Lab, then to Lucasfilm; whose computer division was spun off to become Pixar.
The film that did seem to happen amazingly fast was Jimmy Neutron; Boy Genius. While Pixar and PDI have used proprietary, in-house systems to do their animation; DNA used pretty much off-the-shelf software (although today's commercial software is very customizable, so the line is blurrier than you might think at first glance). DNA was able to make the jump from hand-drawn 2D animation to a 3D feature very quickly indeed. And while the characters are goofy and the rendering is not (even attempting to be) photoreal -- it is still amazing to me that a small group of people actually can pull off an animated film in a reasonable amount of time.
Jimmy Neutron will not be the box-office smash that Shrek or Monsters are; but it is the more revolutionary film.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
However, you forgot one thing that director Peter Jackson said about the Cave Troll: it was designed specifically as an homage to Ray Harryhausen, perhaps the greatest stop-motion special effects artist ever. That's why the motion of the Cave Troll is not completely smooth--it copied Harryhausen's style.
If Jackson had wanted more smooth action from the Cave Troll his CGI team at WETA Digital would have copied the movement style of the go motion figures that was first heavily used by Industrial Light and Magic for the movie Dragonslayer.