Slashdot Mirror
'Chappie': What It Takes To Render a Robot
Nerval's Lobster writes: The visual-effects supervisor on the new film Chappie, Image Engine's Chris Harvey, talked with Dice about what it took to render the titular robot. Director Neil Blomkamp thought Chappie needed to look realistic, like something you might honestly expect to see patrolling the streets a decade or two from now. Image Engine took the concept artwork created by Blomkamp and WETA and rendered it in three dimensions, refining the mechanics so the animated Chappie would move realistically for a six-foot-tall, gun-toting robot. As the movie progresses, Chappie begins to take damage from bullets, flames, and thrown debris; if that wasn't enough, he also ends up covered in graffiti. That sort of wear-and-tear complicated things for the effects team; WETA had to produce three physical Chappie "skeletons" and a multitude of body panels representing the increasing levels of damage, and Image Engine needed to make sure every inch of the digital Chappie was rendered accurately to match. The movie itself might be scoring mediocre reviews, but at least the robot looks good.
This article feels pretty light on the details. I'd find more details in my "making of Jurassic Park" book I got as a child. All it says is different people work on different stuff and they used physical models to figure out how to model some physics in the digitally version.
I mean using a stand-in, instead of a tennis ball for actors to interact with? Did Lord of The Rings never happen?
i just went to see it at the cinema, i'm a big fan of sci-fi films, and this one i really liked. if you're an afficionado of sci-fi books and films, there will be nothing new, you should be able to predict everything that happens but i was still absorbed by the novel way the story unfolded. yes it was violent - if you're going to tell a story about out-of-control criminal activity then that's hardly not going to happen - but it was also poignant as well.
i think the best part about the film was that the robots, because they've been seen before in other stories by the same director (Elysium for example), are not "glorified", they're just "part of the story". the problem with novice sci-fi writers (book or film, especially film because it's a less mature medium for telling sci-fi stories) is that they tend to not really actually have a good background or story (which is why the marvel comics films are so damn good), so as a substitute the director "glorifies" the technology in a wealth of special effects. by complete contrast, the introduction of an entirely new type of consciousness - and its rapid development from child-like behaviour to above-average human intelligence through incredibly painful learning experiences and its desire to remain alive against a ticking clock - that's what really really makes this story so interesting.
but the best bit i think is how this new being changes the lives of those who initially sought to profit from it (admittedly out of desperation), surprising even themselves by finding that despite their desperation and ganster background they begin to see this robot as a valuable conscious being in its own right.
so although this film has aspects which have been covered before, i don't know of many films that have done proper justice to the emergence of machine consciousness and the respectf it engenders in those who come into contact with computer-based beings, in the way that this film has managed. it's just a pity that i feel that that message is completely over the heads of the average reviewer.
Is it just me, or does this movie sound EXACTLY like Short Circuit, but with the "grittified, modernized" feel to it?
Sam