I will have the comic by Friday, and I will will update next week by Tuesday as well, after that, I do not know. I will be traveling a lot over the next month.
OK, I watched "Tron Legacy," on Sunday night. It was supposed to be a visually stunning movie, but for some reason I wasn't getting it. It was cool, but the effects and style, while groundbreaking in the 80s, felt a little played out. I was half expecting Trinity to show up and throw him off his Ducati. Not to mention Jeff Bridges was allowing a lot of "The Dude" to show through. Anyway, the coolest part of the film, visually, was when the sun rose at the very end, and you realize that you haven't seen it the entire movie. That being said, you were well aware the entire time, because the rest of the movie was unreasonably dark, with all of the real-world scenes inexplicably taking place at night. I guess I am not really complaining about the computer part, because that holds true to the franchise, but it would have been nice to have the real-world opening to be a little less dark and flashy. A bit of urban dinginess would have gone a long way to create nice contrast and really enhances the lights and clean lines of the computer world. Then, when you got back to the sunrise, you could have still been overwhelmed by a lush organic world. Maybe, they were trying to make it so there was little distinction between the real world in the beginning and the computer world in the middle, but I feel it made the movie lose emotional resolution.
Still, "Tron" is one of the great visual influences in movies. I have decided to create a list of movies that use visuals and effects better than all of the rest. You've probably heard of all of them. Surprisingly, they are all sci-fi. Go figure. It is me.
Star Wars: Let's just get this out of the way because you knew this movie had to be on the list. I am specifically referring to "A New Hope." "Empire," and "Jedi" are equally awesome, but they were not the ground-breakers. The prequels have many cool aspects, but they just feel overdone. (By the way, I refuse to acknowledge them as canon. They are just very elaborate fan-fiction in my book.)
I do not need to tell you how "Star Wars" changed how we view action and special effects. I will simply say this. They not only invented the effects, they used them awesomely. 35 years later and they still look right. The were all over the place, but they fit perfectly into the story and the visual scheme of the movie. That is really what I am looking for in special effects: "Does it make me believe that I am seeing what I am seeing?", not, "Is it cool?"
Jurassic Park: This is what inspired this post. I saw the original over the weekend. "Jurassic park" was frontrunner in trying to create realistic computer special effects. Surprisingly, 19 years later people aren't doing as good of a job with CGI. The reason is simple. In Jurassic park they wanted to show dinosaurs behaving and looking like dinosaurs. Dinosaurs weren't monsters or aliens. They were real animals, and they looked and behaved like animals. The goal was not the effect. The goal was the story, and the story was about dinosaurs. They used whatever technology was available to tell the stories, puppets, shadows, CGI, and even a bit of turning the camera on the actors to see their reactions. Now days, dinosaurs look hokey because people ask, "What can we make the dinosaurs do?" not "What should the dinosaurs be doing in this situation." Honestly, it's as much writing and visual direction as it is actual execution of the effect.
The Matrix: "The Matrix" is a film that is completely over-the-top. However, that was the goal. The world they were portraying was completely unrealistic, so their over-the-top visuals and effects enhance that feeling. Every action movie since 1999 has tried to copy their style, and I hate that for two reasons. The first is that it lacks originality. Every-slow-motion dodge reminds you of the "Matrix," end of story. The second is that it is a distortion of reality, not an enhancement. In a computer simulation, reality is distorted. So, crazy events are expected. In real-life, distorted reality just comes of as weird. It feels like you're skirting the bounds of sci-fi and superheros when you are really going for real-world action. I guess the question to ask yourself here, is "Am I distorting my reality, or emphasizing it?"
Aliens: Someone was credited with a comment along these lines when CGI came out: Why are we getting rid of the man in the rubber suit, when we are just getting good at it? "Aliens" if the perfect example. Not only are the characters rational (A first in a horror/action flick) and the story awesome, but they are in a believable environment. That was the brilliance of the film. The goal was a heart-pounding story with a scary but functional environment and frightening monsters. The form and aesthetics followed the emotional and story-telling goal. The effects worked to create the desired aesthetics. The lesson is the question, "Am I letting the aesthetics drive the emotional tone, or am I letting, the emotional tone drive the aesthetics?"
2001 A Space Odyssey: Let's just pretend the final sequences didn't happen (We'll treat it like the "Star Wars" prequels.) Anyway, what was great about this movie? The technology. I understand that it wasn't nearly as impressive as that in "Star Trek," yet it was cooler. Here is the problem with "Star Trek." They had awesome lighting effects to portray their fantasy technology, but when it came to human interaction, it was dials and slide rules. I'm sure those things looked cool in the 60s but they did not stand the test of time. Eh, it was what they had. However, take "A Space Odyssey." The technology being portrayed was more down to earth, but it visually it feel a lot less hokey. The displays and user interfaces (including conversational voice commands) were what we would want in a spaceship. Therefore it feels futuristic, even in 2012. Also, the mechanics and aesthetics of the crafts in space are what we would expect a working spaceship to look like. They had work to portray weightlessness, rotational reference frames, and touch-screen displays. You don't even really think about that. You just think "That is how I would design a space ship." (Minus, the killing you part.) The question here is more of an aesthetics question, "Are we using the effects to portray how we would want the world to look and behave, or are we just sprucing up a couple of aspects with some wow factor and leaving the rest to be filled in with whatever we got?"
I think I will leave you now. The same lessons can be learned from, action, horror, and even romantic comedy. I just chose sci-fi, because visual effects are an essential part of the genre.
By the way, I was planning on writing this all weekend, but I found this post by Aaron Diaz.
By the way, you need to read Dresden Codak as it is my biggest influence.
Crow
No comments:
Post a Comment