It was real, real easy to make fun of "The Hobbit" movies when they came out. Even though it was at least decent to most audiences, there was something about it that made it an easy target. It especially got a lot of flack for one scene in particular:
youtube.com
I think I know why: that is the point where you tap-out. You could handle orcs (or uruks) and elves, and you could handle magic and strange creatures, but you couldn’t handle a pointy-eared Orlando Bloom platform his way up an almost impressively noodle-like bridge like a dreamboat Luigi. This was the scene that made me wonder: where is CGI headed? Have we reached the point where the special effects industry is just swallowing itself whole, paying incredibly high prices for affects that aren’t even half decent?
"The Hobbit" series spent $2 million for every page it depicted on the big screen. Even then, many critics and viewers stated the effects didn’t look very “realistic,” at least in the modern context. In the strange case of "The Hobbit" moves though, the original ideas seemed to be the better ones, at least in the case of the special effects. Practical costuming and makeup like this:
(swiftfilm.com)
were, later in the production stages, changed into a dirty, blobby glump of CGI messes like this:
Yes, you can argue that both versions look stupid, but at least the practical effects look like they exist (plus that costume is, objectively, metal as shit). The problems "The Hobbit" movies had have been expanding throughout the entire modern movie industry for years. Meticulous practical effects (think "The Thing," "Jaws," "2001: A Space Odyssey," etc.) have been replaced by throwing money at a green or blue screen.
"Transformers," the most famous case of blatant laziness and/or bad decisions in the special effects department, bafflingly believed that its scenes of utter, untamed convolution (meant in a bad way, not in a "Max Payne: Fury Road" kind of way) was just perfect for the big screen film:
theeventhor1zon.deviantart.com
Scenes like this were some of the biggest problems with the Transformers series (you know, besides blatant racism, terrible writing, Michael Bay, etc.) Just like that bridge from "The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies" (2014), nothing in the above scene looks like it could possibly exist in the real world. And I don’t mean “Oh, giant robots can’t exist,” no shit, I mean that the physics, mobility, and progression of the whole scene takes us completely out of the movie.
Within movies, there is an understood conversation between the creators and the audience called “suspension of belief.” Just like in story writing, the suspension can bust if the creator over-extends it. CGI is at the point to where it is so huge and so expensive that it constantly breaks the suspension. Special effect teams are dumping huge sums of money in researching how CGI can mimic physics and biology instead of just spending that money on things that actually have real physics and biology. Is CGI doomed? Here’s at least one way it could be saved.
Witness "Tha Realest":
en.wikipedia.org
Whoops sorry, I meant to say this:
Witness this realist:
That is Millet, and his piece (titled "The Gleaners") would have made me do a double-take right there in my knickers. In the early 19th century, before photography really existed, I might have said, “hey, how did they recreate that image?” (before dying at the age of 35. I’m sure everyone from the 1800’s just sat around confused and died). This image could possibly exist in the real world, and it’s supposed to look like that. Millet used his paints and his materials in order to force this effect. Realist art was supposed to reflect the hardship of everyday life.
Ok look at this one I did in art class a few weeks ago, I’m pretty proud of it:
Oh wait sorry, my bad again, that’s "Composition IV" by Kadinsky. Do you think Kadinsky was even looking towards the general direction of realism for this piece? Hm, I would go with a solid, abstractly shaped, spatially confusing “no.”
Abstract art reached the apex of its popularity and critical success around the time of the two World Wars, which makes a lot of sense: art and other forms of entertainment are, many times, used as distractions. So, while many people’s weekdays consisted of going to the factory and wondering when the war would end so they could just live their lives again, their weekends could be spent looking at this colorful expression of the dream-world unknown to us in our daily lives.
To further my decently long-winded proposal (that I promise is going somewhere and is not just me showing you cool art), look at this untitled Franz Kline piece:
This isn’t supposed to look like anything existing in our world, even less so than Kandinsky’s work. It’s not supposed to look like a landscape, or a person, or even anything dreamlike: it is the reflection of emotion. We know it’s paint. We understand that an artist made it. There is a conversation between the painter and the viewer, a conversation paralleling the dialogue between the paint and the canvas.
Now, finally, look at this little-known oddity from 2005 titled "Mirror Mask":
This, while it is utterly terrifying, is not supposed to mimic real life. Dave McKean, the director, was using CGI as a tool of art instead of a shortcut. This scene from "Sharknado" furthers my point in a much different fashion:
While the latter example might be the proof of the incoming downfall of both entertainment and mankind, it’s at least a good sign for CGI. A lot of other forms of entertainment have used tools and technological methods in different ways paralleling the trajectory of the aforementioned art styles.
"Shovel Knight," last year’s breakout indie video game hit, used 8-bit graphics (the same style as the early "Super Mario" and "Sonic the Hedgehog" games) to evoke the emotions of nostalgia mixed with the innovation of a new take on the platformer genre. The electronic music genre Vaporwave remixes or recreates the sounds of 80’s and 90’s muzak (generic music found in elevators and commercials) to comment on the extreme reaches of capitalism. Even another tool used in movies, black and white, has been used to show the stark contrast in the emotions in a scene far after colored movies were possible.
So, here’s my hypothesis for the future of CGI: it will merely be a tool. A tool just like 8-bit graphics, a tool just like shitty keyboard presets, and a tool just like black and white. CGI doesn’t have to mimic real life in all of its uses. The same conversation that existed between Franz Klein’s paints and the audience could most definitely work on the big screen.
CGI is fantastic at evoking fantasy, and that can go in many more directions than just the creepy ass cats from The Mirror Mask and the almost satirically bad Sharknado sharks. Hey, maybe this scene is actually satirical and we just never understood it until now:
Nope, just bad. Just really, really bad.
