Digital Implications
Having already focused heavily on the history of CGI in films, gait analysis, MoCap and PerCap in the last unit, I thought this time I'd focus more on how CGI is used vs makeup and opnions on CGI within the industry.
Some actors clearly enjoy working with CGI, such as Andy Serkis, who is
currently pioneering a project called "The Imaginarium", helping to make
visual effects cheaper and more readily available. They feel like the freedom
they have without all the heavy costumes and prosthetics can be
liberating and allows them to be more expressive.
Other actors, however, can feel lost by the use of CGI. The prefer acting
with real people and prefer the authenticity of traditional methods. Ian
McKellen had a bit of a breakdown of the set of the first hobbit film because
of all the greenscreen:
"I felt pretty miserable … and thought perhaps, has the time come for me
to stop acting altogether if I can't cope with these difficulties?"
"It was so distressing and off-putting and difficult that I thought 'I don't want
to make this film if this is what I'm going to have to do', It's not what I do for a
living. I act with other people, I don't act on my own."
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
"It would have been impossible to make this movie a few years ago"
"They are apes that are infused with the heart and soul of an actors
performance" - Andy Serkis
The film had the largest MoCap volume in the world and it was the
first time that MoCap had been done outside, particularly on such
a large scale.
The Imaginarium (2015) The Imaginarium. [online] Available from:http://www.theimaginariumstudios.com [Acessed: January 9th 2015]
MOVIECLIPS Trailers (2011) Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) HD Weta Featurette Making Of Behind the Scenes [online] Available from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM9Pvfq1KhE {Accessed: January 9th 2015]
"One of the biggest challenges throughout the Golden Gate bridge scene was ensuring the success of the performance capture. There was a good reason that Rise was the first film that had ever taken the technology on location - using the performance capture cameras alongside standard film cameras, let alone outside, was a difficult proposition.
'Technically you have two competing needs here,' explains Joe Letteri, senior visual effects supervisor on Rise. 'You have the film camera and the lights that go with it, and you have the motion capture cameras and their lights, and they both want to see different things'.
Typically, motion capture cameras capture only infrared light projected onto the actors and reflected off of reflective markers at key points on the body. In a motion capture volume, the infrared cameras are only collecting data of the motion of these points as the actor moves, not the images of the actors themselves.In Rise, there were also film cameras at work, capturing the on-set images of actors and settings, which all needed to be light with movie lights, not infrareed lights. To address this, Weta devised an ingenious system, using LED lights giving off their own infrared light, instead of markers reflecting infrared light being shined on them, as would be the case in motion capture volume. "
Hurwitz, M., Gosling, S. and Newll, A. (2014) Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes: The Art of the Films. UK: Titan Books Ltd. pg 73.
"It would have been impossible to make this movie a few years ago"
I think this statement is quite extreme, especially looking at these images from the 1968 version of Planet of the Apes. Matt Reeves (director): " There was something about the makeup that Joh Chambers did, and seeing speaking apes". Obviously the makesups in the 2001 remake are more realistic and believeable and I think the apes could easily have been done with makeup for Dawn and Rise. I think he may be more reffering to the colossal background effects which also required a lot of CGI, such as the Golden Gate Bridge scene, which is understandable. However, I think a lot of it could have been done with stuntmen and makeup as apposed to CGI, particularly as the 2001 Planet of the Apes didn't have access to this kind of technology and was still successful. I think the movie could still have been made, a few years ago, just maybe not to the boundary-pushing extremes that it was.
Makeup was only used instead of CGI in the 2001 Planet of the Apes because Tim Burton insisted on it:
Burton began some 'tweaking' of Broyles' script, while Stan Winston - who had previously worked with Burton on Edward Scissorhands and Batman Returns - was replaced by makeup wizard Rick Baker in May. Burton commented,"I have a relationship with both of them, so that decision was hard. Stan worked on 'Edward Scissorhands' and Baker did Martin Landau's makeup [as Béla Lugosi in 'Ed Wood']". Fox considered using computer-generated imagery to create the apes, but Burton insisted on using Baker's prosthetic makeup.[14] Baker explained "I felt part of the charm of the first film was that the makeup was actor-motivated, not a machine driven by puppeteers. I felt the apes should be realistic and individual, and I was hoping Tim was thinking along those lines."[9] "I did the Dino De Laurentiis version of 'King Kong' in 1976 and was always disappointed because I wasn't able to do it as realistically as I wanted. I thought 'Apes' would be a good way to make up for that." In addition to King Kong, Baker had previously worked with designing ape makeup on Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes, Gorillas in the Mist: The Story of Dian Fossey and Mighty Joe Young.[15] He was able to enlighten Burton on primate behavior - a subject on which he was well-informed after years of creating these primate characters. "I told Tim that it's the chimps that are the crazy ones, not the gorillas. I've been this close to mountain gorillas in the wilds of Africa, impressive creatures that could literally tear you apart, and felt no fear whatsoever. But chimpanzees are crazy, hyper. I've heard stories about people raising chimps from birth who have lost limbs because this thing they raised suddenly flipped out. That kind of stuck with Tim."
Wikia (2001) Planet of the Apes (2001) [online] Available from:http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(2001) Accessed: January 9th 2015]
AVATAR
I believe CGI was used for Avatar for a ground-breaking effect, for the dawn of films done entirely with CGI - not because it was necessary, but for effect - for a purpose. I think its evident to most makeup artists that the Na'vi could have been created using just prosthetics and then CGI could then have been used to effectively animate them fully. I think the CGI was necessary for the scenerary and some creatures. I also found it surprising that no makeup was used, considering how involved James Cameron was with the whole process of Terminator with Stan Winston; he knows what can be achieved with makeup.
"Not long ago, books featuring "The Art of..." used to be fun to look at because they showed what filmmakers hoped to put on screen before the reality of technical restrictions kicked in. I'm referring to the rubber puppets, badly made models, and rear-screen projection that made us realize just how big the gap was between imagination and the practical limitations of the day." - Peter Jackson
"Jim Cameron had written Avatar a decade earlier, but at the time the tools did not exist to tell the story at the level that he envisioned. However, with a technological wave of change upon us, we saw an opportunity to maxmise these emerging digital tools and use them" - Jon Landau
Fitzpatrick, L. and Jackson, P. (2009) The Art of Avatar: Jmaes Cameron's epic adventure. United States: Abrams Harry N, Inc.
Not only has the use of CGI affected makeup and costume, but its affecting actors aswell. Some aren't receiving regodnition for their acting, as some people believe the performance relies too heavily on the CGI:
" The debate rages over whether AVATAR's performance capture is true performance for the Oscars and other awards. Cameron's actors had to work hard to make AVATAR's action look real, but it wasn't enough to impress the Screen Actors Guild, which didn't even nominate AVATAR actors this year. Maybe SAG is just worried that the increasing use of CGI will put human actors out of work, but to be fair, the most-threatened jobs may in fact be makeup artists and costumers.
And still… though Avatar has been nominated for numerous awards, and won several already, its stars have been pretty much ignored by Hollywood. “I don’t think they understand that we don't embellish or make up portions” said James Cameron, referring to critics. He feels that Zoe Saldana, seen in the film only in computer-rendered Na'vi form, is especially worthy. "Every second of the performance is Zoe. If you think about it, she did many things for this role, from mastering an accent and learning a language to intense physical training, [these] are the kinds of things that earn people Oscars. And she did it all in a blank room."
Sasha Stone of Awards Daily isn't buying it: “I appreciate [the] sentiment but what we saw with Saldana was [an] unprecedented combination of technology and performance capture—but in the traditional sense, it is not acting… Zoe Saldana makes for a moving and beautiful Avatar—one of the most memorable characters of the year. But no can say for sure that it is 100% her and not this beautiful technology along with it.”
Regardless, AVATAR remains heavily favored for the best-picture Oscar, especially since many Academy Awards voters are from more technical disciplines than acting. "
Avatar. (2010) AVATAR’s Neytiri: Oscar-Worthy Acting or Just CGI? Januray 28th. Avatar [online] Available from:http://avatarblog.typepad.com/avatar-blog/2010/01/avatars-neytiri-oscarworthy-acting-or-just-cgi.html
I think this is a really interesting debate, as on the one hand obviously a lot of work still goes into an actors performance. The expressions, the voice, the movements are all still carried out in a similar manner, only embellished with CGI, which can obviously enhance or add more to a performance to create the desired aesthetic. I do, however, think it could be equally argued that due to the fact the actors are not actually interacting with real surroundings, the actual characters, etc, that they have to be even more imaginative to, effectively, act in a world which doesn't exist. They have to perform to a standard, on a platform which they can't see before them and therefore, on top of all the acting, have to imagine their surroundings; what the people they're talking to would look like, compensate for different sizes and scales of things because they don't really exist. I consider the acting just as valid as 'regular' acting, but it's certainly a new, different style of acting.
Makeup Artist Magazine. Issue 80. (October, 2009),
Makeup Artist Magazine. Issue 81. (December 2009)
Makeup Artist Magazine. Issue 91. (March 2012)
A lot of articles I read in Makeup Artist Magazine explain the intricate details of combining prosthetics with CGI. One article I found particularly interesting, was were they discussed scanning silicone textures into a computer to re-create the same texture on the CGI image, which they used for Planet of the Apes.
Classix T (2013) ▶ Planet of the apes (1968) Trailer HQ [online] Available from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08OpupJW4ao [Accessed: January 9th 2015]
© 2023 by Tennis Lessons with Karen. Proudly created with Wix.com