The Importance of Practical Effects

Some people call me a grandpa. I like to fish, I like classic rock, and I'm pretty much ready to retire. My old school ways carry over into my production tastes; I prefer to do things practically, not relying on all this new-fangled digital nonsense that the kids are using these days. We've all heard the age-old adage "fix it in post." I hate that. For me, whether it is lighting, special effects, makeup, or sound design there is no better way to accurately depict it than to actually create it. Don't get me wrong. CGI and the like have the potential to create some  truly amazing things that would be entirely impossible to recreate practically, but I don't the current trend that seems to be relying on digital effects almost exclusively. 

One show that has received a lot of praise for its use of special effects is The Walking Dead. Executive-producer and special-effects expert Greg Nicotero is the man behind the terrifying zombies, all created almost exclusively with practical effects. Nicotero has worked as a makeup artist on many films, including the third installment of the holy grail of zombie movies,  George Romero's Day of the Dead.  The zombies of TWD are given an immense amount of individual attention; to even appear on the show all of the actors must graduate from "Zombie School" which teaches them the correct way to move, gesture, and interact within the narrative world.  Each zombie is hand crafted, with makeup applied that accents and hyperbolizes the individual features of the actor, making each zombie unique. The zombies have evolved as the show has progressed, becoming more decayed and grotesque with the passage of time in the story world. Here are some examples: 

The results of this individual attention is incredible.  Most of the effects on TWD are practical; there's nothing a hate more than CGI blood-splatter or animated gore. I want the real stuff. 

This is actually Greg Nicotero as an extra on TWD. He has made several cameo appearances.

Nicotero doing his thing

 This show isn't filmed with a bunch of extras wearing chroma-key green suits with motion tracking dots all over their face. The Walking Dead has real zombies. Well, as close to real as you can physically get.  The results are terrifying and certainly take the show to the next level. TWD does use some digital effects for exotic backdrops and more involved zombie kills; in fact I read an article that revealed that season six of the show will use more digital effects than any previous season. Call me old school, but I just love the use of practical makeup and other effects. Digital effects certainly have their place, but there are just some things that can only be created, not recreated on a screen. 

Amazing CGI video for Tesla

As someone who is interested in going into the advertising industry, one of my favorite sites to browse is adweek.com.  As I was browsing today, I came upon this amazing video created by Parachute.tv.

This video isn't an actual Tesla advertisement, but a fan-made one created by the Parachute team. Whats amazing is that this was created completely in CGI, from the realistically looking gas station to the electric fireflies to the Tesla automobile. Its crazy to see just how advanced computer graphics have become to actually be able to generate images that look this real.

Practical Effects: The Real Magic Tricks of Filmmaking

Special effects in filmmaking could be summed up into two different styles: visual effects, and practical effects. Visual effects usually involve editing the footage in post-production, while practical effects are done live in front of the camera. Visual effects can have a really cool effect when used effectively, like in this summer's blockbuster film, "Maleficent". Of course everything you see is fake and created on a computer, but the movement of the camera makes the scene very compelling.

So. Visual effects can be pretty cool. But I'm here to talk about why practical effects are way cooler.

Why are they way cooler?

Well, many reasons. For one the shot is going to have a timeless effect and will look real 100 years from now because, well, it is real. Visual effects however are very time sensitive. These magical, awe-inspiring scenes we see now will look laughable in a few years. But that's how technology works.

Check out these two scenes below...

The first one is from Terminator 3, where they flipped a massive construction vehicle using computer-generated visual effects. The second one is from the Dark Knight, where they do almost the same stunt except they actually flip the truck.

Now to be fair some might jump up and say the Terminator version is better because the truck is seen crunched in to the ground, tires flying through the air, and of course a nice big explosion to finish.

But sorry, you're wrong.

Consider this analogy....

The Dark Knight's effect is like a gourmet selection from that restaurant down the street...

...and The Terminator's visual effect is like a #2 from Panda Express with extra meat.

But consider this analogy for a second. Even though Panda Express is of less quality, overall it's a better deal. You're getting a lot more food for a lot less money. There's plenty like about it... but little to appreciate. You will not eat Panda Express in small bites and appreciate the amount of work it took to create such a masterpiece. It's just something that will make you happy in that moment. And minus the painful poo afterwords, that's exactly what the Terminator 3 effect is. It's just a cheap audience pleaser. 

I hope a few of these behind-the-scenes videos below will help convince you:

First off, The Dark Knight flip:

 Come on... that's just FRIGGIN COOL.

For any of you that have seen Inception, you may remember the scene when Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in a fist fight whilst flying all across a room because of changing gravity. How do you create the effect of a room rapidly changing gravity? How about RAPIDLY CHANGING THE GRAVITY?

This next video is from "Edge of Tomorrow", a film I expected to be a horrible flop. Tom Cruise stuck reliving to same war scene day after day? Sounded to me like an excuse for big explosions and no story at all. But the reviews came out and they were actually really positive. I couldn't believe it. I had to see what all the huff was about, and I was indeed pleasantly surprised by the engaging story. The story does of course include several explosions and battle scenes, but I remember thinking that they were acted out very well. That is, the actors seemed to be reacting to their environment quite realistically. After watching this video, I realized why. This video features several small clips, but the most impressive clip is at 2:58. It's truly incredible and I don't think many actors could pull it off besides Tom Cruise. 

Of course there are many other notable films that are famous for their use of practical effects, but I hope this gives you an introduction to the fine art and precise skill of these types of effects. They are dangerous, expensive, and difficult, but that's why they deserve so much appreciation.

Crave that gourmet shit.

The Magic of Projection Mapping

When I first watched the above video, I assumed that the stunning visuals where the result of CGI added in post. Upon further research, I was shocked to discover that this scene consists entirely of live visuals, captured in camera. To create these stunning visuals, Bot and Dolly, the company that produced this video, utilized robotics, motion control, and projection. Through the use of special software, Bot and Dolly was able to synchronize the projected visuals with the movements of the dollies and robotic arms. Not scene in the shot is the third dolly, on which the camera is mounted. The movements of this third dolly are programed so that the camera angles interact with and add depth to the projections on the screens. While projection mapping has been used in some films, most notably Oblivion, it is still a relatively new technology. The most notable advantage of implementing projection mapping, as opposed to using CGI, is that it allows actors to see and interact with visuals in real-time. It will be interesting to see if this technology catches on and becomes a common sight in mainstream films. Judging from this video, I say it is only a matter of time.

Rango

This week I watched the film Rango. Rango stars a CG animal cast, lead by a chameleon that loves to act. After being let loose in the desert he finds himself in an old western town facing a drought that threatens their livelihoods. Through a series of events the newcomer that calls himself "Rango" is named sheriff and given the task of solving all of the town's problems. As far as the film goes, I enjoyed it's offbeat humor and numerous references to films of the past. It's animation, although highly detailed, still maintained a "cartoony" look and I felt that the use of CG brought life to the setting in a way that a 2D image can't. I recommend this film to anyone looking for an amusing suspenseful comedy or anyone who just wants to hear Johnny Depp give his best Kermit The Frog impression.

Thor

So over the summer I watched a few movies in the theaters. One of my favorite movies that I saw was Thor. The thing that amazed me so much about Thor was the scenery. It looks amazing just on the computer screen let alone in 3D in the movie theatres. Here is a picture of Valhalla.

It was truly a great movie and I am just wondering how long and how expensive it was to create this. There are many more great examples of computer generated scenery throughout the movie. Here is a trailer I found that is just a sample of the breathtaking scenery in the movie.

Amazing isn't it?

Spielberg brings Jurassic Park to FOX

There are a lot of good shows set to premiere this fall, but the most expensive one by far is the Steven Spielberg produced Terra Nova. While the two hour series premiere (airing tonight) has been critiqued for it's choice in actors, the acting itself and the premise of the show, one aspect that has been raved about is the dinosaurs. The future is in environmental dismay and their only hope of restoring society is to take select individuals back 85 million years to live in colonies. Terra Nova expands on the realistic dinosaur effects Spielberg pioneered in Jurassic Park. He is breaking boundaries on what the audience expects from a network show, with a budget of almost $20 million for the pilot alone (the rest of the 13 episodes range around $4 million each). Each episode racks up about six to eight weeks of extra production time for the advance CGI needed to create the realistic dinosaurs that become the main focus of the show.

I think that even if the plot and writing is excellent, bad special effects can really take away from a good show. Primeval is a show that started airing in 2007 on ITV, it is about a magnetic anomaly that opens up and allows dinosaurs to freely roam between their home in prehistoric times and present day Britain. I love the show but some of the times I find myself distracted by how ridiculous some of the dinosaurs end up looking (mainly the larger ones).

Doctor Who: The Girl Who Waited

I really want to make something like this for a Park production. Unfortunately, this is a work of art and cannot be replicated. Don't even try. Stop now.

The Girl Who Waited is a perfect example of the direction that new-Who has taken. It's less of a "monster-of-the-week" or "sci-fi" show and more of a "space opera." That's not bad by any means, of course. In fact, the fans in both the US and the show's native UK have been welcoming to the backstories of the Doctor, Amy, Rory, and River Song. While the show's main focus is still timey-wimey and spacey-wacey, it's nice to see three-dimensional characters and growing relationships.

Lots of tributes to the series here in both its classic and current incarnations. The title of the serial is a reference to Amy Pond's character, who as a child waited 12 years for the Doctor to arrive a second time. In one scene, Rory breaks the Mona Lisa over an android's head. This is a reference to the 1979 serial "The City Of Death." It's a story that will appeal to both classic and new-Who fans.

Technically, it shines. The cinematography and lighting are obviously great, so no coverage is necessary. What really stands out is the CGI in both the landscape and most of the characters. The Handroids, the main antagonists in the episode, were costumed actors whose faces were removed in post-production and replaced with sinister looking medical equipment. The landscape wasn't WYSIWYG; it was a mixture of tight set design and 3D. What comes out is a threatening facility with a sprawling labyrinth of halls and corridors.

Karen Gillan's older appearance was also a defining factor in this episode. Instead of using an older actress to play the part, Karen herself offered to play the part in prosthetics and aging makeup. This created a believable 60-year-old Amy Pond once it became mixed with Karen's subtle acting quirks and choices. It not only brings out the best in the show's production, it's a bright moment for Karen, who's becoming a big star with the success of the programme (alongside Matt Smith and Arthur Darvill, the latter of whom is doubtlessly the show's best male companion in years.)

This will be a memorable episode of this series, and maybe even of the Eleventh Doctor's reign. Next week: The God Complex, which involves more child nightmare shenanigans and perhaps a look into the Doctor's eventual fate... let's just hope the characters don't almost die again.