I KNEW IT WASN'T THE END
I happen to be one of the few, the proud, the fans of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Now don't get me wrong, I recognize Advent Children as a far better movie, but for what it is, the first Final Fantasy movie has a special place in my heart. More importantly, I didn't want it's poor box office performance to kill any hope that future films of this type might get made. Of course, the biggest drawback in its case, was the cost.
Now I know some will say "story", but let's be real. There are plenty of low budget sci fi horror movies that have hopeful dreams of having a story as good as Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. The problem is, in fact, that the movie played like a small sci fi horror movie. It certainly didn't seem like Final Fantasy, and more importantly, those kinds of movies don't cost nearly $200 million to make. Had they spent what most of those movies cost to make and had the same box office, it would have been a success. Anyway, I am glad to say, its lack of success didn't spell the end.
Paramount Pictures and Robert Zemeckis are picking up the reigns and going for what appears to be a pretty serious, very realistic CGI movie called Beowulf, which is a remake of The Thirteenth Warrior. (just kidding)
Based on the 12th century epic poem, this new telling of the tale of the hero of the Geats will use the famous, if not infamous, "performance capture" technique popularized in such films as The Polar Express. This time around they seem to go one step beyond in capturing the look of the original actors and cementing the look in reality. Also, this time around, it does not appear to be for kids.
Ever since I first saw Final Fantasy, not to mention the great many video games since which have surpassed it with their cinematic sequences, I have wanted to see more full length movies done like this. I knew the cost was prohibitive, but I figured it was only a matter of time before it became cheap enough to give it another shot at the big screen. How long will it be before you can make a movie like this for less than $1 million in India?
Now I know some will say "story", but let's be real. There are plenty of low budget sci fi horror movies that have hopeful dreams of having a story as good as Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. The problem is, in fact, that the movie played like a small sci fi horror movie. It certainly didn't seem like Final Fantasy, and more importantly, those kinds of movies don't cost nearly $200 million to make. Had they spent what most of those movies cost to make and had the same box office, it would have been a success. Anyway, I am glad to say, its lack of success didn't spell the end.
Paramount Pictures and Robert Zemeckis are picking up the reigns and going for what appears to be a pretty serious, very realistic CGI movie called Beowulf, which is a remake of The Thirteenth Warrior. (just kidding)
Based on the 12th century epic poem, this new telling of the tale of the hero of the Geats will use the famous, if not infamous, "performance capture" technique popularized in such films as The Polar Express. This time around they seem to go one step beyond in capturing the look of the original actors and cementing the look in reality. Also, this time around, it does not appear to be for kids.
Ever since I first saw Final Fantasy, not to mention the great many video games since which have surpassed it with their cinematic sequences, I have wanted to see more full length movies done like this. I knew the cost was prohibitive, but I figured it was only a matter of time before it became cheap enough to give it another shot at the big screen. How long will it be before you can make a movie like this for less than $1 million in India?
14 Comments:
It just seems a bit pointless to make CG characters that resemble the actual actors 99%. Sure, it's close to the real thing but it has that waxy look and I doubt it will be as convincing in motion. So why not just use the actors as they are (live action).
That's my beef with films like this.IMHO it is pointless to present a movie in such a way that it tries to mimic realism in its entirety. No matter unique and precise the execution is, many people will still waste their time wondering what the heck they are looking at instead of watching the movie, I am talking about average joe (the majority) and not really the CG people and non Cg people who love anything Cg (minority). I love all Cg movies realistic or not but I am still not willing to accept I should be involved in it outside digital stunt doubles and VFX. Imagine a painter trying so hard to make his portrait look EXACTLY like a photograph...what's the point? Why go through all the hassle of incessant brush stokes on canvass and grab a camera?
My rusty $.02
I have always loved Final Fantasy:spirits within. I though it was a very impressive cgi movie, but did "square pictures" really have to spend $137 million???
Animation is obviously going to get more detailed, more polygons, with the rapid advancment of technology, realisim seems to be animations future.
Why be lazy and not paint with more "brush strokes",Obinna? ;)
Anonymous said: did "square pictures" really have to spend $137 million???
Does the average liveaction movie have to cost 170 Million to make?
Obinna it’s the art of illusion in that an artist can stop people and make them look and look hard at a image they painted. There are artist out there who can draw and paint in such detail people think they are looking at a photo.
As far as photorealistic 3D I feel it has it place no I don’t want nor expect every 3D movie to be photorealistic but it’s nice to see the advances when one comes out.
And let’s remember folks even live action movies are animated so hand drawn or CGI animation is just another way of telling a story.
Anonymous: I believe my last post was pretty much erroneous, should have previewed my post.I intended to post the following; " Why go through all the hassles of incessant brush strokes on the canvas when you can just grab a camera, since you are aiming for the SAME effect (To make it look EXACTLY like a picture). Of course I have been painting with more brush strokes right before I touched any 3d software. The clients actually prefered my style which was more like something out of the Baroque movement. They were (clients and anyone who saw 'em) immensely impressed by the realism (in terms of accurate proportions and the impeccable resemblance)with the slightly obvious brush strokes against the rough texture of the canvas.
That is exactly what generates the 'Wow' factor in animation. People know from the beginning they are dealing with something that is not real but their jaws dropped by the perfect execution of the project where the characters are given 'life' and in most cases the audience are emotionally attached. I tried showing The Spirit Within to non CG fans and some kids, they just lost interest so fast I was embarrassed.But when I told them it was the same animated film that they love,only a few changed their mind, the vast majority couldn't be bothered.
Perhaps the general public and average joe (majority) will change their mind considering their lack of interest in photo realistic Cg films. Time will tell. I still don't get the whole point of using the face of the actors, methinks it is a big step into the wrong direction, but I will leave to eat my words after that movie is out. We shall see.
For the records, I never agreed with the 'Poor story' angle of Spirits Within. I thought the story was good and unique and the characters... masterpiece I tell ya, but the fact that I bought that DVD twice doesn't change my view on photo realistic Cg films.
I didn't really have any major problems with "The Spirits Within" - it was not great, but slightly above average (although I think it might've had a bit more success with if it didn't use the 'Final Fantasy' title). It's CG was excellent (comparitivly for it's time period), but I do agree that it's production was overpriced beyond what the studio could afford to recoup from the box office (I was glad to see the studio come back for the "Final Flight of the Osiris" short film).
The main issue (if you could call it that) that I have with "Beowulf" is that they seem to be trying too hard to create digital 'replicas' of the live action actors: with the technology becoming as advanced as it is, why not just create any type of character that you want? Why do you have to base the models off of already existing people? (other than Name Recognition and Promotion)
BTW, I don't know if anyone heard this yet, but this news personally sadden me:
Ingmar Bergman - one of the greatest filmmakers of cinema's history - died yesterday at the age of 89.
Film has lost one of it's greatest artists...
This post has been removed by the author.
in reply to your comment at transformersph.blogspot.com
The PlayStation3 can accept all PS3 games in Blu-ray disc and works in all television, LCD monitors and media inputs.
The Transformers - The Game is made in the USA.
It works on all PlayStation3 unit, even it is distributed in ASIA, USA, and in JAPAN.
- www.ronaldguanzon.com
I also liked "Spirits." I've never really been exposed to much of the Final Fantasy stuff, so for me it was just a nice SciFi CG flick.
As for why anyone would bother to copy the faces of real actors in CG films, I can think of several reasons. First, of course (as was acknowledged), there's the obvious financial payoff. Certain name actors are guaranteed drawing cards, and having realistic models of them (even if they're plastic-y) will pique people's interest. Perhaps the attraction of it will wear off after a while, perhaps not. But there's a reasonably good chance (for the time being, anyway) that someone paying to have a model of Angelina Jolie made will see their money back.
Secondly, I'm thinking there's a lot of potential down the road (once they get to the point where they can do it and not have it look CG) to make younger and older versions of real actors for flashback sequences and the like (or bring dead actors back to life; e.g. Marlon Brando in Superman Returns). I'm convinced somebody out there must be thinking along these lines. Forty years from now they could cast Angelina in a role and do a flashback with a model of her as a much younger women. They do some incredible stuff with makeup, etc, these days, but sooner or later someone's going to do it CG and make it look totally convincing.
And finally, some folks will try it just for the hell of it :-) And why not? Push the limits to see what they can do. I agree making realistic CG models of living actors might not be everyone's thing, but I see no reason why people shouldn't do it if they want to. I don't think it's any *less* creative, it's just a different *type* of creative. It's not the same as inventing a character from scratch, but creating a realistic model of someone has it's own creative challenges too. For some people that's just the sort of creative thing they want to do, to try to make a painting or an animated character look as realistic as possible. Wny not? I'm not sure I see how it's any less valuable an endeavor just because it's parameters are different than other approaches.
crsp: Actually, I would disagree that rotoscoping and motion capture aren't animation. I agree it's not the same as drawing by hand or animating 3D models directly, so at the very least they are different sub-categories of animation to be sure, but rotoscoping, or essentially tracing, if you will (although I acknowledge there's more to it than that) is still drawing and still the "creation of motion." And motion capture provides the movements, but not the visual characters. They're just the "creation of motion" using a specific techniques. Because even with a technique like roto, an artist still has to decide which lines to put down (since of course not absolutely everything is drawn). And to the best of my knowledge mocap is still cleaned-up by having an animator make sure all the motion reads correctly (although even if it weren't, it's still only part of the equation).
In any case, the quote provided isn't necessarily true. It's simply one person's (or one group's) take on the subject. As was pointed out, that was a definition from before the advent of CG. I would argue any current definition has to update to include new forms and techniques.
Anyway, interesting topic.
Wade
Yeah I don't get the whole photorealistic bit. It is pointless to me, just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
I liked Final Fantasy Advent Children because it had a taste of both realistic and stylized work.
If I wanted realistic I'd rather see the real Angelina Jolie, not a fake.
Definately pointless other than the fact to advance the technology, but at this point what can't we make with technology? I mean it really has been done and can be done. I think now we need to start working on those Holograms instead.
This post has been removed by the author.
Just watched the trailer for Beowulf on the official site and it made me think of one more thing. By using CG models of people I think it possibly manages to immerse the viewer into the mythic world being created even a little better still than live action + CG might (this view, of course, will differ according to individual's tastes; for me it integrates quite nicely). What with the dragons and all, etc, I still think there's a ways to go before live action movies + CG look 100% integrated. But one of great things that has always been true of animation is that creatures and elements that don't exist in the real world (that we know of anyway :-) can be mixed in with elements that do exist and everything looks like it belongs together.
So then, accepting for the sake of the argument that the foregoing is true (and maybe I'm the only one who does :-), it allows a studio to cash in on the face of name actors while at the same time producing a movie that carries a certain integrated feel on account of its overall style and approach that might not otherwise be possible to acheive. Because as good as CG is nowadays, I'm still not sure I've seen the movie that integrates it all so well in every aspect that I can't tell the difference and thus in some small way get pulled out.
The other thing I thought of is why would we, as indie creators, want to put limits on any creative approach? I don't get the feeling movies like this are always being made just because they can be, I actually think (naively perhaps) that at least some of the people involved really want to do it this way (i.e. are really stoked about creating realistic CG models of people and using them as characters in a movie). Why would we, of all groups of people, want to suggest such creative endeavors are somehow less than worthwhile? True, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but then to me that's part of the beauty (and strength) of the indie filmmaking scene. People are creating all kinds of neat things and of such diverse nature that there's stuff out there for everyone. As opposed to pumping out umpteen movies that do no more than chase after the latest fad. I actually believe they have a good chance of finding an audience that really and genuinely enjoys what they're doing. Maybe everyone won't *get* it, but some will. And I doubt everyone *gets* everything all of us here are doing either :-)
I also wonder if part of the aversion to it (at least on some level, and I admit this thought crossed my mind as well when first reading about the film) is simply because it is a bigger name studio and big name actors. If a low budget indie studio did it, would we dis them for trying out realistic models of real people or encourage them? I don't know. I certainly don't have all the answers. But I still don't see how it's less of a creative endeavor, less potential for good storytelling (hey, Neil Gaiman took part in adapting the script; for me that spells all kinds of potential), or somehow detrimental to furthering the field of animation as a whole.
Who knows? Maybe it'll suck big time and bomb at the box office. I'm still not sure I'd say it wasn't worth the effort and the attempt.
Anyway, I've said more than my piece on this one. Back to the books :-)
Wade
crsp:
My previous post got in before I saw your response.
Bear suit. Ha :-)
Since my comments were (I hope) reasonably clearly in relation to hand drawn and CG stuff, then I would of course say no I don't think such an analogy follows. Same for the roto. I appreciate the phone comparison, but I did say that the artist has to decide which lines to put down (i.e. draw), so I think I can at least argue it was specifically referring to an artist drawing, which if nothing else is arguably its own category. That doesn't mean I'm right, just that I did (or at least did mean to) specify my comments in terms of those parameters.
In response to the painting/photo comparison I would argue that in that case we're talking about two end products with completely different modes of creation. While in the case of mo-cap, for example, that's only part of the equation towards the end product and doesn't account for the whole thing. So I would argue that it's not really a complete comparison. Which again, doesn't mean I'm right, but I think the difference does count for something.
But your reply did get me thinking about whether we're using definitions for animation in reference to process or product. Is it the process that makes something an animated film? If so, then perhaps your statements hold. I suppose I've been thinking more (or at least equally) in terms of product. I would have categorized "Spirits Within" under Animation (subcategory of CG, and sub-sub of motion capture, I suppose, in terms of how it was done). But in terms of product, what else would one call it? Actually, I suppose CG stuff has from the beginning more or less been referred to as CG animation, which differentiates it from classical hand-drawn animation. Same with Stop-motion animation. And I think mo-cap animation has a foothold of sorts as a term of reference, but are you objecting to the non-specification of mo-cap (or roto) or the use of the term animation at all (I'm interpreting your statements as saying the latter)?
On the roto end. If someone traces over live actors, you're suggesting this wouldn't be animation (again, that's my understanding according to the definition you gave). And I'm assuming someone drawing freehand without any reference at all would be the other extreme (to take an example from a more classical type of animation) and would definitely be animation. So where in the middle does the line get crossed (no pun intended … okay, maybe just a little :)? I'm not actually challenging anyone on this. I've honestly never thought about it until this little debate arose. Is someone looking closely at a series/sequence of photographs right there on the desk in front of them still animation (such as Eadweard Muybridge's "Human Figure in Motion" stuff)? What if the photo is just an inch away from where they're drawing and they follow it closely, and so nearly roto? At what distance is the line crossed from *creation* of motion (in the sense I take crsp to mean) and the mere recording of it? What if the photos are on a stand next to the desk instead? Or even if there is no reference present at the time of drawing/animating a 3D model, if the artist is recalling and thus essentially mimicking motion they have observed before, are they really *creating* motion, or is that not also a form of recording? Is there a difference between a person *recording* motion in their head and a computer recording it on a hard-drive (besides the obvious, I mean :-)? Would we have to classify *creation* as the representation of motion never before observed? Where are the limits? I mean those as all as quite genuine questions. I'm really not sure what the answers are.
I'll end there. Hopefully it makes sense, even if it's not convincing. Thanks for an interesting discussion. It's definitely got me thinking.
Wade
Anonymous:
I have no problem with the people trying to cross some boundaries, after all diversity is good for all of us whether we believe it or not, heck I'd rather be watching a good old photo realistic Cg movie than suffer another fad chasing-fluffy fluff-laugh off your butt-talking animal fiasco (Aghrrrrrr...Hulk wanna smash!). I bought 'Spirits Within' Dvd twice, that's a clear indication of my dedication(obsession?)to animated contents, photo realistic or caricature, but like I said before, it didn't change my views regarding the entire concept of Photo realistic CGI and the new idea of mimicking the actual face/body of the voice actors.
Perhaps if I look at it from the perspective of a whole new dimension to entertainment, I might narrow down my views. I looked at the trailer, very impressive (As always, with Spirits and Advent Children). I will definitely be one of the first people to see it and grab it on DVD (As usual) but I will still be sticking with my photography versus painting analogy. Kinda weird if you think about it.
I'd like to add that I don't see this as a less creative endeavor, quite on the contrary, I believe it takes a tremendous of work to get something this good. Heck I am currently working on 4 minute music video with slightly stylized CGI, actually it was all supposed to be photorealism until I convinced the client to tone down the realism. That was the most difficult task I have ever encountered! I was dealing with extremely high res textures because of the numerous extreme close up shots, rendering was three times slower than cell shaded work and I wasn't even aiming for extreme photo realism. Right now my workstations and sturdy notebook can't handle the load anymore and that has left me looking for a Quad core system with lots of RAM... and I have barely done 2 minutes of animation!
Now if I still believe a work like Beowulf in any way is a less creative endeavor, I really should go get my head examined. After all said and done, I respect the artists for the tremendous amount of work they put on this production and I wish them success (Financial) come November!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home