Models Are Not Always The Answer

One of the biggest complaints I hear regarding modern filmmaking is in regards to how common CGI has become, usually by saying that models, puppets, or animatronics are far more convincing when used by a special effects department. Sometimes that is true. CGI has been misused, sometimes it can be overdone, sometimes it might not be done enough, and sometimes it wasn't needed at all, but does that meant that models are always the answer?

The practical effects in John Carpenter's The Thing do hold up a lot better today than the CGI used in the 2011 prequel. Much as I enjoyed the latter film I can't deny that. However, perhaps the reason the effects in the prequel are not as good has less to do with it being CGI and more to do with the fact that it was forced in at the last minute when the film was originally supposed to use similar practical effects (some of which would have been pretty good).

The reason I bring this up is because CGI can be used to great effect when used right, and sometimes models can be even less convincing when used wrong. Plenty of b-movies can testify to the flaws of both, be it the obviously fake models used in the films of the 1950's or the over-the-top CGI monstrosities envisioned in more contemporary ones, the recent Sharknado being a good example.

The fact of the matter is that really both CGI and practical effects have their merits and can be used to incredible effect when done right. To put this into perspective, let's look at to of the most groundbreaking science fiction movies of all time: 2001: A Space Odyssey and Gravity. These two films are probably the most realistic images of space ever put on film (though there are mistakes and liberties taken in both). 

The thing is that while both of these movies had amazing effects, they both relied on very different approaches to making those effects possible. 2001: A Space Odyssey may well have some of the best models ever put on film. Not a single frame of that movie was done using computer imaging. The Earth, the moon, Discovery, Jupiter, and even the famous "star gate" sequence were all handcrafted. That centrifuge you see Dave and Frank hanging out on was actually a giant rotating wheel constructed specifically for the film. The floating pen seen near the beginning was done with a clear disk. 

Now, that's not to say the filmmakers didn't have their limits. After all, the original plan was for Discovery to be travelling to Saturn. While this remains the setting of Arthur C. Clarke's novel (written alongside the script and based on early drafts), the movie ultimately opted to use Jupiter as its setting because the production team had trouble developing a convincing model of Saturn's rings.

By contrast, Gravity was shot almost entirely with CGI. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney wore partial spacesuits, but the visors on their helmets were computer generated to make it easier to see the actors' faces underneath. Some models were constructed for the action scenes but those were still shot against solid-colored backdrops that were later removed to make way for the vastness of space. Even that underwater scene at the very end was shot in a studio against a green screen. 

The results were still amazing, possibly even on par with the effects of 2001. The visuals seen in Gravity were so amazing that specific shots taken out of context could easily be mistaken for actual photographs from orbit. All of this was done with a few models and A LOT of computer graphics. CGI has been growing in popularity since the 90's and it can be used extraordinarily well. Jurassic Park is one of the earliest films to really use CGI and those dinosaurs still hold up well today.

That said, both CGI and practical effects have their own strengths and weaknesses. One advantage of practical effects is that during production it gives the actors something to interact with. CGI can be used to achieve all kinds of objectives, ranging from creating whole environments as in Gravity to something as small as removing unwanted details from the background. Done right, and the result can be something wonderful. Done wrong, and it will look extremely fake and lazy, which will drive away your audience unless that was the intention.

CGI can be used poorly, but just because something is done through models or puppets does not automatically mean it will be any more convincing. Plenty of b-movies can testify to how both can be misused. Modern b-movies, such as those of The Asylum or even the recent cult favorite Sharknado often include hastily edited CGI monstrosities. This is usually the kind of thing people think of when they talk about how bad CGI can be, but older b-movies weren't much better.

B-movies of the 1950's often relied on practical effects since CGI was not yet a viable option, but because they were always so cheap the effects would usually be every bit as bad as the CGI of their modern counterparts. Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space is notorious for its terrible special effects, such as the infamous and obviously fake flying saucers.

If you look closely, you can see the strings.

Plan 9 From Outer Space is really just the best-known example. You don't have to dig too deep into b-movies to find really cheesy ones with lots of (sometimes entertainingly) bad effects. Another good example I have come across would be some of the Japanese b-movies centered around "Gamera" (basically, a giant turtle-like monster who I suspect was intended to cash in on the success of Godzilla and its sequels). Gamera himself is a really weird and not very convincing creature, but one film in the series, Attack of the Monsters (I know, super-original, right?) has this other creature that is obviously played by an actor crawling around in a top-heavy suit.

So really, whether CGI or practical effects ought to be used really depends on the nature of the project. Practical effects may be easier for the actors to interact with but they can be every bit as unconvincing as CGI, and sometimes done right, CGI can be even more convincing than practical effects. The two are not mutually exclusive either. A film can also work effectively by using a bit of both, and to see how that can work you need to look no further than Peter Jackson. 

The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit both make extensive use of both CGI and practical effects. Many of the creatures we see across both films are computer generated but a lot of the sets were largely built by hand, sometimes with a green screen to help fill in the background. In some cases, though, the lines are blurred and one effect requires a bit of both.

A perfect example is the practice of motion capture, where an actor wears a suit that becomes a skeleton for a CGI model. Quite simply, the actor's suit consists of various lights all over their body, and they perform the necessary motions for their character. Then in post-production, the actor is removed but the lights remain (thus capturing the basic movements) and it becomes a frame around which to design the new character. 

Gollumn is a good example from Jackson's films, but such characters are all over the place. The CGI used for Smaug the dragon was incredible, but to make that image possible, the production team had to start with footage of Benedict Cumberbatch in a funny suit. In that sense, Smaug as seen in the final product could be considered a mix of practical and computer generated effects, since while the final product was created by computer rendering it was all based on the movements of a live actor.

Ultimately, neither extreme is better or worse. When done right, CGI and practical effects are both equally capable of making something believable and interesting. CGI can be misused and subsequently look fake, but the same can also be said about models, puppets, or animatronics.  It's all a matter of what kind of movie is being made and how the people involved use the resources available.

Character Profile: Galadriel

My Women in Film blogathon is ending in a week, and I got to thinking about writing another entry on an interesting character. I've been getting lots of good choices and so I thought this one might be something a bit different from the others, also a bit out of my usual comfort zone as I'm not normally big on fantasy. This is a brave an noble woman, wise and complex, one with a lot of power and influence... and did I mention that she originated from a novel published in 1954.

The Lord of the Rings may have a very predominantly male cast but it certainly makes up for that by making the few female characters especially memorable. Across the original trilogy the girls get their heroic moments: Arwen gets to save the life of Frodo Baggins and Eowyn manages to kill a major antagonist (granted, she did have help from a Hobbit, but she was still the one who delivered the final blow).

I've even defended the addition of Tauriel to The Hobbit. Before that I was willing to defend Itaril (a character who was rumored to be added to the films early in production, supposedly to be played by Saoirse Ronan), if only on the grounds that we knew nothing about her beyond rumors, which were later proven false.

Still, there is one female character in the series who tends to stand out. She doesn't have much screentime but her roles across both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are crucial, and that is Galadriel. If Sauron is the embodiment of all things that are evil in Middle-Earth, than Galadriel is exactly the opposite: she is everything that is noble or good about their world.

Galadriel may not be known to take up arms the same as Eowyn or Tauriel, but she is quite possibly the most powerful figure in Middle-Earth, and yet she also knows how to handle that power. She knows what is right and will stand up, doing everything she deems necessary. Even if she does not herself take the ring to mordor, she is always watching Frodo and even helps him find confidence during some of the more desperate moments of the quest.

That's just the thing. Galadriel might not be a warrior in her own right, but she knows what's good and stands for it at all costs. She knows what needs to be done and is determined to see that it is accomplished.

There is always a sense of genuine compassion whenever she is present. She is kind to everyone, even those she should have reason to hate (she hardly objected to leaving Gimli a lock of her hair, something even he thought she'd never do) and does everything in her power to see that good ultimately triumphs. It may have been Gollum who ultimately destroyed the ring but it might never have gotten that far if she hadn't given Frodo the extra push he needed to get to that point. 

With a story as male-dominated as the writings of Tolkien, the fact that we can have a character as strong as Galadriel is an achievement in itself. She is a great character especially because of how she stands out in such a story, being one of the most powerful characters in it and the perfect embodiment for all that is good. It makes her an excellent contrast to Sauron, the embodiment of evil, and a character that is rightfully looked up to by the male heroes.

Why Tauriel Isn't A Problem

I remember back when The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was just finishing its pre-production stage and they were beginning on the actual production of the film. There was a lot of activity on the IMDB boards, rumors and debates ran wild speculating or wondering what we might get out of this films. I also remember in those days there was a prevalent rumor that a major character would be a female Elf named Itaril, allegedly played by Saoirse Ronan.

Many were outraged at this notion, especially as the rumors tended to build her up as being an overtly tough "teenager" and the sort of character that in the realm of fanfiction might be called a "Mary Sue". There were other rumors going around that she would form a romance with Legolass or one of the dwarves which somewhat understandably many were unsure of. I personally was among the few who tried to defend her, simply on the ground that we knew very little at the time and I wanted to see how she was handled before I made any judgments.

The rumors of Itaril were finally disproven when it was announced that Evangeline Lily had signed on to play a female Elf named Tauriel in The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again. There was still going to be a female Elf who wasn't in the original book, but certainly not the implausibly imperfect "teenager" of the rumors. Still, criticism of the character persisted. Even though it was already established that Peter Jackson was going to expand on the story and add in new characters to flesh out the world he is depicting, many complained that Tauriel just existed to add in a female presence to a book with an all-male cast.

Eventually, as we got closer to the release of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug we got to see a bit more of Tauriel. There were complaints as she showed up prominently on all the posters (most likely this is because the previous film already got us acquainted with the protagonists, so they wanted to show off all the new characters we were going to meet here). The trailer also seemed to suggest a romance with Legolass, bringing back the fears of those who opposed Itaril.

Of course, it certainly wouldn't be the first time in Peter Jackson's films that a female character filled the role of a minor male character in the book. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Arwen's role was briefly merged with a minor (male) character in the book when she saves Frodo from the ring wraiths.

However, in the actual film I thought Tauriel's role was actually handled okay. It turned out the trailers had taken some dialogue out of context, as King Thranduil talks about (and strongly opposes) a romance between Legolass and Tauriel but there is no indication of them being anything more than comrades. Also, unlike Elrond or Galadriel, Thranduil's kind of a bigoted, close-minded, and extremely xenophobic jerk so I don't know how reliable a source of information he is.

The one part that I'll confess had me a bit uncertain at first was the relationship between Tauriel and Kili, but it started to win me over eventually. It's not entirely unbelievable that Tauriel could sympathize somewhat with the Dwarves (being the subject of Thranduil's prejudice herself, as it is mentioned she is not of noble upbringing) and her emotional connection to Kili was actually quite touching without going too far. After all, it's still Bilbo who ultimately has to save everyone. 

Tauriel may sympathize with the Dwarves but that doesn't mean she's crazy enough to throw away everything by letting them go (it is implied she had to go through a lot just to get where she is now) and then facing Thranduil's wrath when they inevitably get recaptured (which the Dwarves would have been had the Elves pursuing them not have to deal with an army of orcs at the same time). She does rebel against Thranduil, but also does so knowing the danger he fails to see to the kingdom of Mirkwood.

Where they decide to go with Tauriel in There and Back Again I can't say for sure. It's likely her romance with Kili won't work out (for reasons that will be clear if you know the plot of the book), but perhaps she'll play a role in bringing together the five armies in the end. In fact, given the way she works with Legolass perhaps whatever happens will help him in the long run to fight alongside Gimli. Whatever they decide to do with Tauriel, I personally think she's a fine addition to the cast.