Star Wars, King Kong, Matrix....... Animated Films or Special FX Movies?

POSTED BY: TheSomnambulist
UPDATED: Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:33
VIEWED: 6862
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

THESOMNAMBULIST

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:57 PM

While I was watching King Kong I became very conscious of the amount of animation taking place, and I began to wonder at what stage would a film like this and/or Star Wars or some other CGI heavy film be considered an animated film?

To my mind King Kong is an animated film as are the recent Star Wars films and a heap of others beyond... Perhaps even the Matrix 2 and 3. The actors are almost secondary in those films and certainly, little is demanded in terms of acting, and I wonder is it merely the presence of an actor that qualifies a film as not being animated?

Who framed Roger Rabbit is regarded as animation of course but I'd say there's less animation in that film than there is is say something like King Kong.

Any thoughts?

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

J6NGO1977

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:54 PM

I'd class animated Movies as using either all hand drawn cell animation or all CGI and no live action chracters at all. Movies like Star Wars, King Kong etc I would class as live action movies with CGI special effects. I know what you are saying, where do you draw the line? Movies like the Polar Express is just Tom Hanks and the kids rotoscoped.

So is it truly an animated film? To be honest I cannot see the point of creating a film like that (unless it's a superhero film and the chracter is doing things that are beyond physics).

Personally in a live action film I am a fan of using models with CGI. I don't like too much use of CGI it takes away from the realism and as you said the actors chracters suffer from the fireworks display.

I class King Kong, LOTR, Star Wars as live action films. Toy Story, Shrek and Final Fantasy I class as animated movies. Roger Rabbit, Polar Express and Space Jam (good grief) I feel is a bit of a gray area.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:20 PM

Hi j6ngo1977.

That I have to admit is how I viewed things - but King Kong in particular changed my mind about how I view the use of CGI. At times it was clear that Kong was animated, Ann Darrow was also animated as too was the enitre background and I felt I was being subjected to a wonderful software demo. Granted it was a class above anything else, but all the same it was animation pure and simple. (This also often happened with the Star Wars films)

As you said you'd limit it to superhero films and I in part agree. I mean really if you're going to 'paint' in the background 'suit' up your heroes and then have them doing death defying acrobatics, via CGI, then what do you have? An animated event... So why are they bothering with the actors at all? Nostalgia? A reluctance to let the last element go or does the inclusion of a 'human' figure still give it enough weight over a strictly animated feature....?

Now you mention Toy Story, how funky would that be if the actors were blue screened and part of the film? I think that'd work quite well. With enough clever make-up ie 'The Mask' Buzz's jaw could easily be created :D

Hmm I dunno - I just wondered. Nice to have your take on things.

I think the thing that got me wondering is that after watching King Kong I came out feeling I need to watch something with acting and dialogue. Not to criticise King Kong but I didn't want to see that style of film.... I guess.

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

J6NGO1977

Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:29 PM

I haven't watched King Kong myself but my friend has said similar to what you are saying. He said it's not a patch on LOTR which, for all its CGI, at the end of the day those films have good chracterisations and story but King Kong just seems to be a special effect tour-de-force.

I think Spiderman did a good job with it's characters. I liked Toby Mquire and Kirsten Dunce (who was also very hot) and their difficult relationship. But there was no real way to get around Spiderman's super-hero acrobatics other than CGI and some wirework. Ok maybe wirework as shown in Crouching Dragon and Kung Fu Hustle may have worked. That is a lesson in how it can be done.

I think actors will never be replaced with animation. They will always be 2 seperate mediums. You can't tell stories like Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas and of course Firefly without the characterisations created by real live actors.

Oh also I must add alot of animation is also character driven like Futurama, The Simpsons and Toy Story but those characters are specificaly scripted for animation and would tend not to work if translated into real life (Flinstones, Scooby Doo etc).

CBY

Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:39 PM

On the DVD audio comment on Star Wars VI George Lucas raises an interesting question: "Why is everyone considering CGI characters more artificial than rubber suites?" Well, my personal answer is: Handcrafted work has the charm of being imperfect.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

J6NGO1977

Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:45 PM

Exactly CBY. CGI does not contain the chaos and imperfections of real life so is very hard to emulate. Some of the best CGI I have seen, I'm not being biased, is in Serenity - The Pilot when the Reavers are chasing Serenity through the atmos of Persephone. Joss Whedon is a pioneer from creating CGI with imperfections to make it look more real.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:04 PM

CBY

Gotta agree with you there. I think Lucas has become somewhat blinded by the technology. I also listened to that commentary and I was a little surprised to hear him say how he was refining the dialogue to an extent where he was using the music to 'speak' the stories. So certain lines of dialogue are used in each film and can be readily applied to the film before and after and so on... Allowing less and less meaning being derived form the lines.

i.e. "I have a bad feeling about this" It was funny when Han Solo first said it but by the six film it's meaning has become so abstract through parody and self reference that the meaning is lost.

I guess this means the film is really told in pictures as apposed to pictures and sound. Again I think this furthers the almost innevitable redundancy to those actors. I mean would it matter who played Obi Wan? Or Annakin? I don't think so. But Mal? There's only one Mal and that's because it was made his own by Nathan with those wonderful words he is allowed to utter....

www.cirqus.com

THESOMNAMBULIST

Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by j6ngo1977:
I think Spiderman did a good job with it's characters. I liked Toby Mquire and Kirsten Dunce (who was also very hot) and their difficult relationship. But there was no real way to get around Spiderman's super-hero acrobatics other than CGI and some wirework. Ok maybe wirework as shown in Crouching Dragon and Kung Fu Hustle may have worked. That is a lesson in how it can be done.

Very true.

Quote:
I think actors will never be replaced with animation. They will always be 2 seperate mediums. You can't tell stories like Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas and of course Firefly without the characterisations created by real live actors.

Actually while I agree with what you're saying I must just point out there are some powerful Manga anime that does impact aswell as those you've mentioned.

Akira is quite brilliant, not just as an animation but as an incredibly well directed piece of cinema. Also I don't know if you've had the chance to see Perfect Blue, but that simply is an impecably crafted piece of film - really worth a look.

However Goodfellas.... What a film!

www.cirqus.com

J6NGO1977

Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:39 PM

Good thread this Somn even though its just you, I and CBY posting .LOL.

Yes very splendid film is Akira. I'm not a big Manga fan but I do have Akira and Ghost in the Shell in my collection. Great films. The Matrix owes alot to Ghost in the Shell.

CBY

Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:52 PM

Speaking of animation, I am really sad that the traditional 2D animation is if pretty much dead (apart from Anime).

I am speaking of classics like Disneys "Aladdin" (I know, there was CGI in it, but they didn't even call it like that back then). I grew up with shows like "Darkwing Duck" and "Ducktales" and really miss that kind of animation these days.

Anime is - no offence - basically quickly drawn assembly line work and nothing like the old times.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE