Special effects technology is becoming more advanced by the day. Soon we’ll reach the point where Christian Bale’s transformation into a mummified corpse for The Machinist becomes almost solely a job for computers, able to make him as fit or fat as the filmmaker desires.
If the making young of Jeff Bridges for TRON: Legacy is anything to go off of however, that might be a somewhat optimistic statement, since it’s clear there’s still a ways to go, but I’m sure that’ll change as technology advances.
With this in mind, it’s understandable why so many directors would embrace CGI, and why so few would stick it out using more traditional means. It’s faster and it’s cheaper. Plus, the more tech advances, the faster and cheaper it will become. What could go wrong, then, with such a transition?
For one, it is often used as a shortcut with quality sacrificed in favor of expediency, the end result looking like something out of a mockbuster. Second of all, and most importantly, some of film’s most well-known and well-respected effects were realized without the crippling crutch that is CGI. That’s exactly what this article is about, filmmakers whose effects put others to shame without having to resort to technological wizardry to accomplish them.
We are currently seeking Films contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Films contributor, click here.
13 Comments
I’d be interested to know how many people thought things from Alien, Space Odyessy and American Warewolf would have been CGI given that the technology was in its infancy (and virtually non-existant for Space Odysessy).
The ones I was impressed with were Inception, Silent Hill and the barrell rolling car from Casino Royale. I’d also forgotten how chilling those nurses were in Silent Hill, a film which overall disappointed, but had some genuinely good moments in it.
I understand your question, but my intent with this article was simply to argue that CGI is not necessarily needed to accomplish great looking effects. That’s why, during those particular entries, I tried to focus on how effective they were and how well they’ve aged (compared to a lot of CGI) as opposed to what would have been lost if they’d been done with CGI which, as you say, was in its infancy around the time of their releases. What I’m trying to say is that CGI couldn’t have really done any better even if it were capable of such things at that time. Oftentimes, more traditional effects are just more effective.
Good list, and definitely agree with most of the entries (especially Inception, if only because most other directors would have simply used CGI in this day and age).
One grumble – I’m not sure that The Amazing Spider-Man deserves an unfavourable mention at the end of this article for its use of CGI. Yes, the technology is readily evident throughout the film, although I think kudos also goes to Marc Webb for doing much of the (rather stunning) web-slinging sequences using predominantly practical effects with a later touch-up of CGI (as opposed to Raimi’s films, where everything in the comparable sequences was created inside a computer). I think that there are plenty of films much more deserving as being examples of overuse of CGI.
I didn’t mean for the comment to come off too negatively. Just using a very contemporary example to show what I mean when I talk about a movie looking fresh off the render farm.
Another good bit is the outer space nebula in The Fountain. It’s actually a mineral solution in water shot with a very tiny camera.
I actually debated including that, but settled on 2001: A Space Odyssey instead.
Fun piece. I love when they can do amazing effects without having to CGI it. Most of the time, it just feels more organic. And, for fun, my favorite rotating room scene prior to Inception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8n7WQIXQDs Fred Astaire dancing as the room spun. Not as fast-pace, perhaps, but brilliant for the day and age.
The rotating room was used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nolan stated in American Cinematographer that the idea to use it in Inception originated from Kubrick’s film (http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/July2010/Inception/page2.php.) You should give Stanley the 1 and 2 placement (although Douglas Trumbull was the one who came up with slit cam footage.)
I know Kubrick did it first, but I gave Nolan’s use of it the mention because he took it to, I think, a different level.
Also, don’t pay too much attention to where something falls on the list. Each example’s placement was chosen much more to maximize the flow of the article than to ranking it in relation to the others.
Kubrick didn’t do it first – it was Vincente Minnelli and Fred Astaire et al. in Royal Wedding. Though I know what you mean quite a few of the scenes you mention do, I’m pretty sure, ‘use’ CGI – it’s just that they get their effects physically and then touch them up with CGI.
In fairness The Amazing Spiderman relied far less on CGI than Sam Raimi’s trilogy and instead used talented stuntmen where possible.
I agree with travis on this one , CGI based movies are not entirely that good. between the new Total Recall and the old One i would still stick to the old one any time.
In this age of overused CGI, it’s nice to see directors still doing effects practically if possible. Christopher Nolan only used it when necessary in the Batman trilogy. I’m surprised you didn’t include the truck flip from The Dark Knight in there…