- Time
- Post link
One thing I've been thinking quite a bit about is the use of CGI and blue (now green) screen in films. This has been particularly on my mind after watching the 'In a Minute' (or whatever it was called) documentary included with ROTS, wherein a minute of the final light saber duel is broken down into its creation from the very beginning. Honestly, it made me even more conflicted about the PT, being as it highlights the insane amount of work that goes into producing just one minute of footage. I must say that I felt inclined to give credit where it is due and admit that, while I still feel that the script and dialogue and directing nearly completely fails in these films, there is still an incredible amount of talent behind their creation. I don't think many folks would question that. At the same time, the complete waste of resources and time and energy in order to make possible the integration of CGI and, well, the actors (since there is little otherwise 'real' in the films, save some props and occasional backgrounds) makes me want to just say, 'Thats it - I am finished with Star Wars. Game over.'
Several things about the documentary made me think of this...Lucas acts with such concern for the smallest details while largely ignoring the glaring problems with the dialogue, acting, believability, etc. For example, in the scene on Mustafar, both Anakin and Obi Wan had 40+ versions of their costumes, each showcasing further wear and tear as the battle goes on and their clothing interacts with their environment. There is actually progressing amounts of 'burns' to the clothing that had to be kept track of...nevermind that they're fighting in what would appear to be unbearable heat and barely notice. Nevermind that they only sweat slightly despite massive amounts of physical exertion near a spewing RIVER OF LAVA. Their outfits, all 40 (well, 80 between them), tell that story. And I would imagine the story those outfits tell is an expensive one. It just seems like an incredible amount of waste to create that many outfits for a minute of action.
Which brings me to another aspect of the documentary...the green screen. The entire scene is basically shot onto green screen. I need to watch it again, but I believe the entirety of the section where they are battling on the piece of the building that eventually falls into the lava was green. Entire sets were built to the scale and details of the structures in the scenes, but instead of being painted the way they would appear in the movie, they were painted green so that those details could be later 'perfected' by the CGI artists. Am I the only person who finds this completely insane? They build the actual sets, but basically didn't use them except as physical spaces for the actors to 'interact' with. Not only does this showcase where the emphasis in the process lies (more concern for the CGI than the actors), but I would imagine that this makes it very very very difficult to act. You are given dialogue, maybe thrown in with another actor or two (a lot of filming between actors is done without them both in the same room at the same time), and told to act out a scene without any environment. Granted, this is what actors are trained and paid to do: act (read: pretend) in an artificial space. But to be completely removed from any sort of sense of the surrounding space that will later be integrated seems like it would be really difficult. So I wonder whether a lot of the acting and poorly executed dialogue in the PT's is a result of this environment. Case and point: Liam Neeson (an incredibly talented actor) has openly blamed a lot of his 'stiff' acting from the first film on this. Furthermore, it probably seems a bit demoralizing when considering the above point about emphasis on effects rather than acting. A quote from Neeson:
"I was wearing a wig and hair, and the resin glue that they use for the wig was awful. I mean it immediately crystallized and became white, the colour of a white tablecloth, like talcum powder, and very, very visible. So my makeup lady kept coming out in the heat, and I kept saying, "C'mon, c'mon, touch this up, touch this up." Finally, she says, "Liam, when this film comes out, no one is going to be looking at you. See that empty space there beside your head? That's where they are going to be looking (i.e. at the special effects)." Then she says to me, "Liam, you could be a monkey smoking a pipe, and it wouldn't matter when The Phantom Menace comes out and no one's going to be looking at you with all those special effects George Lucas' people are going insert later." That was a real blow to my ego because I realized she was probably right. That actors are secondary to all the computer stuff in this movie."
Sure, there was blue screen work on the original films...but in those cases it seemed more a blending of actual shots, or painted backgrounds, or model sets. In other words, blending physical objects with one another... all of which contributes to the realism of the films. I just have such a hard time believing that the emphasis was THAT much on getting CGI into the movies...squeezing it into every single shot, supersaturating it to the point that people like my dad will forgive its total overall shittiness because there are a few great moments of special effects.
... there's a rule of thumb that home haunters try to follow that addiction to craft can quickly erase- darkness forgives all. The idea being that no matter how many weeks you spend tweaking your fake zombie body or fake tombstone to make it look uber-realistic the trick-or-treaters will be coming to your house at night- in the dark- and only spending a few minutes. The best 'special effects' can be a quick coat of paint on a piece of cardboard instead of an elaborate $1000 prop that you stay awake for 6 days straight tweaking. Less is often more when it comes to embellishment and if it doesn't help your overall scene... well, then, you're screwed. 
