
|
|
|
|
The teaser trailer for James Cameron's latest film Avatar debuted today and I was really impressed and look forward to seeing the film this December. Granted, I have been looking forward to this film ever since I read the treatment of the film that had been floating around the net for a few years now. I love the look of the alien planet, which is pretty much what I would expect an unexplored and untouched alien world to look like. I was a little surprised about the look of the Na'vi aliens although I do confess that I obviously have no real-life Na'vi to judge against in order to evaluate the CGI on that level. However, when looking at the responses to the teaser trailer, I was surprised at the number of comments that bashed the special effects by saying "it looks like a video game." Whenever I see that line or something similar written about a special effects film, I get a little bit confused. On one hand, I know that statements like this are made by people like Roger Ebert as a backhanded insult to video games. On the other hand, shouldn't it be a badge of honor for a film's special effects to be compared to video games considering how much of the fantastical images we now see and take for granted in movies were pioneered first in video games? While Square Soft was busy trying to tell mature stories and express a wide variety of complex emotions in their video games (and yes, even in the bomb that is Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within), Pixar was having fun making buddy comedy after buddy comedy. Audiences are celebrating the originality of District 9. Yet the alien weaponry and the entire climax of the film owes a great deal to first-person-shooters, Halo included, contributing to and developing the imagery and lore of alien weapons. If you know anything about the MASSIVE software used by Weta to create the battle scenes in The Lord of the Rings, it is obvious that the software is essentially a giant automatic video game that plays itself. Of course, the height of video game influence on movies is without a doubt John Woo's two-part film Red Cliff, a retelling of one section of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms story. It is hard for anyone to watch this film and not see how directly Woo and his team were influenced by the look and style of the Dynasty Warriors games. In this case, not only do we have a film that is influenced by a video game, but we have a historical story from several thousand years ago whose telling has now been permanently altered through the influence of a video game.
In conclusion, all of these fantastical images in Avatar, The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, and other films that Hollywood pats itself on the back on were pretty much old news if you played video games. Video games have been providing people with the magical images and unbelievable sights far before any filmmaker successfully put it on the big screen. As such, I am both shocked, surprised, and confused when I hear "bad" special effects compared to a video game. Perhaps we ought to do the opposite from now on. Perhaps when us gamers see a game with horrible graphics, we ought to make fun of it by saying that it "looks like a movie." I don't expect Hollywood to stop looking down on video games any time soon. However, for now, I am going to change my mindset so that whenever I hear a film described as "looking like a video game," I'll smile and take it as a compliment. Filmmakers pride themselves on bringing magic to the masses and while they may have done it for over a decade, I say that video games have taken the crown in the recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
|
Comment with FacebookClick connect and comment instantly! |
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds |
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

Follow
RSS
Contact
"Avatar" is the James Cameron sci-fi film coming out this December that he has been talking about doing for over a decade now. In order to avoid confusion, the film version of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" directed by M. Night Shyamalan is titled simply "The Last Airbender."
With respect to Pixar, I will simply say that until Pixar brought in Brad Bird and allowed him to make "The Incredibles," I thought Pixar's films were merely "good." You will not hear me bad-mouthing movies such as "Ratatouille," "Wall-E" and "Up." Yes, "Ratatouille" and "Up" can be simplified as buddy comedies but I feel that these two transcended the genre far more than the "Toy Story" films did.
I understand that it is a personal taste issue but I just could not get over the fact that Pixar kept making cliche buddy film one after the other. I understand what you mean about the theme of growing up and having things change that is in "Toy Story" and is one of the best parts of the film. Unfortunately, I had seen that same movie done before: it was called "The Brave Little Toaster" and guess what? John Lasseter had a hand in that movie.
I have been an animation fan for a long time and I have to confess that it annoyed me that until "The Incredibles," Pixar just really wasn't taking the risks that people claimed they did. "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" is a terrible film but I at least respect that the filmmakers were trying to tell a mature story, something that CGI animation simply was not doing at the time. I know that I'll get shot for this, but considering that the biggest problems I had with "The Spirits Within" were the stuffing in of too many characters and plot points, silly plot and pacing, and poor character development, I'd argue that Square hasn't learned anything even in "Advent Children." I suppose in that regard, I am odd because I prefer to see a film that tries to strive for a lot and massively fails rather than a film that goes for very little and succeeds.
I normally agree 100% with everything you say, but Toy Story 2 is the highest reviewed movie of all time on the aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes. I believe every single review gave it a 10/10: I'd be inclined to agree it's the best Pixar film.
Have you seen the documentary The Pixar Story, by the way? It's on Netflix's streaming service: I'd highly recommend it.
I'm hesitant to talk about Lasseter because his life's story is so sad. He idolized Disney, then when he finally got his chance, they fired his ass, nearly ruined his relationship with his wife, and now, they're crawling back, begging for his advice.
He fired a lot of the original animators for Bolt, and he's calling all the shots with The Princess and The Frog. The amount of power he has now is insane, but honestly, it was such a bumpy ride.
Let me put it this way. What exactly makes "Toy Story 2" the movie that it is? The CGI? The voice acting? The music? The script? I would argue that if I had to pin down the most important factors that made "Toy Story 2" good, it would be the script and the voice acting as second. "Toy Story 2" is a good film but I do not think it is good because of what it did with CGI.
In contrast, "Wall-E" is almost completely dependent on CGI to create the characters in the film since there is no real dialogue to help with that process. In my mind, there is no doubt that "Wall-E" pushes the boundaries of CGI for creating strong, powerful characters completely through animation and motion. I cannot say the same for "Toy Story 2." This is not to say that "Toy Story 2" is a lesser movie. Who said that every film must pioneer?
It is for this reason though, that the CGI work in "Final Fantasy VIII" strikes me as pushing more boundaries because it does not have the luxury of dialogue or voice acting to create its characters. In addition, it is done with a fraction of the budget of a Pixar film for a video game system that has hardware limitations. So yeah, does "Toy Story 2" tell a better story than "Final Fantasy VIII?" Probably. Does "Toy Story 2" push the limits of CGI more than "Final Fantasy VIII?" I don't agree with that.
Anyway, that's pretty tangential. Good blog, Tascar.