Realism?

How much is real?, how much do we need?, how much can we take? The subject in which i could talk about for hours.

Being a 3D student i could imagine (if i do get employed) i would be working on projects that people love to hate or generally enjoy watching. With the advancement on technology in the film industry we are seeing more mind blowing effects in our films and TV programs. Yet there is always the argument of going to far with realism. How far will people go to make something look as real as it would appear to us in life by the use of CGI.

In a previous post i displayed an image of Grendel's Mother from Beowulf, despite the creature meant to look more like a urm creature? monster something less perfect than Angelina Jolie anyway, they practically just replicated her face in CGI to look like her. We already have an Angelina Jolie so why not use the real her instead.? 

Yet even with such advancement our minds and eyes can always give off alert signals, telling us, "theres something quite not right about this, it looks real but its not", this which can relate to the uncanny valley, a term to describe something that it stuck right between looking realistic and trying to trick our brains into thinking it is, but at the same time looks completely off. Some my say they attempt to look realistic for the sake of looking real, because the technology is there, kinda like how many films released all feel the need to have a 3D version, though normally turning quite pointless ad in my cases more difficult to actually watch and enjoy the film

 

During our lectures and seminars, even with friends afterwards there were debates on old and modern films. For example King Kong was used. I under stand the idea of the puppet, which to us kids in modern society, find comical, of King Kong to look more realistic than the 2010 CGI version, because of its mannerisms and fur texture. yet to me i feel they are equally realistic, i also feel that the CGI version doesn't have to be convincing, especially when we know giant gorillas don't exist. So how can they make something look realistic if it isnt even real, they are indeed trying to convince us with technology that it is real, yet unless we see it before our very eyes away from the big screen, our minds will always allow us to know its fake anyway.

Does it have to look realistic to be and feel real, or does the way the gorilla move and act have to be realistic and match to movements made by real gorilla to be that way. I felt that in both films the artists captured the characteristics and they were both believable.

On the other hand, staying on a similar subject, i would like to discuss the Planet of the Apes series.
mainly the Tim Burton one and the current 2011 release.

To me the costumes used in Burton's film felt more real and convincing than Rupert Wyatt's Rise of the planet of the Apes, even though in his film the detail of the apes were top notch, as soon as they became more human like, to me it dropped straight into the uncanny valley, there was something not quite right about it. Where as in Burton's film despite looking more human, eg clothes, and talking like them, there was a constant flow of characteristics that apes would show being conveyed from the actors, making it more convincing than the CGI release.

For something to be real we tend to look at the story and personality of what we are looking at. For example in District 9  aliens arrive on earth, not in America thank goodness, in Africa, the theme of overpopulated city and crime fitted the city it was located in, the plot line thus fitted in well because of the location, and the overall filming and effects made the story more believable, than say a bunch of aliens stuck in new your city.

Now the actual aliens themselves can become more believable and realistic because of the story line. The image below as an example, is nothing I've ever seen in real life before, and i would probably be terrified if i did. i know it doesn't exist, its definitely not real. Yet he seems realistic, the movements and his story relate to the audience, we sympathise with him as he is just trying to return home and look after his son, yes in an exaggerated way, maybe this is what it takes to be realistic, just the feelings and personality.

(Just look at the sorrow in those eyes, just makes you want to give him a cuddle....no just me okay.)






Anyhow in my opinion, despite what many film companies, directors and media feel, we don't necessarily need something to be realistic in the terms of what we see in everyday life. i mean we have too look at human beings everyday, so why do we need to recreate them and best as possible in films, where we would expect to see some for originality and imagination, maybe even where things don't even make sense, CGI, costumes or puppetry, its the story and the why the characters are portrayed which really make a great film.

The Wonderful World Of Narratives

Behold the longest Post on here
What is narrative?

Its the way and how the story and journey is told, with its simple construction of Beginning, Middle and End. But of course there are the may narrative theories to get us thinking differently.

Be warned of the long examples ahead.

Lets start with Todorov, Tzvetan Todorov. A man who proposed a most basic structure for all narratives, which we are able to see in all TV programs and films. 

And what better example than the Simpsons, episode being 'Flaming Moe's'

A State of Equilibrium


All is well in Springfield

A Disruption of Equilibrium

Homer is in the bar and gives Moe a new drink recipe.
this becomes popular which leads Moe in taking all the credit, and the money made from the beverage.

A Recognition of Said Disruption

Homer goes a tad mad in realising that, what Moe has done is wrong, and goes to set things straight.

An Attempt to Repair Disruption

Homer arrives at the bar and reveals the secret recipe to the addictive drink, causing Flaming Moe's to be less popular.

A Reinstatement of Equilibrium

Moe's bar goes back to serving its normal customers, Moe and Homer are now friends again and Springfield ends up going back to how it was at the start, minus the fact the fictional drinks recipe is widely available 

This form of narrative is most useful to these type of shows as it ensures no major changes to place and characters will happen that will effect later episodes. It's all good. Something happens....but in the end its allll alright.

Another theorist you say! Well next i have Vladimir Propp, who's theory was formed within the early 20th century. He founded it upon his studies on Russian fairy tales discovering 8 reoccurring character types/roles in every tale.

Credit goes to this website http://www.adamranson.plus.com/Propp.htm,(check it all out) for helping me understand the roles and going into a little more depth on the theory than i could ever imagine i could on this blog, without bundles of worlds and images mixing it all up that is.

Character types

• The Hero – a character that seeks something
• The Villain – who opposes or actively blocks the hero’s quest
• The Donor – who provides an object with magical properties
• The Dispatcher – who sends the hero on his/her quest via a message
• The False Hero – who disrupts the hero’s success by making false claims
• The Helper – who aids the hero
• The Princess – acts as the reward for the hero and the object of the villain’s plots
•  Her Father – who acts to reward the hero for his effort

 The great thing about this, (that I've only just come to know) that the characters can and may have multiple types, (there goes many an hour on trying to determine if Han Solo was a False Hero or a Helper). It is also easy to understand, once you know the type, what that character will do within the film.
 Lets illustrate with good old Star Wars

  The Narrative then complies to this list

• Preparation - Luke buys C3P0 and R2D2
• Complication - Luke's Aunt and Uncle are killed by Darth Vader's Orders, message from captured princess is revealed about plans for the Rebellion, Luke leaves with Obi-Wan to ensure plans are received, rescue princess and take vengeance on dead relatives.
• Transference- Obi-Wan gives Luke Light sabre to become a Jedi, Hire Han Solo for aid, planet is destroyed, ship captured.
• Struggle - Fight with Darth Vader, Obi-Wan is killed, Luke saves Princess
• Return - Escapes and goes to Rebel Base, New ask is set out to destroy the Death Star, Luke achieves this.
• Recognition- returns to princess and receives reward.

And my last narrative theorist for today, is Gustav Freytag, one completely new to me.
First off there may be alot of triangles in the next part, of which i hope i can correctly explain which an image from the generous google images.

Freytag's triangle, or Dramatic Structure, is divided into five parts seen on the triangle, the length of an edge is determined by whatever edge of the triangle has a greater impact in the story, this normally being the rising action. The theory is similar to Todorov's yet can be seen as both more simple or more complex, for we have
the introduction- to the story
Rising Action- conflict, obstacles, and the hero attempting to achieve task.
Climax- changes for better or worse, normally the most dramatic and shortest part.

Falling Action- climax has ended, resolution is being found.

Sometimes when we watch a film we can realise that it may seem short or for example the boss battle in an action film or game is ended rather quickly, and it is the journey that leads up to the boss that has all the adventure and screen time.   introduction                                                                                                       


For example in Dream Works The Road to El Dorado, We have the character introductions and introduction to the map.






                           Rising Action

Characters Travelling to the island






Rising Action

Travelling to the city






Rising Action

Other Character introduction, Feast, Party, Plans on pretending to be Gods and taking the Gold back to Spain.

Rising Action
Ball Game, and character conflicts

Climax- 
The the climax which is defeating the high priest, which takes up about 1/4 of the film. it then goes onto its falling down and final suspense then ending. There is alot more happening before the boss battle, we see adventure and character developments and relationships and conflicts, which in turn develop the story itself.





Back to what i was saying earlier about Freytags triangle being complex, if your still with me after my ramblings, is that we can have one triangle for the main story line, but then there are sub story plots and narratives which link of to, and in some cases its possible to go on forever making triangles, or Dramatic Structures, for each plot line.

For example if i was to choose a Role Playing Game like Oblivion, and illustrate the different stories made and side quests, there would probably be this many triangles, portraying the many stories you can follow. and that would be cruel.

Instead here's an example from my seminar class on, once again the Simpsons. Where they go to London. Basically the main plot line is going to London, where homer upsets the queen but all is okay by the end. (Following the above structure.) However there are sub plot lines, such as Bart creating a museum, Grandpa finding a lover from his past and Bart and Lisa running off, each of these technically have a beginning, a middle and an end.

And that's about as much as i can say about these theories, though i must say i quite like the idea of going a bit mad and using Freytags structure, ad exploring all the side stories and their own structures.