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.