The Wolf Man CGI or Not?

Special Report By Scott Essman

At a recent Hollywood event, some information came to light that the new WOLF MAN movie has beautiful makeup work by Rick Baker's team and a great performance by Benicio del Toro, but that the filmmakers are in the throes of determining how to cinematically transition from shots of Benicio as the forlorn Larry Talbot without makeup to shots of him as the Wolf Man (and back). Baker's work on the film has been finished for seven months and is surely another supreme notch in his belt of masterworks. But his skills were reportedly not utilized for any transformation scenes.

All of which leads inquiring minds to believe that the transformation work, if anything substantial, will be achieved by that popular pinch-hitter, computer-generated imagery.

Pardon the analogy... but a CGI man-to-wolf transition is about as exciting as a fully-clothed centerfold. The problem is that CGI can be visually stunning, but it is rarely funny, seldom memorable, and never scary. It's just the nature of that particular beast. The CG man-wolf transformations in VAN HELSING were empty eye candy.  In the UNDERWORLD films, the were spectacular but forgettable. In AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN PARIS they were dismissible. But who can forget the transformations in CAT PEOPLE (1982), THE HOWLING or AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON? All done practically and all groundbreaking - and, dare I say, none have been surpassed. They were certainly a huge improvement on the red makeup/filter transitions in the 1932 DR JEKYLL and MR HYDE and the lap dissolves of Jack Pierce and John Fulton in 1941 THE WOLF MAN and its sequels. But the next level has not yet been reached.

CGI doesn't work well when overused in a live-action scenario to fully replace live-action elements. Certainly, in THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON CGI enhanced and/or manipulated Greg Cannom's beautiful old-age makeups to the total benefit of the film. Cannom deserved his Oscar and the film works well for its implementation of CG with live action. CG was stupendous in JURASSIC PARK as it was matched seamlessly with Stan Winston's actual-size practical dinosaurs. And, of course, it is lovingly used by Pixar et al in wholly computer-animated films. The problem is that when it is used in a live-action film, it is more often misused than aesthetically used in a productive manner.

Filmmakers of late seem to resort to CG as their primary go-to technology when achieving a particular effect in a film over older methods such as modelmaking, pyrotechnics, and makeup effects. But why? Because it is a new technique? Surely, nascent technologies are exciting and have limitless possibilities. But these producers, directors, and visual effects supervisors need to be reminded of the adage, "just because you can doesn't mean you should."

Until the computer-based technology is more aesthetically pleasing and enhances the storytelling ability in greater stead than traditional techniques, it must be relegated to secondary status in lieu of its current primary status. Surely George Lucas would not agree, but few classic Star Wars fans prefer his recent trilogy of films when compared to the originals. Sometimes the original method, regardless of new innovations, is truly the best.

Comments

[ijenso]

CGI or NOT?

Have a look here! You’ll love my post : >xoxo

http://evidently.com/?p=2961

[A CG Artist]

I think its clear that those who've posted, do not work in, nor understand the CG industry...

The comments about gravity are valid, in so much as the *Directors* don't like it, 'cause it slows down the action of the shot. If they're spending millions on fully animated weres that are non-human in proportion, Hollywood feels they should be dancing across the screen. This is not the fault of the animator, rigger, texture artist, etc., but simple direction from people who have no idea what they're doing, to make us believe this thing on the screen is alive.

Being a CG artist and having worked on films like Benjamin Buttons, where most people never suspected the first 45 minutes is NOT Brad Pitt in makeup-- I can assure you that CG can and will eventually bring amazing things to life, but only in the hands of the right people.

Thinking about it another way: silicone casts, metal armatures, punched yak hair and Stop Motion-- those are dead technologies. There haven't been any significant advances in the last 10 years for any of it. But CG continues to evolve, and so do the artists and studios that utilize such technologies. Did anyone think the stop motion werewolves in the first Howling rocked? Their screen time was cut drastically, due to the poor quality they lent to the feel of the film.

So, discounting all CG out of hand based on the few crappy, cartoony, low-budget examples to visualizing mythical beasts; is a bit short sighted & naive, IMHO. For signposts to the future: the first Narnia film, with many non-human characters, hints at the possibilities higher-end solutions can bring to storytelling.

However, I am concerned about the use of CG for this particular film, after reading Mr. Baker's personal experience with the CG Studio involved in England... Hopefully, they get it right, and the effort adds to the story, rather than subtracts from it.

[Otto]

I fully agree. CGI often lacks the feeling of oddness that creates a sense of fear. While I can imagine that CGI may theoretically have the same effect, I have never seen it work out that way. So why apply it when you have a convincing solution already?
How about a "petiotion" against CGI used in The Wolfman?

[Dan]

If it is computer animation for the transformations I will be so incredibly disapointed. Please don't do that... please......

[Paul at Movemental]

Great article. Thank you. I once heard Dwayne Johnson say in an interview that the main reason CG has a hard time expressing the truth of the physical world is that there is no gravity in the world created by CG. CG artists might challenge this theory and point to a series of algorithms that impose gravity in CG environments, but I think this is a valid point and one that may explain why CG effects often lack the beauty of truth. Gravity is a limitation. Man has struggled against it from the beginning. The struggle or conflict against a limitation is what makes art great. CG is viewed as an unlimited medium--if you can dream it, you can create it. If CG artists (whose talents I respect enormously) self-imposed a limitation on their environments, something against which they had to struggle in order to create their effects, their worlds (which I have often found thrilling, especially in crowd scenes in which thousands of soldiers or aliens need to be added to a shot) might more closely approach an aesthetic that rings of the truth of practical fx.

[peter]

nimby

(ZC Note: aka "not in my backyard. And boy, do I agree completely, Peter.)