tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/special-effects-312/articlesSpecial effects – The Conversation2023-06-30T05:51:17Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2023572023-06-30T05:51:17Z2023-06-30T05:51:17ZHarrison Ford is back as an 80-year-old Indiana Jones – and a 40-something Indy. The highs (and lows) of returning to iconic roles<p>Saddle up, don the fedora and crack that whip: Harrison Ford is back as the intrepid archaeologist in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. The film premiered at Cannes, where Ford was <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/harrison-ford-honorary-palme-dor-cannes-1235495463/">awarded</a> an Honorary Palme d’Or in recognition of his life’s work. </p>
<p>Reviews for the fifth film in the franchise <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/indiana-jones-5-review-roundup-1235495961/">have been mixed</a>, and it is the first Indy film not to be directed by Steven Spielberg (this time, it’s James Mangold, best known for his motor-racing drama Ford v Ferrari). </p>
<p>But this is “event” cinema that combines nostalgia, old-school special effects and John Williams’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-jaws-to-star-wars-to-harry-potter-john-williams-90-today-is-our-greatest-living-composer-176245">iconic score</a>.</p>
<p>So, Ford is back, aged 80. What draws actors back after all this time? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eQfMbSe7F2g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-jaws-to-star-wars-to-harry-potter-john-williams-90-today-is-our-greatest-living-composer-176245">From Jaws to Star Wars to Harry Potter: John Williams, 90 today, is our greatest living composer</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Role returns</h2>
<p>Ford first played Indy in 1981 and last played him in 2008. That is a full 15 years since the most recent film in the series, and 42 years since his first outing in Raiders of the Lost Ark. </p>
<p>Ford has form in returning to celebrated characters. One of the great pleasures of watching The Force Awakens back in 2015 was seeing Ford play Han Solo again for the <a href="https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3j2j09">first time in over 30 years</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0xQSIdSRlAk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Actors return to roles for numerous reasons: </p>
<ul>
<li>financial (Ford was reportedly paid <a href="https://okmagazine.com/exclusives/harrison-ford-paid-indiana-jones-5-plagued-with-problems/">US$25 million</a> for Dial of Destiny)</li>
<li>protection of their brand, image and star persona (Michael Keaton <a href="https://www.fortressofsolitude.co.za/the-flash-movies-biggest-hero-how-michael-keaton-saved-the-film/">returning to play Batman</a> after three decades and three other actors who have embodied the role) </li>
<li>professional (Tom Cruise admitted over the 36 years between Top Gun films he wanted to make sure the sequel <a href="https://screenrant.com/top-gun-maverick-tom-cruise-return-how-explained/">could live up to the original</a>)</li>
<li>personal (once-huge stars are working less and less, and only feel the need to return to a built-in fan base every few years – Bill Murray in the 2021 Ghostbusters sequel springs to mind).</li>
</ul>
<p>It’s not always a successful endeavour. </p>
<p>Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone – two of the biggest action stars of the 1980s off the back of iconic roles as The Terminator, Rocky Balboa and John Rambo – have repeatedly returned to those roles, and critics have been <a href="https://screenrant.com/terminator-dark-fate-undermined-john-connor-storyline-franchise-bad/">particularly harsh</a>. </p>
<p>It did not work for Sigourney Weaver in <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/alien-resurrection-1997">Alien: Resurrection</a> in 1997, 18 years after her first time as Ripley; nor for Keanu Reeves in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/dec/21/the-matrix-resurrections-review-keanu-reeves">The Matrix Resurrections</a> in 2021, 23 years after the original. </p>
<p>And still, I’m intrigued to see what Michael Mann could do with his long-rumoured sequel to Heat, his definitive 1995 crime film. Ever since Mann published his novel Heat 2 last year – a kind of origin story for Heat’s key protagonists – fans have been hoping a de-aged Al Pacino (now aged 83) <a href="https://deadline.com/2023/04/michael-mann-heat-2-warner-bros-adam-driver-young-neil-mccauley-1235316777/">might return</a> as LA cop Vincent Hanna.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/heat-2-the-book-sequel-to-michael-manns-film-is-fundamentally-bizarre-but-superb-189132">Heat 2, the book sequel to Michael Mann's film, is 'fundamentally bizarre' – but superb</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Undoing time</h2>
<p>“Digital de-ageing” first entered the Hollywood mainstream in 2019 with The Irishman and Captain Marvel. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.indiewire.com/features/craft/de-aging-actors-history-benjamin-button-dial-of-destiny-harrison-ford-1234863938/">Via this process</a>, older actors (Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Samuel L. Jackson have all been subject to the technology) move back and forwards in time without younger actors having to play them. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OF-lElIlZM0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Films still tend to cast two actors to play older and younger versions of the same character, a choice that dates back at least to 1974’s The Godfather Part II, in which a young Robert de Niro plays Vito Corleone, portrayed by the much older Marlon Brando in the first film. </p>
<p>In 1989, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade features a delightful opening scene where River Phoenix plays the young version of Indiana Jones, before Ford takes over for the rest of the film.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AwH6-Yh7_SM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Actors used to just play characters of their own age when reprising earlier roles. Paul Newman finally won a Best Actor Oscar for his role as “Fast Eddie” Felson in The Color of Money (1986), a quarter of a century after first playing him in The Hustler. </p>
<p>The sequel plays on Newman’s age, and his role as a mentor to an upcoming Tom Cruise, and bathes viewers in nostalgia and memories of <a href="https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/paul-newman-schooled-tom-cruise-the-color-of-money/">a younger Newman</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k7gmrKAFshE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But actors no longer have to exclusively play their age.</p>
<p>The first part of Dial of Destiny is an extended flashback, set in 1944, in which Ford has been digitally de-aged to appear in his 40s. This process used an AI system that scanned used and unused reels of footage of Ford from <a href="https://www.cbr.com/harrison-ford-de-aging-indiana-jones-dial-of-destiny/">the first three Indy films</a> to match his present-day performance.</p>
<p>Here, it is as if we are getting two Fords for the price of one: the “younger”, fitter Indy and the older, more world-weary version. It makes for a powerfully emotional connection on screen. </p>
<p>Yet there are some <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/awards/indiana-jones-5-harrison-ford-de-aging-not-working-1235618698/">pitfalls to de-ageing</a>. Some viewers complain that the whole process is distracting and that the hyper-real visual look of de-aged scenes resembles a video game. </p>
<p>Even so, de-ageing in Hollywood cinema is here to stay. Tom Hanks’s <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/news/tom-hanks-robin-wright-digitally-deaged-robert-zemeckis-movie-1235507766/">next film</a> is using AI-based generative technology to digitally de-age him. </p>
<p>Given its reduced cost, speed and reduced human input, AI-driven innovation might have <a href="https://filmstories.co.uk/news/new-ai-driven-de-ageing-tools-to-be-used-in-tom-hanks-project/">industry-changing ramifications</a>.</p>
<h2>The star of Ford</h2>
<p>Harrison Ford remains a bona fide “movie star” in an industry profoundly buffeted by COVID, the rise of streaming platforms, the demise of the monoculture, and the changing nature of who constitutes a star. </p>
<p>In the midst of all this industry uncertainty, it seems there is no longer a statute of limitations on actors returning to much-loved characters.</p>
<p>The next big ethical issue for the film industry as it further embraces AI is whether to <a href="https://collider.com/james-dean-digital-cgi-performance-in-new-movie/">resurrect deceased actors</a> and cast them in new movies. </p>
<p>Still, I’m looking forward to seeing more actors de-aged as the technology improves and audiences acclimatise to watching older actors “playing” younger versions of themselves. We are only at the start of Hollywood’s next big adventure.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/listen-indiana-joness-last-ride-a-legacy-to-celebrate-or-bury-208557">Listen — Indiana Jones's last ride: A legacy to celebrate or bury?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben McCann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Actors love to return to their most famous roles decades later – and digital de-ageing is Hollywood’s next big thing.Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2074392023-06-09T13:26:08Z2023-06-09T13:26:08ZJurassic Park yn 30 a'r chwyldro effeithiau arbennig ddigwyddodd yn sgil y ffilm<p>Mae’r mis hwn yn nodi 30 mlynedd ers ffilm a newidiodd y sinema am byth. Defnyddiodd Jurassic Park 1993 ddelweddau a gynhyrchwyd gan gyfrifiadur (CGI) arloesol i ddod â deinosoriaid yn fyw yn addasiad Steven Spielberg o'r nofel o'r un enw.</p>
<p>Daeth y ffilm yn ddigwyddiad yr oedd yn rhaid ei weld yn gyflym iawn a chafodd cynulleidfaoedd eu syfrdanu gan yr olygfa o weld deinosoriaid credadwy yn ymlwybro ar draws y sgrin fawr am y tro cyntaf. Nid yn unig y gwnaeth Jurassic Park <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uWiWCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=jurassic+park+cgi&ots=2GhA2wlixw&sig=lhUvmRpL2KYrbQWDfE1fRizz7FE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=jurassic%20park%20cgi&f=false">gamau enfawr</a> mewn gwneud ffilmiau effeithiau arbennig, ond fe wnaeth hefyd baratoi'r ffordd ar gyfer myrdd o gynyrchiadau dilynol a oedd yn cynnwys bwystfilod o bob lliw a llun.</p>
<p>Cafodd Jurassic Park ei eni yn 1983 fel sgript sgrin gan Michael Crichton. Fe oedd awdur a chyfarwyddwr y ffilm, Westworld (1973), oedd yn adrodd stori parc adloniant lle’r oedd androidau yn camweithio ac yn rhedeg yn benwyllt. Ond cyhoeddwyd ei stori ar thema deinosoriaid am y tro cyntaf fel y nofel Jurassic Park, a ryddhawyd ym 1990 ac a ddaeth yn werthwr gorau.</p>
<p>Dyna pryd y daeth i sylw Steven Spielberg. Erbyn y 1990au cynnar, nid oedd Spielberg yn ddieithr i wneud ffilmiau ffuglen wyddonol ar gyllideb fawr. Roedd ffilmiau fel Jaws (1975), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) ac E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) wedi dangos bod ganddo hanes o wneud ffilmiau hynod lwyddiannus. Roedd Jurassic Park, felly, yn berffaith ar gyfer ei gynhyrchiad nesaf.</p>
<p>Newidiodd addasiad Spielberg, a ysgrifennwyd gan Crichton a David Koepp, nifer o agweddau ar y nofel i roi diweddglo boddhaol i’r ffilm, ond gan adael digon o ddiweddglo rhydd i’w harchwilio ymhellach mewn ffilmiau eraill.</p>
<p>Wrth gwrs, nid Jurassic Park oedd y tro cyntaf i ddeinosoriaid gael sylw ar y sgrin fawr. Mae King Kong (1933) yn enghraifft gynnar o ffilm a wthiodd ffiniau'r hyn a oedd yn bosibl ar y pryd trwy gynnwys golygfeydd o'r gorila enfawr yn ymladd â deinosoriaid.</p>
<p>Daeth creaduriaid yn fyw o flaen y gynulleidfa sinema trwy gyfuno animeiddiad stopio-symudiad ag ôl-dafluniad (lle mae ffilm a saethwyd yn flaenorol yn cael ei thaflunio ar gefndir a bod actorion yn cael eu recordio yn perfformio o'i flaen). Roedd ffilmiau eraill fel Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959), The Lost World (1960) a The Land That Time Forgot (1974) wedi ceisio ffyrdd amgen o ddod â deinosoriaid i'r sgrin, gan gynnwys pypedwaith a hyd yn oed ffitio ymlusgiaid byw gyda phrostheteg.</p>
<p>O'r dulliau hyn, dewiswyd cyfuniad o animeiddiad stopio-symudiad ar gyfer saethiadau hir a phypedau animatronig ar gyfer sesiynau golwg agos i ddechrau gan Spielberg ar gyfer Jurassic Park.</p>
<h2>CGI ac animeiddio</h2>
<p>Cafwyd canlyniadau da gan brofion stopio-symudiad, yn enwedig wrth ddatblygu’r hyn a elwir yn “go-motion”, sef techneg a oedd yn niwlio modelau i ddarparu ymdeimlad o symudiad tebyg i weithred fyw. Ond roedd Spielberg a'i dîm yn dal yn awyddus i fynd ymhellach gyda'r hyn oedd yn bosib. Darparodd Dennis Muren o’r cwmni effeithiau arbennig, Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), ymagwedd amgen drwy ddefnyddio modelu ac animeiddio CGI.</p>
<p>Ar gefn gwaith CGI arloesol yn The Abyss (1989) a Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), cynhyrchodd Muren a'i dîm gyfres brawf o ddeinosoriaid ysgerbydol. Fe wnaeth profion yn cynnwys <em>Tyrannosaurus Rex</em> gyda chroen ychwanegol gadarnhau ymhellach y sylweddoliad mai dyma'r ffordd i barhau ar gyfer y ffilm. Adeiladodd y dechneg hon fodel y deinosor o esgyrn, ychwanegu cyhyr ac yna yn olaf, y croen.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rc_i5TKdmhs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Golygfa'r T. rex yn dianc.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Roedd yn ymddangos bod y tîm stopio-symudiad a oedd wedi'i ymgynnull wedi'i ddileu gan y dechnoleg arloesol hon. Fodd bynnag, y gwneuthurwyr modelau a’r animeiddwyr oedd yr arbenigwyr ar ddeinosoriaid a’u symudiadau. Fe wnaethant ailhyfforddi fel animeiddwyr cyfrifiadurol i barhau i ddefnyddio eu sgiliau ar y cynhyrchiad.</p>
<p>Mae Jurassic Park yn cynnwys 15 munud o ddeinosoriaid ar y sgrin, gyda thua naw munud ohonynt yn cynnwys animatronegau Stan Winston a chwe munud o animeiddiad CGI ILM. Gwelir llwyddiant y cyfuniad hwn yn yr olygfa <em>T. Rex</em> eiconig. Mae nifer o saethiadau animatronig yn cynnwys lluniau agos o’r <em>T. Rex</em> wrth i’r saethiadau uchder llawn ddarparu bygythiad a phŵer y creadur.</p>
<p>Mae'r modd y mae Spielberg yn cyfarwyddo'r olygfa - o adeiladu tensiwn atmosfferig y storm law, trwy'r datgeliad cychwynnol a'r ymatebion, yr ymosodiad hirfaith a'r ddihangfa ddilynol - yn tywys y gynulleidfa trwy ystod o emosiynau. Er bod y darnau CGI yn gymharol fyr, maent yn cael effaith enfawr ar y stori, heb sôn am y gred bod y digwyddiad yn digwydd o'n blaenau mewn gwirionedd. Mae'n gynrychiolaeth wirioneddol o bŵer sinema.</p>
<h2>Effaith</h2>
<p>Ar ôl ei ryddhau, daeth Jurassic Park yn llwyddiant ysgubol. Roedd hefyd yn gyfle perffaith i ddatblygu ac arddangos y datblygiadau diweddaraf mewn CGI. Roedd y wefr o weld rhuthr y <em>Gallimimus</em>, arswyd ymosodiad y <em>T. Rex</em> ac arswyd yr helfa <em>Velociraptor</em> wedi swyno cynulleidfaoedd ar draws y byd. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8hjB6UJ2kMU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Golygfa rhuthr y Gallimimus yn Jurassic Park.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ysbrydolodd Jurassic Park nifer o ffilmiau â themâu debyg fel Dinosaur (2000) gan Disney a chyfres deledu y BBC, Walking with Dinosaurs (1999). Ond yn fwy na hynny, fe helpodd i greu chwyldro yn y defnydd o effeithiau arbennig CGI mewn ffilmiau.</p>
<p>O'r chwe munud hynny o ddeinosoriaid wedi'u hanimeiddio, mae CGI bellach wedi integreiddio cymaint â'r diwydiant nes bod bron pob cynhyrchiad ffilm a theledu yn cynnwys rhyw fath o CGI. Gall hyn olygu’n syml glanhau agweddau ar y ddelwedd a ffilmiwyd yn ddigidol gyda thynnu ac ailosod, estyniadau set, ychwanegu modelau set CGI neu gerbydau a phropiau animeiddiedig, at ffilmio gyda sgrin werdd a delweddau cyfansoddi, neu uno actorion o fewn amgylcheddau CGI llawn.</p>
<p>Mae'r ffilm yn parhau i fod yn bwynt arwyddocaol yn hanes sinema. Dyma gyhoeddodd fod creaduriaid CGI wedi cyrraedd, gan baratoi'r ffordd ar gyfer y deng mlynedd ar hugain dilynol o wneud ffilmiau ffantasi.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207439/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Hodges does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Rhyddhawyd Jurassic Park ar y sgrin fawr ym mis Mehefin 1993 a newidiodd sinema am byth.Peter Hodges, Lecturer in Contextual and Critical Studies for Visual Effects and Motion Graphics, University of South WalesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2045922023-06-08T16:28:34Z2023-06-08T16:28:34ZJurassic Park at 30: how its CGI revolutionised the film industry<p><em>You can also read this article <a href="https://theconversation.com/jurassic-park-yn-30-ar-chwyldro-effeithiau-arbennig-ddigwyddodd-yn-sgil-y-ffilm-207439">in Welsh</a>.</em></p>
<p>This month marks the 30th anniversary of a film that changed cinema forever. 1993’s Jurassic Park used pioneering computer-generated imagery (CGI) to bring dinosaurs to life in Steven Spielberg’s adaption of the novel of the same name. </p>
<p>The film quickly became a must-see event and audiences were left amazed by the spectacle of seeing believable dinosaurs grace the big screen for the first time. Jurassic Park not only <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uWiWCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=jurassic+park+cgi&ots=2GhA2wlixw&sig=lhUvmRpL2KYrbQWDfE1fRizz7FE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=jurassic%20park%20cgi&f=false">made giant leaps</a> in special-effects filmmaking, but it also paved the way for myriad subsequent productions that featured beasts of all shapes and sizes.</p>
<p>Jurassic Park originated in 1983 as a screenplay by Michael Crichton, whose previous foray into film as writer and director of Westworld (1973) featured an immersive amusement park where androids malfunctioned and caused havoc. But his dinosaur-themed story first found publication as the novel Jurassic Park, which was released in 1990 and became a bestseller. </p>
<p>That’s when it came to the attention of Steven Spielberg. By the early 1990s, Spielberg was no stranger to big-budget science-fiction filmmaking. The likes of Jaws (1975), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) had demonstrated that he had a track record of making extremely successful effects-heavy but story-led films. That made Jurassic Park perfect for his next production.</p>
<p>Spielberg’s adaptation, written by Crichton and David Koepp, changed a number of aspects of the novel’s ending to provide a satisfactory conclusion to the film, yet leave enough loose ends for further exploration in the franchise.</p>
<p>Of course, Jurassic Park wasn’t the first time dinosaurs had been featured on the big screen. 1933’s King Kong is an early example of a film that pushed the boundaries of what was then possible by including sequences of the eponymous giant gorilla fighting with dinosaurs. </p>
<p>Creatures were brought to life for cinema goers by combining stop-motion animation with rear projection (where previously shot film is projected onto a backdrop and actors are recorded performing in front of it). Other feature films such as Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959), The Lost World (1960) and The Land That Time Forgot (1974) had attempted alternative ways of bringing dinosaurs to the screen, including puppetry and even fitting live reptiles with prosthetics. </p>
<p>Of these methods, a combination of stop-motion animation for long shots and animatronic puppets for close ups were initially chosen by Spielberg for Jurassic Park.</p>
<h2>CGI and animation</h2>
<p>Stop-motion tests produced good results, especially in the development of go-motion, a technique which blurred models to provide a sense of movement similar to that of live action. But Spielberg and his team were still keen to go further with what was possible. Dennis Muren from the visual effects company, Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), provided an alternative approach by using CGI modelling and animation.</p>
<p>Off the back of pioneering CGI work in The Abyss (1989) and Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), Muren and his team produced a test sequence of skeletal dinosaurs. Additional tests featuring a <em>Tyrannosaurus rex</em> with added skin further cemented the realisation that this was the way to go for the film. This technique built the model of the dinosaur from bones, added muscle and then finally, the skin. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rc_i5TKdmhs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The T. rex escapes its paddock.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It seemed the assembled stop-motion team had been made extinct by this innovative technology. However, the model makers and animators were the experts on dinosaurs and their movement, and they retrained as computer animators to continue to use their skills on the production.</p>
<p>Jurassic Park features 15 minutes of on-screen dinosaurs, of which approximately nine minutes feature Stan Winston’s animatronics and six minutes of ILM’s CGI animation. The success of this combination is seen in the iconic <em>T. rex</em> attack scene. A number of animatronic shots feature close-ups of the <em>T.rex</em> before the full-height shots provide the creature’s threat and power. </p>
<p>How Spielberg orchestrates the scene, from the atmospheric, tension building of the rain storm, through the initial reveal and reactions, the prolonged attack and subsequent escape, takes the audience through a range of emotions. Although the CGI sections are relatively short, they have a huge impact on the overall storytelling, not to mention the believability that the event is actually happening in front of us. It’s a true representation of the power of cinema. </p>
<h2>Impact</h2>
<p>On release, Jurassic Park became an instant box office success, becoming the highest-grossing film ever at that time. It also presented the perfect opportunity to develop and showcase the latest advances in CGI. The thrill of seeing the stampede of Gallimimus, the horror of the <em>T.rex</em> attack and the suspense of the Velociraptor hunt captivated audiences across the globe. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8hjB6UJ2kMU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“They’re flocking this way” - Jurassic Park’s Gallimimus chase scene.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Jurassic Park inspired a number of similarly themed movies such as Disney’s Dinosaur (2000) and the award-winning BBC television series Walking with Dinosaurs (1999). But more than that, it helped bring about a revolution in the use of CGI in filmmaking. </p>
<p>From those six minutes of animated dinosaurs, CGI has become so integrated into the industry to the extent that nearly all film and television productions feature some form of CGI practice. This can simply mean digitally cleaning up aspects of the filmed image with removals and replacements, set extensions, adding CGI set models or animated vehicles and props, to filming with green screen and compositing images, or merging actors within full CGI environments. </p>
<p>The film remains a significant point in the history of cinema that successfully announced that CGI creatures had arrived, paving the way for the following thirty years of fantasy filmmaking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204592/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Hodges does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Jurassic Park was released on the big screen in June 1993 and changed cinema for good.Peter Hodges, Lecturer in Contextual and Critical Studies for Visual Effects and Motion Graphics, University of South WalesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1571012021-03-29T18:41:07Z2021-03-29T18:41:07ZGodzilla vs. Kong: A functional morphologist uses science to pick a winner<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/392328/original/file-20210329-23-c1eknf.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C0%2C746%2C444&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hollywood has picked a winner, but what does the science say?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.warnerbros.com/movies/godzilla-vs-kong#gallery">Courtesy of Warner Bros Entertainment</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The 2021 film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/video/vi576962841?playlistId=tt5034838">“Godzilla vs. Kong”</a> pits the two most iconic movie monsters of all time against each other. And fans are now picking sides.</p>
<p>Even the most fantastical creatures have some basis in scientific reality, so the natural world is a good place to look to better understand movie monsters. <a href="https://www.formorphology.com/">I study</a> functional morphology – how skeletal and tissue traits allow animals to move – and evolution in extinct animals. I am also a huge fan of monster movies. Ultimately, this is a fight between a giant reptile and a giant primate, and there are relative biological advantages and disadvantages that each would have. The research I do on morphology and biomechanics can tell us a lot about this battle and might help you decide – #TeamGodzilla or #TeamKong? </p>
<h2>Larger than life</h2>
<p>First it’s important to acknowledge that both Kong and Godzilla are definitely far beyond the realms of biological possibility. This is due to sheer size and the laws of physics. Their hearts couldn’t pump blood to their heads, they would have temperature regulation problems and it would take too long for nerve signals from the brain to reach distant parts of the body – <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-movie-size-too-big-2019-5">to name just a few issues</a>.</p>
<p>However, let’s assume that somehow Godzilla and Kong are able to overcome these size limitations – perhaps because of their radiation exposure they have distinctive mutations and characteristics. Based on how they look on the big screen, let’s explore the observable differences that might prove useful in a fight.</p>
<h2>Kong: the best of ape and human</h2>
<p>At first glance, Kong is a colossal primate - but he’s not simply a giant gorilla. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391533/original/file-20210324-17-9g6tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An upright human skeleton next to a gorilla skeleton on all fours." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391533/original/file-20210324-17-9g6tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391533/original/file-20210324-17-9g6tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391533/original/file-20210324-17-9g6tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391533/original/file-20210324-17-9g6tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391533/original/file-20210324-17-9g6tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391533/original/file-20210324-17-9g6tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391533/original/file-20210324-17-9g6tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kong has a mix of both gorilla and humanlike physical traits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&search=gorilla+skeleton+human+filetype%3Abitmap&advancedSearch-current={%22fields%22:{%22filetype%22:%22bitmap%22}}#/media/File:Human_(Homo_sapiens)_and_Gorilla_(Gorilla_gorilla).jpg">Cliff/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the most striking things about Kong is his upright, bipedal stance – he mostly walks on two legs, unlike any other living nonhuman apes. This ability could suggest close evolutionary relationship to the only living upright ape, humans – or his upright stance could be the result of <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/convergent_evolution.htm">convergent evolution</a>. Either way, like us, Kong has thick muscular legs geared toward walking and running, and large free arms with grasping hands, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.04.001">enabling him to use tools</a>. </p>
<p>Humanity’s bipedal, upright posture is unique in the animal kingdom and provides a slew of biomechanical abilities that Kong might share. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9416">human torsos are highly flexible</a> and particularly good at rotation. This feature – in addition to our loose shoulder girdle – makes <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-humans-became-the-best-throwers-on-the-planet-131189">humans the best throwers</a> in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0107">the animal kingdom</a>. Throwing is helpful in a fight, and Kong could probably <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12267">throw with the best of them</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391559/original/file-20210324-21-1j1ifks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A gorilla skull showing the tall saggital crest on top." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391559/original/file-20210324-21-1j1ifks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391559/original/file-20210324-21-1j1ifks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391559/original/file-20210324-21-1j1ifks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391559/original/file-20210324-21-1j1ifks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391559/original/file-20210324-21-1j1ifks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391559/original/file-20210324-21-1j1ifks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391559/original/file-20210324-21-1j1ifks.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The tall ridge of bone on top of a gorilla’s skull helps it bite with incredible force.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gorilla_Male_perspective_5.jpg#/media/File:Gorilla_Male_perspective_5.jpg">Didier Descouens/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Kong is also, of course, massive. He absolutely dwarfs the largest known primate, an extinct orangutan relative called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23150"><em>Gigantopithecus</em></a> that was a bit bigger than modern gorillas.</p>
<p>Kong does have many gorillalike attributes as well, including long muscular arms, a short snout with large canine teeth, and a tall sagittal crest – a ridge of bone on his head that would be the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12609">anchor point for some exceptionally strong jaw muscles</a>.</p>
<p>Strong, agile, comfortable on land and with the unparalleled ability to use tools and throw, Kong would be a brutal force in a fight.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391527/original/file-20210324-23-wyux78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A comparison between an upright Godzilla and a horizontal Godzilla." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391527/original/file-20210324-23-wyux78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391527/original/file-20210324-23-wyux78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391527/original/file-20210324-23-wyux78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391527/original/file-20210324-23-wyux78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391527/original/file-20210324-23-wyux78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=818&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391527/original/file-20210324-23-wyux78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=818&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391527/original/file-20210324-23-wyux78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=818&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Godzilla’s upright posture is unique among lizards and dinosaurs. Figure depicts what he’d look like with a dinosaur posture.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Godzilla_Compare.jpg#/media/File:Godzilla_Compare.jpg">Kenneth Carpenter/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Godzilla: An aquatic lizard to be reckoned with</h2>
<p>Godzilla appears to be a giant, semiaquatic reptile. Like Kong, Godzilla has the traits of a few different species.</p>
<p>Recent Godzilla movies show him decently mobile on land, but seemingly much more comfortable in the water despite his lack of overt aquatic features. Interestingly, Godzilla is depicted with gills on his neck – a trait that land vertebrates lost after <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icm055">they emerged from the sea about 370 million years ago</a>. Given Godzilla’s terrestrial features, it’s likely that his species has land-dwelling reptile ancestors and reevolved a mostly aquatic lifestyle – kind of like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0406">sea turtles</a> or sea snakes, which can actually <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(75)90387-4">absorb oxygen through their skin</a> in water. Godzilla may have uniquely reevolved gills.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391846/original/file-20210325-19-1p3dr3u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An image of a Tyrannosaurus rex showing large tail muscles connecting to the upper leg and hip." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391846/original/file-20210325-19-1p3dr3u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391846/original/file-20210325-19-1p3dr3u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391846/original/file-20210325-19-1p3dr3u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391846/original/file-20210325-19-1p3dr3u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391846/original/file-20210325-19-1p3dr3u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391846/original/file-20210325-19-1p3dr3u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391846/original/file-20210325-19-1p3dr3u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dinosaurs like <em>Tyrannosaurus rex</em> had huge muscles that connect their powerful tails to their hips and upper legs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/">Dr. Scott Hartman</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Godzilla’s tail is what really separates him from Kong. It is massive, and anchored and moved by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.21290">huge muscles attached to his legs, hips and lower back</a>. Dinosaurs like <em>Tyrannosaurus rex</em> stood horizontally and used their tails for balance and to help them walk and run. Godzilla, in contrast, stands vertically and keeps his tail low to the ground, probably for a different type of balance. This vertical posture is unique for a two-legged reptile and more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0381">resembles a standing kangaroo</a>. Godzilla stands on two muscular, pillarlike legs similar to those of a sauropod dinosaur. These would provide stability and help support his gargantuan mass but would also bolster the strength of his tail.</p>
<p>In addition to his powerful tail, Godzilla carries three rows of sharp spikes going down his back, thick scaly skin, a relatively small head full of carnivorous teeth and free arms with grasping hands, all built onto a muscular body. Taken together, Godzilla is a terrifying and intimidating adversary.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391561/original/file-20210324-19-jhyqtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Godzilla shooting King Kong with his atomic breath from the 1962 film 'King Kong vs. Godzilla' " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391561/original/file-20210324-19-jhyqtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391561/original/file-20210324-19-jhyqtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=859&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391561/original/file-20210324-19-jhyqtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=859&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391561/original/file-20210324-19-jhyqtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=859&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391561/original/file-20210324-19-jhyqtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391561/original/file-20210324-19-jhyqtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391561/original/file-20210324-19-jhyqtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1079&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kong is faster and could use tools, but Godzilla is stronger and has armored skin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gameraboy/48298898271/in/photostream/">Tim Simpson/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ready, fight!</h2>
<p>So now that we’ve looked a little closer at how Godzilla and Kong are built, let’s imagine who might emerge victorious in battle.</p>
<p>Though Kong is a little bit smaller than Godzilla, both are more or less comparably massive in size and neither has a clear advantage here. So what about their fighting abilities? </p>
<p>Godzilla would likely favor his robust tail for both offense and defense – much like modern-day large lizards that <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.2299">use their strong tails as whips</a>. Scale up that strength to Godzilla’s size, and that tail becomes a lethal weapon – which he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO_utO644sk&ab_channel=Gigan2004">has used before</a>.</p>
<p>However, Kong is more comfortable on land, faster and more agile, can use his strong legs to jump, and possesses much stronger arms than Godzilla – Kong probably packs a walloping punch. And as an ape, Kong would also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380">likely use tools to some degree</a> and might even capitalize on his throwing ability.</p>
<p>Both would have a gnarly bite, with Kong likely getting a slight advantage. However, Godzilla’s bite is by no means weak, and all of his teeth are flesh-piercing, similar to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.05.025">crocodile</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373-35.4.525">monitor lizard</a> teeth.</p>
<p>On defense, Godzilla has the edge, with thick scaly skin and sharp spikes. He might even act like a porcupine, turning his back to a rapidly approaching threat. However, Kong’s superior agility on land should be able to offer him some protection as well.</p>
<p>I will admit I am #TeamGodzilla, but it’s very close. I may give a slight edge to Kong in broad terrestrial battle ability, but Godzilla’s general mass, defense and tail would be hard to overpower. And lest we forget, the tipping point for Godzilla is that he has atomic breath! Until researchers find evidence of a dinosaur or animal with something like that, though, I will have to reserve my scientific judgment. </p>
<p>Regardless of who emerges victorious, this battle will be one for the ages, and I am excited as both a scientist and monster movie fan.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to use more inclusive language</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kiersten Formoso receives funding from the National Science Foundation, Paleontological Society, and Evolving Earth Foundation. </span></em></p>Hollywood loves a good monster battle, and where better to turn for inspiration than the animal kingdom? Traits from real animals can provide clues about the fighting prowess of Kong and Godzilla.Kiersten Formoso, PhD Student in Vertebrate Paleontology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1492972020-11-05T11:13:44Z2020-11-05T11:13:44ZMonsters, movies, and biomechanics: celebrating Ray Harryhausen<p>It’s the early 1980s and I’m about ten years old. On the TV is a fantasy movie replete with swords and ships. And monsters: monsters of metal, monsters of bone. Creatures of the imagination. And they are all brought to life with frightening realism on the screen before me. Those creatures lit up my young mind. The movie was <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057197/">Jason And The Argonauts</a>, which was my introduction to the wonderful world of animator and movie-maker, <a href="https://www.rayharryhausen.com/about/">Ray Harryhausen</a>. </p>
<p>Harryhausen was a pioneer of stop-motion animation, using models to bring special effects to science fiction and fantasy movies from the gorilla in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041650/">Mighty Joe Young</a> in 1949 to Pegasus, the flying horse, in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082186/">Clash Of The Titans</a>, 1981. From flying saucers to dinosaurs, real and extinct animals, with various monsters and mythical creatures in between, Ray brought a diversity of scenes and movies to life in ways that few contemporaries could match, all before CGI (computer-generated imagery), the go-to animation tool of today.</p>
<h2>Creator of monsters</h2>
<p>A plethora of modern-day <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22446653">special-effects maestros cite Harryhausen</a> as an influence, including Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro. And Harryhausen is much beloved of a particular demographic, who grew up watching Harryhausen creatures on movie repeats on the TV. A demographic which might just include me.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C-ZQGRM7GW0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Harryhausen also has a special place in the heart (and minds) of a number of zoologists, palaeontologists, and others with a scientific interest in biomechanics and comparative anatomy. For example, the pterosaur <a href="https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2013/05/ray-harryhausen-1920-2013.html">palaeontologist Mark Witton</a>, zoologist and Tyrannosaurus expert <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/may/16/dinosaurs-on-film-ray-harryhausen">Dave Hone</a> and evolutionary biomechanist <a href="https://whatsinjohnsfreezer.com/2018/06/23/hurry_hausen/">John Hutchison</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dinosaur-egg-bonanza-gives-vital-clues-about-prehistoric-parenting-121401">Dinosaur egg bonanza gives vital clues about prehistoric parenting</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As an ecologist, <a href="https://www.jasongilchrist.co.uk/Blog_374424.html">I also belong to this set of fans</a> and I use Harryhausen movies to illustrate “living, breathing, moving” reconstructions of dinosaurs and pterosaurs to my students.</p>
<p>Harryhausen had great imagination but also had an eye and a brain for realism. He made animals interact with people on screen in ways impossible with real live animals. His rendering of the elephant in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A6tNff9y98&ab_channel=InfernoRodan">The Valley of Gwangi</a>, the crab in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzFLvR4TaOI">Mysterious Island</a>, and the baboon in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8-HGV-9r60&ab_channel=KarlMagnusEriksson">Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger</a>, are incredible in their realism.</p>
<p>He resurrected extinct creatures, including a sabre-toothed tiger and woolly mammoth. And yes, there were dinosaurs, and other extinct giant reptiles, including pterosaurs (one of which famously <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKCTPSY6lf4&ab_channel=apollomovieguy">carried off a fur-bikini-clad Raquel Welch</a> in One Million Years BC).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-i-jumped-at-the-chance-to-bring-the-real-t-rex-to-life-for-tv-89615">Why I jumped at the chance to bring the real T. rex to life for TV</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In addition, Harryhausen created believable alien flying saucers, and all manner of monsters and creatures: the Cyclops, Medusa, the Kraken and the Children of Hydra’s Teeth (or skeleton army, one of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-FOQ4rgGpU">most iconic of cinema moments ever</a>) to name a few.</p>
<h2>Titan of cinema</h2>
<p>Harryhausen had a studious attention to detail and an inordinate well of patience. It took him four and a half months to animate the skeleton fight sequence in Jason And The Argonauts, which plays out in just four and a half minutes in real-time in the movie.</p>
<p>So, Harryhausen did what modern anatomists do, in endeavouring to understand how the bodies of animals work (in terms of bones, muscle, and other soft tissues). He took this understanding into re-imagining extinct creatures, much as <a href="https://www.jasongilchrist.co.uk/Blog_353593.html">palaeontologists do today</a>. He did so endeavouring to recreate, not just what a dinosaur (or other extinct creatures) looked like, but how it moved, what sounds it made, and how it interacted with its environment and other organisms within it.</p>
<p>Whilst Harryhausen is best known for his 3D models that, despite their diminutive size, often overshadowed and outshone the human actors on-screen in the science-fiction and fantasy movies he created, he also produced storyboard sketches and key drawings to sell his ideas of stories and scenes to movie studios.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0AgdJWD5njo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Stylistically, Harryhausen’s <a href="https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/features/art-and-ray-harryhausen">2D conceptual art was inspired by artists</a> including illustrator <a href="https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/london-illustrations-by-gustave-dor">Gustave Dore</a>, architect and painter <a href="https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/joseph-gandy-11125">Joseph Gandy</a> and the wildlife painter and palaeoartist <a href="http://www.charlesrknight.com">Charles Knight</a>. His framing, composition, and anatomical detail reflect these influences. His inspiration for mannequin-making came from <a href="https://kingkong.fandom.com/wiki/Willis_O%27Brien">Willis O’Brien</a>, who created the original King Kong. Harryhausen went to see O’Brien’s 1933 King Kong movie 33 times at his local cinema.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-anatomy-is-undergoing-a-revival-22103">The science of anatomy is undergoing a revival</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Harryhausen was one of the earliest filmmakers to bring extinct (as well as imagined) creatures to life on the screen. He therefore bridged science and the arts, inspiring future scientists as well as the next generation of filmmakers. This pioneering approach to cinema is currently being celebrated at The Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art (National Galleries of Scotland) in <a href="https://www.nationalgalleries.org/exhibition/ray-harryhausen-titan-cinema">Ray Harryhausen: Titan Of Cinema</a>.</p>
<p>So, it’s 2020, the centenary year of the birth of Harryhausen. On TV there is a fantasy movie replete with swords and ships and monsters. The movie is Jason And The Argonauts. And, as an ecologist with an interest in behavioural ecology, biomechanics, and palaeontology, I am as fired with inspiration and wonder as when I was ten, by the skill of the pioneering art of this titan of cinema.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149297/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Gilchrist does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>From mythical beasts to extinct creatures, the pioneering special effects work of Ray Harryhausen inspired a generation of zoologists, palaeontologists and ecologists.Jason Gilchrist, Ecologist, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1301752020-02-29T23:56:16Z2020-02-29T23:56:16ZA brief history of invisibility on screen<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317648/original/file-20200227-24664-18rlmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=371%2C93%2C906%2C528&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Elisabeth Moss stars in the latest adaptation of H.G. Wells' novel.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2I4NHIhN2wU/maxresdefault.jpg">Universal Pictures</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What would you do if you could be invisible? Would this newfound power bring out the best in you, instilling you with the courage to discreetly sabotage the efforts of evildoers? Or would the ability to slip in and out of rooms unnoticed tap into darker impulses?</p>
<p>This alluring fantasy has long been fodder for filmmakers, many of whom have taken cues from the eponymous character in H.G. Wells’ 1897 novel, “<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Invisible_Man/vdAOAAAAIAAJ?hl=en">The Invisible Man</a>.” </p>
<p>First adapted to the screen in 1933, the invisible man (and his descendents) appeared in six films from 1933 to 1951. Now, he’ll be making his latest screen (dis)appearance in a film directed by Leigh Whannell. <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1051906/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_4">This iteration</a> takes a horror-movie tack: Its protagonist, played by Elisabeth Moss, is harassed by an ex who has faked his own death. But beyond “The Invisible Man” franchise, the concept of invisibility has inspired a raft of movies over the decades. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.wesleyan.edu/academics/faculty/mlongenecker/profile.html">As a film professor who studies adaptations and series</a>, I’m most interested in the versatility of these invisible characters. They can star in cautionary tales or embody underdog heroes; they can act as vessels for social critique or vehicles for masochistic power fantasies. </p>
<h2>The mechanics of invisibility</h2>
<p>For almost as long as people have been appearing onscreen, they’ve been disappearing. French illusionist and experimental filmmaker <a href="https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/72124/5-pioneering-facts-about-georges-melies">Georges Méliès</a> was one of the first to toy with the concept of invisibility. Using hidden cuts, he would create the illusion of a character vanishing into thin air.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YezJqdx7AuU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Georges Méliès was one of the first filmmakers to experiment with invisibility.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Universal’s 1933 “The Invisible Man” was the first official adaptation of the Wells novel. Depicting an invisible character over the course of a film was no small task. But director James Whale came up with ingenious solutions that other filmmakers would later mimic. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317645/original/file-20200227-24651-191hb6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317645/original/file-20200227-24651-191hb6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317645/original/file-20200227-24651-191hb6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317645/original/file-20200227-24651-191hb6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317645/original/file-20200227-24651-191hb6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317645/original/file-20200227-24651-191hb6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317645/original/file-20200227-24651-191hb6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317645/original/file-20200227-24651-191hb6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The original adaptation of H.G. Wells’ ‘The Invisible Man’ featured the iconic costume of sunglasses and a wrapped head.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/The_Invisible_Man_%281933_poster_-_Style_B%29.jpg">Universal Pictures</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The costume Whale created – <a href="https://cdn2us.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/main_wide/public/2019/02/the-invisible-man.jpg?itok=bGORzDEq">a bandaged head, dark glasses, overcoat and gloves</a> – became the default way to represent an invisible character on screen. </p>
<p>When the invisible character isn’t wearing the costume, props manipulated by wires or unseen hands would signal his presence: a bicycle rolling down the street, collapsing cushions and rocking chairs. The invisible man also, helpfully, talks a lot.</p>
<p>Amazingly, all of this was done without green screens or CGI. To create the effect of invisible body parts in scenes where actor Claude Rains is wearing a suit and hat, Whale had Rains <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ysmepAjLIs&feature=youtu.be&t=863%22">wear a black velvet suit and be filmed against a black velvet background</a>. The filmmakers then used this footage to composite the actor’s props and costumes into the rest of the scene, making him appear invisible within the space.</p>
<h2>The many faces of invisibility</h2>
<p>More and more films would go on to explore the power of invisibility. But it never came to serve any one specific purpose.</p>
<p>H.G. Wells had script approval over the 1933 version, so it remains relatively faithful to his original work. Like the novel, the film is about a loner scientist who chooses to test an invisibility serum he’s developed on himself – only to realize he can’t reverse the effects.</p>
<p>Wells’ invisible man is an anti-hero; despite a gradual slide into violent megalomania, we’re supposed to see a tragedy of scientific ambition – and its effect on someone who loses self, soul and life in pursuit of progress.</p>
<p>But starting in 1934, <a href="https://daily.jstor.org/end-american-film-censorship/">increased enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code</a> encouraged films to be written with a clearer moral framework. So subsequent studio-era versions tended to couch invisible characters as victims who wielded the power of invisibility to right a wrong.</p>
<p>For example, in 1940’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032635/">The Invisible Man Returns</a>” and 1951’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043255/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Abbot and Costello Meet the Invisible Man</a>,” sympathetic scientists turn wrongfully accused men invisible so they can escape capture, discover who framed them and clear their names. </p>
<p>In “Invisible Agent,” a descendant of the original invisible man agrees to distribute the invisibility serum to the U.S. military to help combat the Nazis. <a href="http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/i103su09/structure-projects-assignments/research-project/projects-and-presentations/film-as-propaganda-in-america-during-wwii/">Working in service of Hollywood’s propaganda goals</a>, this is the most overtly heroic version.</p>
<p>1940’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032637/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3">The Invisible Woman</a>,” on the other hand, addresses wider social injustices. It tells the story of a frustrated working girl who answers a kooky inventor’s ad and agrees to test-run his invisibility machine. It works – and she immediately decides to exact revenge on her cruel boss, spooking him with her disembodied voice and threatening him until he agrees to enact better working conditions.</p>
<p>This film offers a variation on another recurring scenario in films that feature invisible characters: The disembodied voice of the invisible hero lectures a bewildered, frightened antagonist, assuming the voice of someone’s conscience, a ghostly judge or a voice of God. </p>
<p>In a way, she gives voice to everything an audience might fantasize about saying to a belittling authority figure, whether it’s a boss, policeman or teacher. </p>
<h2>A return to cynicism</h2>
<p>As time goes on, films featuring invisible characters swung back towards exploring the slippery slope of granting people this superpower. </p>
<p>In “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036959/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">The Invisible Man’s Revenge</a>,” the psychologically damaged protagonist wants to exact revenge on former friends he thinks have cheated him. As luck would have it, he conveniently stumbles upon a mad scientist willing to lend him a hand. Yes, he ends up being felled by a heroic dog, but the film nonetheless creatively imagines the horrors of power in the wrong hands.</p>
<p>More recently, 2000’s “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164052/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">Hollow Man</a>” has a title that suggests both the literal and symbolic effects of invisibility. Its invisible lead is an arrogant, entitled scientist who – like Wells’ protagonist – experiments on himself. But as he explores his powers of invisibility, he indulges himself in increasingly violent ways. Director Paul Verhoeven is known for his <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114436/">lurid</a>, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3716530/">often vicious</a> social critiques, and “Hollow Man” is no different: Key scenes are shot from behind the eyes of the power-mad invisible villain as he prepares to sexually assault a neighbor, forcing viewers to <a href="https://www.salon.com/2000/08/04/hollow_man/">uncomfortably consider their identification with the predator</a>. </p>
<p>In a sign that times continue to change, the invisible subgenre’s 2020 entry contains a timely social critique. Rather than indulging viewers in a power fantasy, the perspective shifts back to the victim. As she attempts to convince others that her abusive ex is still alive and harassing her, it isn’t difficult to sense cultural undercurrents of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/toxic-masculinity.html">toxic masculinity</a> and <a href="https://hbr.org/2020/01/metoos-legacy">society’s unwillingness to listen to victims</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130175/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Longenecker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Invisibility has been used to indulge fantasies of good and evil, level social critiques or warn of the dangers of power in the wrong hands.Marc Longenecker, Assistant Professor of the Practice in Film Studies, Wesleyan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1300692020-01-17T16:30:47Z2020-01-17T16:30:47ZCats: a box office bomb, but has anyone noticed the ethnic stereotyping?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310669/original/file-20200117-118347-jpz5ms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C0%2C3585%2C1491&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Idris Elba and Francesca Hayward</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">2019 Universal Pictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/box-office/cats-box-office-losses-flop-1203453171/">US$100 million film version</a> of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s smash-hit musical Cats, currently in cinemas, has bombed at <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2020/12/30/cats-is-a-box-office-bomb-that-on-paper-looked-like-a-pretty-safe-bet/#2a076ed267f0">the box office</a>, <a href="https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/cats-review-round-up-film-new-adaptation-musical-andrew-lloyd-webber-1345293">been savaged by critics</a> and withdrawn from <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/cats-reviews-oscars-awards-box-office-cost-critics-universal-a9262156.html">Oscar consideration</a>. </p>
<p>Part of this failure relates to problems in adaptation. How should creators transpose animal characters from stage to screen? How do we view bodies differently in real and recorded formats? What kind of criteria should be used to judge a hybrid production? But one thing the media has hardly mentioned, that is a problem, is the racial bias that is embodied in the representation of the cats on screen.</p>
<p>Adapting a text or play for the screen can be a tricky business. We inherit certain expectations from source materials, and ask questions about “fidelity” and what’s been added and cut when a narrative is translated into film.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FtSd844cI7U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>TS Eliot’s <a href="https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/old-possums-book-of-practical-cats-by-t-s-eliot?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6bHvmeDt5gIVirTtCh3O7Q5iEAAYAiAAEgIOSfD_BwE">original poems for children</a> were adapted to a stage show by Andrew Lloyd Webber in 1981. The musical was hugely successful and went on to run for more than 20 years, grossing <a href="https://nypost.com/2012/11/21/how-cats-was-purrfected/">several billion dollars</a> and winning <a href="https://www.tonyawards.com/winners/?q=cats">seven Tony awards</a>.</p>
<p>Nearly four decades later, Universal Pictures adapted the show for the big screen and the resulting film was released in December 2019. The audience for this film is made up of musical theatre fans as well as other moviegoers who may not have the same expectations – and the film must make sense for both groups.</p>
<p>Much of the controversy over the Cats adaptation has focused on how bodies are represented and viewed. Cats as a stage show, with its 1980s unitards, was heavy on sex appeal – particularly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=63&v=ywFbpDjpZno&feature=emb_logo">Rum Tum Tugger</a>, whose hip-thrusting choreography conjured up animalistic hedonism. </p>
<p>Criticism of the movie has fixated on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/19/cats-the-kinkiest-film-to-ever-earn-a-u-certificate-tom-hooper-andrew-lloyd-webber">CGI choices</a>, the grafting of moving ears, tails and “digital fur”, and <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/jason-derulo-cats-penis-928006/">removal of human parts</a> in pursuit of the “U” rating. In a moment that may be an in-joke, the character Jennyanydots wonders if Rum Tum Tugger has been neutered.</p>
<h2>Uncanny valley</h2>
<p>In digital film, an effect recently described as “<a href="https://theconversation.com/uncanny-valley-why-we-find-human-like-robots-and-dolls-so-creepy-50268">uncanny valley</a>” – the slightly creepy effect created by use of technology to alter images – means that we find hybrid bodies disconcerting, as our expectations are confused. Are these human-like cats, or cat-like humans? Is the feline characterisation erotic or innocent? Is this a movie for adults or children?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/uncanny-valley-why-we-find-human-like-robots-and-dolls-so-creepy-50268">Uncanny valley: why we find human-like robots and dolls so creepy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There’s also a big difference between the way music works on stage and on screen – and if you saw the musical, your expectations for the film might leave you disappointed. The director, Tom Hooper, chose quiet, up-close delivery, similar to the effect he chose for his 2012 musical film version of Les Misérables, prioritising intimate vocals over the projection needed in a stage show. An exception is made for Jennifer Hudson’s powerful voice (as Grizabella), which we are primed for by her fame as a singer and a preview of her big moment in the trailer.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310658/original/file-20200117-118319-1dd5fzx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310658/original/file-20200117-118319-1dd5fzx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310658/original/file-20200117-118319-1dd5fzx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310658/original/file-20200117-118319-1dd5fzx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310658/original/file-20200117-118319-1dd5fzx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310658/original/file-20200117-118319-1dd5fzx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310658/original/file-20200117-118319-1dd5fzx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tragic diva: Jennifer Hudson as Grizabella.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">2019 Universal Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, most of her big number, Memory, is almost spoken. Hushed vocals, made for film, contrast with large-scale, theatrical choreography (much borrowed from the stage show). This confuses our expectations of the screen versus the stage even further.</p>
<p>But none of these issues prepare us for the central problem with the 2019 Cats – the racial bias evident in characterisation.</p>
<h2>Racial bias</h2>
<p>Since black-face minstrelsy, musical theatre has had a fraught history with race. It could be argued that anthropomorphised animal characters have the potential to express racial bias at its most troubling. For example, American academic and theatre-maker <a href="https://www.montclair.edu/profilepages/view_profile.php?username=braterj">Jessica Brater</a> and her co-authors have noted (in Theatre Journal – not available online) how the character of Donkey in Shrek The Musical – an adaptation from Eddie Murphy’s voicing of the character from the animated film – embodies the lineage of minstrelsy in operation on the Broadway stage. </p>
<p>In the Cats movie, black actors portray marginalised characters. Macavity, the criminal – originally a ginger cat – is now Idris Elba, clad in rich brown digital fur. Grizabella the outcast is also a character of colour, played, as we have heard, by Jennifer Hudson. Grizabella’s saviour, Old Deuteronomy, comes in the distinctly white form of Judi Dench. This is doubly unfortunate given the history of the character on stage – played by several black actors including Ken Page on Broadway and Quentin Earl Darrington in the 2016 revival. </p>
<p>Jason Derulo recreates the oversexed Rum Tum Tugger bedecked in hip-hop apparel. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310676/original/file-20200117-118331-1bxsvhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310676/original/file-20200117-118331-1bxsvhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310676/original/file-20200117-118331-1bxsvhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310676/original/file-20200117-118331-1bxsvhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310676/original/file-20200117-118331-1bxsvhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310676/original/file-20200117-118331-1bxsvhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310676/original/file-20200117-118331-1bxsvhs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Oversexed: Rum Tum Tugger played by Jason Derulo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">2019 Universal Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The central character, Victoria – the white cat, ballerina and ingenue – is played by a dancer of dual heritage, Francesca Hayward. But <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2019/07/19/real-cats-controversy-whitewashing-francesca-hayward/">it has been noted in the press</a> and by many commentators on Twitter, that only in her case is her original skin tone concealed, by digital whitewashing.</p>
<p>Overall, elements of casting, costume, cultural appropriation and aesthetics become more problematic on a cumulative basis, where actors who are visibly black are cast and costumed as the criminal, the Lothario and the outcast, while saviour and ingenue characters are made explicitly white.</p>
<p>But, apart from the apparent whitening of Hayward, this appears to have largely escaped the notice of the press. </p>
<p>The film seeks family appeal – and there is potentially a great deal of appeal in a tale of singing, dancing, CGI-enhanced cats to engage youngsters. But this huge budget spectacle frees itself from the obligation to take on the social responsibility that is assumed, for example, <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/site/diversity-inclusion-commissioning-guidelines-bbc-content.pdf">by BBC television productions</a> and other content created explicitly for children. </p>
<p>If there is a cult afterlife for Cats, as <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2019/12/worst-movies-2019-cats-cult-classic.html">some predict</a>, it is not raciness but racial bias embedded in the film that will frame it markedly within our current age – a time that really ought to know better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Daniel has previously received funding from the AHRC, the Royal Musical Association and the Fund for Women Graduates. She is currently affiliated with the Labour Party. </span></em></p>There are many reasons the movie version of Cats has flopped, not least the unfortunate way in which various characters have been assigned racial characteristics.Jennifer Daniel, Senior Lecturer in Musical Theatre, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1265592019-11-21T13:58:54Z2019-11-21T13:58:54ZWhen de-aging De Niro and Pacino, ‘Irishman’ animators tried to avoid pitfalls of the past<p>If you thought 76-year-old Robert De Niro and 79-year-old Al Pacino were done starring in blockbuster gangster films, think again.</p>
<p>Both assume lead roles in Martin Scorsese’s “The Irishman,” which chronicles the life of hitman Frank Sheeran and labor union leader Jimmy Hoffa over several decades. </p>
<p>Different actors weren’t cast to play the younger versions of Sheeran and Hoffa. Instead, Scorsese and his production team utilized “de-aging” technology to make De Niro and Pacino appear younger.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zbPKbT2B7bE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Moshe Mahler talks about animators’ struggle to avoid the uncanny valley.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To de-age actors, a visual effects team creates a computer-generated, younger version of an actor’s face and then replaces the actor’s real face with the synthetic, animated version. </p>
<p>Human beings are actually quite good at picking up on even the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2017.05.011">smallest of details of the human face</a>. For this reason, we had several project lines devoted to advancing these types of digital human technologies at <a href="https://www.disneyresearch.com/">Disney Research</a>, where I spent nearly a decade of my career.</p>
<p>Animators need to avoid what’s called “the uncanny valley” – a pitfall in realistic, computer-generated animation that animators have been struggling to overcome for decades.</p>
<h2>Into the uncanny valley</h2>
<p>In 2010, I was a contributing author to a paper titled “<a href="http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/MMM/">The Saliency of Anomalies in Animated Human Characters</a>.” </p>
<p>In the paper, we found that audiences are much more sensitive to distortions in computer-generated faces, even when larger, seemingly more obvious distortions are present on the body. In other words, there’s more room for error when creating computer-generated bodies and a much smaller margin for error when creating computer-generated faces. </p>
<p>This brings us to the uncanny valley. The term refers to the uncomfortable feeling viewers might experience when they see computer-generated faces that “aren’t quite right.” </p>
<p><a href="https://web.ics.purdue.edu/%7Edrkelly/MoriTheUncannyValley1970.pdf">The term was coined in 1970</a> by robotics professor Masahiro Mori. Mori hypothesized that as a humanoid becomes more lifelike, an audience’s “familiarity” toward it increases until a point where the humanoid is almost lifelike, but not perfectly lifelike. At this point, subtle imperfections lead to responses of repulsion or rejection. </p>
<p>The term “uncanny valley” comes from visualizing this idea on two axes.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302719/original/file-20191120-467-1lgxomc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302719/original/file-20191120-467-1lgxomc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302719/original/file-20191120-467-1lgxomc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302719/original/file-20191120-467-1lgxomc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302719/original/file-20191120-467-1lgxomc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302719/original/file-20191120-467-1lgxomc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302719/original/file-20191120-467-1lgxomc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302719/original/file-20191120-467-1lgxomc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The hypothesized graph for the uncanny valley, redrawn from Masahiro Mori’s 1970 article on the subject.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/MoriTheUncannyValley1970.pdf">J. Hodgins et al.</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The x-axis describes “human likeness” or realism, while the y-axis describes “familiarity,” empathy or emotional engagement. The steep falloff in the graph represents the uncanny valley – the point at which people recoil and feel less empathy. The effect is stronger if the humanoid is moving. </p>
<h2>Animating appealing people</h2>
<p>While the hypothesis originated in the robotics community, the concept of the uncanny valley gained popularity in the animation industry. For animators, the word “appeal” may be the closest relative we have to Mori’s familiarity.</p>
<p>Appeal is one of the 12 basic principles of animation that animators Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston outline in their book, “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=2x0RAQAAMAAJ&q=the+illusion+of+life&dq=the+illusion+of+life&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD49-2pu3lAhWQdd8KHUx9DuEQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg">The Illusion of Life</a>.”</p>
<p>In animation, appeal has to do with the character’s magnetism – whether he or she is beautiful, cuddly and kind, or ugly, disgusting and mean. Animated human characters, like <a href="https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/455187/elsa-frozen.jpg">Elsa</a> in “Frozen,” tend to be stylized in a way that caricature human features, which allows us to caricature their motion as well. </p>
<p>Two computer-animated films from 2004, “The Polar Express” and “The Incredibles,” highlight this quandary. </p>
<p>“<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">The Incredibles</a>” was the first Pixar film that starred actual human beings instead of toys, bugs, fish or monsters. But the animation team didn’t try to make them look like real humans: They had larger eyes, soft, rounded silhouettes and simplified features. These types of design decisions work toward the “magnetism” of a character that most audiences ultimately find appealing. </p>
<p>“<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338348/">The Polar Express</a>,” on the other hand, used performance capture technology so Tom Hanks could play five lifelike characters, including the 9-year-old protagonist. </p>
<p>Mapping a 50-year-old’s facial movements onto a 9-year-old boy’s face ended up creating a whole host of problems. For example, how should a moment where Hanks is bursting with excitement be transferred to a 9-year-old’s face? In order to use performance capture data to transplant an actor’s expressions onto an animated character, animators need to do what’s called “motion retargeting.” Because this was new territory for animators – and due to the technological limitations of the time – the nuanced facial expressions that make Hanks a talented actor were lost. </p>
<p>In retrospect, this is a fairly extreme example of de-aging – and one that didn’t sit well with most viewers. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve_fMwJ1GJY">The animated boy</a> seemed “off,” with audiences and critics <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/the-polar-express-253058/">disturbed</a> by what Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers described as the film’s “spooky” and “lifeless” animation.</p>
<h2>Adapting to the technology</h2>
<p>Not all trips into the uncanny valley end up fruitless. Animators can learn from experience.</p>
<p>For example, in 1988, Pixar released the short film “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096273/">Tin Toy</a>,” in which an animated baby torments a group of toys. At the time, Pixar hadn’t developed the technology needed to depict appealing humanoid characters. <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096273/mediaviewer/rm3826469376">The baby</a> almost evokes <a href="https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/18/38/1537686437-chucky-doll.jpg">Chuckie</a> from the horror film “Child’s Play.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302725/original/file-20191120-515-1ylx4xt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302725/original/file-20191120-515-1ylx4xt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302725/original/file-20191120-515-1ylx4xt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302725/original/file-20191120-515-1ylx4xt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302725/original/file-20191120-515-1ylx4xt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302725/original/file-20191120-515-1ylx4xt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302725/original/file-20191120-515-1ylx4xt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The baby in Pixar’s ‘Tin Toy’ is unsettling, to say the least.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixar-planet.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/billy-personnage-tin-toy-04.jpg">Pixar</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The film’s shiny plastic and metal toys, on the other hand, worked well within the constraints of the era’s computer animation technology. This is largely why the ensuing “Toy Story” franchise ended up featuring toys, not humans, as the protagonists.</p>
<p>It also helps to apply performance capture technology on computer-generated characters who aren’t fully human. That’s what James Cameron did in his 2009 blockbuster, “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2">Avatar</a>.”</p>
<p>The film’s Na’vi species are humanlike but remain an alien species. They’re blue. They have large, radiant eyes. The bridge of their nose is wide and stiff, while the tip of their nose is catlike. </p>
<p>Importantly, however, the animated characters of the film still look somewhat like the actors who played them. <a href="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hXej4xfDfhM/maxresdefault.jpg">Sigourney Weaver’s avatar</a> looks very much like Sigourney Weaver, which helps avoid the “retargeting” problem that occurred in “Polar Express.” Audiences don’t expect the alien race to look or move exactly like humans. </p>
<h2>Surmounting the valley</h2>
<p>While the technology continues to improve, recreating realistic human faces remains one of the most difficult tasks for animators. </p>
<p>A strong example of de-aging technology can be seen in “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/">Blade Runner: 2049</a>.” The shot of a de-aged Sean Young is a stunning technical feat, but the scene also doesn’t ask too much of the computer-generated performance. In fact, the computer-generated version of Young only says a couple of sentences. Most of all, the use of the technology actually serves the story. The moment is designed to be eerie; audiences are supposed to be unsettled.</p>
<p>Because “The Irishman” is based on a real story, with realistic characters with realistic faces, audiences are much more sensitive to the use of de-aging technologies. </p>
<p>My guess is that some viewers won’t notice the technology, some will marvel at it and others will find it distracting. I usually fall into the latter two categories. It is incredibly distracting to me despite the impressive quality of the de-aging. </p>
<p>I often teach my students that when working with new technology, just because we can, that doesn’t always mean we should. </p>
<p>Interestingly, De Niro won his first Academy Award for his portrayal of a young Vito Corleone in “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071562/?ref_=nv_sr_2?ref_=nv_sr_2">The Godfather: Part II</a>,” while Marlon Brando played the older Vito Corleone.</p>
<p>If Francis Ford Coppola had today’s technology and could have simply “de-aged” Brando, would he have done so? And how would that have changed one of the most memorable gangster films of all time?</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Moshe Mahler is also the owner of BIG eMotion Technologies.
The "The Saliency of Anomalies in Animated Human Characters" was supported in part by Disney Research, the Irish Research Council for Science Engineering and
Technology (IRCSET), and NSF CCF-0811450.</span></em></p>For decades, animators have attempted to recreate realistic human faces without entering what’s called the ‘uncanny valley.’Moshe Mahler, Special Faculty, Carnegie Mellon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1233582019-10-28T03:20:25Z2019-10-28T03:20:25ZLong days, heavy loads: what the best boy does on a film set<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294264/original/file-20190926-51414-l1anbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5472%2C3071&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A best boy does more than heavy lifting. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/1128561155?src=XXNJ1h73b8_x_q-_j2Ig8w-1-29&size=huge_jpg">www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recalling his early days in television as a “best boy” on <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075281/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">The Sullivans</a> (1976-1983), Adelaide-based Richard Rees-Jones remembers a time when lighting departments were teams of just two. At Crawford Productions, two gaffer/best boy teams would work either in the studio, shooting videotape, or on location, shooting film.</p>
<p>Rees-Jones, now a sought-after gaffer of vast experience (<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1680114/mediaindex?ref_=tt_pv_mi_sm">Snowtown</a> in 2011, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5461944/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Hotel Mumbai</a> in 2018) whose son has grown up in the family business, explains the origins of the term: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The gaffer got his name from the long, hooked pole he carried, like a fisherman’s gaff. Early on, in the theatre, they used gaffs to adjust lights suspended from rigs above the stage.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Continuing the seafaring theme, Rees-Jones describes the best boy as “like the gaffer’s first mate”. </p>
<h2>Agile and quick</h2>
<p>When a gaffer needed help, Rees-Jones explains, he might say “send me your best boy”. Such a boy would need to be strong, agile, and quick; unafraid of heights, and accustomed to heavy work. He would have to work in cramped conditions with dangerous equipment, control crude lanterns, and be immediately responsive to instruction. </p>
<p>The role and its responsibilities grew with the advent of film, alongside fast developing technology. While not necessarily electricians, best boys require a detailed working knowledge of electricity, calling in qualified electricians as required. The skill set may extend further, to colour theory, the use of natural light, and divining the movement of clouds. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294262/original/file-20190926-51452-67vina.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=48%2C27%2C4552%2C2559&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294262/original/file-20190926-51452-67vina.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=48%2C27%2C4552%2C2559&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294262/original/file-20190926-51452-67vina.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294262/original/file-20190926-51452-67vina.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294262/original/file-20190926-51452-67vina.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294262/original/file-20190926-51452-67vina.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294262/original/file-20190926-51452-67vina.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294262/original/file-20190926-51452-67vina.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A best boy may be skilled in colour theory and divining the movement of clouds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/behind-scenes-video-shooting-production-crew-1017804247">www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By the time I, as a young actor, understood the role, best boys were multi-skilled, and indispensable. They drove heavy vehicles, carried 30 kilogram coils of cables without effort, and led other men in muscling into place lamps weighing twice as much. They could supervise or run generator trucks, and trim fiercely burning arc lamps that turned night into day. They murmured quietly into radios in a sovereign language that spoke of “brute-arcs”, “HMIs” and “Molebeams”.</p>
<p>At the end of a 12-hour day, they could pack four tonnes of equipment into trucks in 30 minutes. Such men were often rewarded with slabs of beer - wrap drinks - before their long drive to motel beds bereft of springs, the alarm before dawn, and the chance to do it all again.</p>
<h2>Best men, sometimes women</h2>
<p>While many go on to become gaffers or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_boy">key grips</a>, best boys can forge long careers in film and television. </p>
<p>Alan Dunstan’s career began on <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076767/?ref_=nv_sr_2?ref_=nv_sr_2">Storm Boy</a> (1976) as an electrician. He was still working as a best boy on The Matrix Trilogy (1999-2003). From Melbourne, Peter Moloney’s career spanned <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076079/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">The Getting of Wisdom</a> (1977), <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110598/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Muriel’s Wedding</a> (1997), and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266949/?ref_=nv_sr_2?ref_=nv_sr_2">The Secret Life of Us</a> (2001). Sydney-based Grant Wilson’s credits reveal a start as technician on the miniatures unit of <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Moulin Rouge</a> (2001); last year he was best boy on <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6684884/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Ladies in Black</a> (2018). </p>
<p>Best boys work in environments with clear hierarchies. This does not preclude women. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_boy">Some sources refer to best girls</a> but the term “best boy” may be used for both genders on set. Some women enter film via concert lighting. More recent and specialised technical roles may see more women in electrics; currently they are better represented in camera and other departments.</p>
<h2>Not just muscle</h2>
<p>On big budget films especially, large lighting crews require efficient management. When the gaffer appoints a best boy, it might not be because he is the most expert in a particular skill, but because he is an effective manager. </p>
<p>The management function may even be divided, and two best boys appointed. The term best boy grip is also frequently used but relates another department. </p>
<p>Best boys are alert to the balance of personalities, to the challenges of life on the road, and the physical demands of taxing work. Almost invisibly to other film crew, members of a lighting department might be spelled for an hour, given lighter duties, as the best boy ensures that the heavy lifting is shared.</p>
<h2>A sweaty ballet</h2>
<p>There is a point in the filmmaking process when the best boy’s role and personal qualities are most easily observed. Rehearsing film and television is a brief and structured process. Quiet is called. After an initial “line-run” between actors, a “block-through” determines their movement within the set or location. </p>
<p>Camera angles are discussed, agreed, and announced, whereupon the first assistant director declares “a lighting set”. At this point, actors are invited to relax (code for “get off the set, you’re in the way”). Now, the best boy marshals the lighting build, work that must be done quickly, but which cannot be rushed. It is a period of high activity, of the movement of unwieldy objects in confined spaces. It has often seemed to me vaguely balletic, if sweat, balance and lifts are measures. </p>
<p>The lighting set offers a brief window on film’s intersection between manufacturing and art, for with the best boy’s cry of “coming up!” switches are thrown, lights glow, and that window suddenly warms like Vermeer’s, or Hopper’s, or those of our childhood. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ASlJqIk1-pk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Conflict resolution is sometimes part of the best boy’s remit.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With LED lighting replacing older style lamps, film sets are much cooler places than they once were. But best boys have always been cool. </p>
<p>In my experience, the commonly recited answer to the question “why are you called the best boy?” has always been the same. With studied nonchalance, shrugging under the weight of something preposterously heavy, the best boy grins.</p>
<p>“Because I’m very, very good.”</p>
<p>And so he is.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123358/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lewis Fitz-Gerald does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you have ever watched a film’s closing credits and wondered what a “best boy” does, asking a gaffer is a good place to start.Lewis Fitz-Gerald, Lecturer, University of New EnglandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/978222018-06-08T10:53:41Z2018-06-08T10:53:41Z‘Jurassic Park’ made a dinosaur-sized leap forward in computer-generated animation on screen, 25 years ago<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222229/original/file-20180607-137315-ljsnoe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Computer-generated dinosaurs walk the Earth.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures Studios</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With 25 years of hindsight, “Jurassic Park” marks a pivotal point in the history of visual effects in film. It came 11 years after 1982’s “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” debuted computer-generated imagery for a visual effect with a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/357318.357320">particle system</a> developed by George Lucas’s Industrial Light and Magic to animate a demonstration of a life-creating technology called Genesis. And “Tron,” also in 1982, included 15 minutes of fully computer-generated imagery, including the notable <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BZxGhNdz1k">light cycle race</a> sequence.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/52XlyMbxxh8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Genesis demonstration from ‘Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet “Jurassic Park” stands out historically because it was the first time computer-generated graphics, and even characters, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-cgi-works-in-jurassic-park-2014-7">shared the screen with human actors</a>, drawing the audience into the illusion that the dinosaurs’ world was real. Even back then, upon seeing the initial digital test shots, George Lucas was stunned: He’s often quoted as saying “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/04/the-i-jurassic-park-i-period-how-cgi-dinosaurs-transformed-film-forever/274669/">it was like one of those moments in history</a>, like the invention of the light bulb or the first telephone call … A major gap had been crossed and things were never going to be the same.”</p>
<p>Since then, computer graphics researchers have been working to constantly improve the realism of visual effects and have achieved great success, scholarly, commercial and artistic. Today, nearly every film contains computer-generated imagery: Explosions, tsunamis and even the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vGBUu2iafg">wholesale destruction of cities</a> are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/1837026.1837059">simulated</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Z7YUyCEGE">virtual characters</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jw7R4AwSQA">replace human actors</a> and detailed 3D models and green-screen backgrounds have <a href="https://www.fxguide.com/featured/by-the-people-and-for-the-people-the-vfx-of-lincoln/">replaced traditional sets</a>.</p>
<h2>Years of progress</h2>
<p>I have been <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fArWdfAAAAAJ">researching computer animation</a> for nearly two decades and witnessed the transition from practical to virtual effects; it didn’t happen overnight. In 1993, the film industry didn’t really trust computer graphics. For decades, filmmakers had relied on physical models, stop motion and <a href="https://mashable.com/2016/09/27/best-practical-effects-in-film/">practical special effects</a>, many of them provided by ILM, which was founded to create the effects in the <a href="https://www.starwars.com/news/the-5-most-grueling-star-wars-visual-effects">original “Star Wars” trilogy</a> and, notably, provided effects for <a href="http://www.indianajones.de/indy1/texte/making_of_07.php">the “Indiana Jones” movie series</a>. When he made “Jurassic Park,” therefore, director Steven Spielberg approached computer-generated sequences with caution. </p>
<p>By some counts, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWsbcBvYqN8">computer-generated dinosaurs</a> were <a href="https://news.avclub.com/here-s-how-jurassic-park-changed-the-special-effects-ga-1798269391">on screen for only six minutes</a> of the two-hour movie. They were supplemented with physical models and animatronics. This juxtaposition of computer-generated and real-world imagery gave audiences the illusion of realism because the computer-generated images were on screen along with real footage.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PJlmYh27MHg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Computers bring the extinct back to life.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The 3D animated movies that followed in the late 1990s – like “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYz2wyBy3kc">Toy Story</a>” series and “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX_qRwVXWYQ">Antz</a>” – were stylized, cartoonish films limited even by the era’s best computing power, lighting models, and geometric modeling and animation packages.</p>
<p>The bar for realism is much higher when computer-generated images are mixed with live-action footage: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2010/dec/06/jeff-bridges-tron-legacy">Audiences and critics complained</a> that mapping an actor’s face onto a younger virtual body didn’t work well in 2010’s “Tron: Legacy.” (Even the director <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2010/dec/06/jeff-bridges-tron-legacy">admitted the effect wasn’t perfect</a>.) In fact, <a href="https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/an-uncanny-mind-masahiro-mori-on-the-uncanny-valley">small infidelities can be especially jarring</a> when they look quite close but just a little bit off.</p>
<p>Early successes of computer special effects – such as “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CqOTqnguEM">Starship Troopers</a>,” “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtdD4hHboU">Armageddon</a>” and “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv1niwxQgoY">Pearl Harbor</a>” – focused on adding events like explosions and other large-scale destruction. Those can be less true to real life because most of the audience hasn’t experienced similar events in person. Over the years, though, computer graphics researchers and practitioners tackled <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/1198555.1198573">cloth</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Tdw5nG4dQ">water</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZ3SN65kIs">crowds</a>, <a href="https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/pixar/simulation/hair-simulation-101/v/hair-simulation-intro">hair</a> and <a href="https://www.fxguide.com/featured/the_curious_case_of_aging_visual_effects/">faces</a>.</p>
<h2>Learning to use the innovations</h2>
<p>There were important practical advances as well. Consider the evolution of <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/a-brief-history-of-motion-capture-in-the-movies-91372735717.html">performance capture for virtual characters</a>. In the early days, live actors would have to imagine their interactions with computer-generated characters. The people playing the computer-generated characters would stand nearby, describing their actions out loud, as the human actors pretended to see it happening. Then the virtual-characters’ actors would record their performance in a motion capture lab, supplying data to 3D animators, who would refine the performance and render it to be incorporated in the scene.</p>
<p>The process was painstaking and especially difficult for the live-action actors, who couldn’t interact with the virtual characters during filming. Now, more <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpRLTfVEhMk">advanced performance capture systems</a> allow virtual characters to be interactive on the set, even on locations, and provide much richer data to the animators.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DpRLTfVEhMk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Performance capture pioneer Andy Serkis explains how his work has transformed over the years.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With all this technological ability, directors have to make big choices. Michael Bay is famous – among fans and critics – for <a href="https://filmmakermagazine.com/86534-what-is-bayhem-the-secret-of-michael-bays-shots/">extensive use of computer-generated special effects</a>. True masters remember Spielberg’s lesson and skillfully combine the virtual and real worlds. In the “Lord of the Rings” movies, for example, it would have been easy to use computer graphics techniques to make the hobbit characters seem smaller than their human counterparts. Instead director Peter Jackson used <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/g1028/how-director-peter-jackson-shrank-the-hobbit-actors/">carefully chosen camera locations</a> <a href="https://www.wired.com/2012/12/how-to-make-a-hobbit-with-forced-perspective/">and staging</a> to achieve this effect. Similarly, the barrel escape scene from “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” <a href="https://www.wired.com/2014/03/the-hobbit-fx-barrel-scene/">combined footage from real river rapids</a> with computer-generated liquids.</p>
<p>More recently, makeup and computer magic were combined to <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16898382/the-shape-of-water-special-effects-vfx-cgi">create a merman lead actor</a> in <a href="https://variety.com/2018/film/in-contention/oscars-how-the-shape-of-water-rallied-a-consensus-1202719566/">much-lauded</a> “The Shape of Water.” Looking toward the future, as synthetic images and video become <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/4/17/17247334/ai-fake-news-video-barack-obama-jordan-peele-buzzfeed">ever more realistic and easy to produce</a>, people will need to be on guard that those techniques can be used not just for entertainment but to <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16929148/fake-celebrity-porn-ai-deepfake-face-swapping-artificial-intelligence-reddit">mislead and misinform the public</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97822/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Bargteil receives funding from the National Science Fiundation, Disney, and Adobe. He is a director-at-large for ACM SIGGRAPH.</span></em></p>The first time computer-generated characters interacted with humans on a movie screen was 25 years ago, in ‘Jurassic Park.’ Since then, technology has improved, giving directors more choices.Adam Bargteil, Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/671382016-10-19T04:06:39Z2016-10-19T04:06:39ZWhy motion capture performances deserve an Oscar<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142122/original/image-20161018-12431-vfufwk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many classically trained actors are drawn to motion capture roles, which are increasingly complex and theatrical.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Youtube</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Andy Serkis, one of the greatest actors of our generation, has called for motion captured performances to <a href="http://www.the-gazette.co.uk/news/entertainment/14790388.Lord_Of_The_Rings_star_Andy_Serkis_calls_for_the_Oscars_to_recognise_motion_capture_acting/">finally be eligible for nomination for the Academy awards</a>. </p>
<p>Many will be unaware that movies using significant motion captured performance are currently deemed ineligible for Best Animation Feature nominations. Furthermore, motion captured roles in both animated and more “traditional” features have never been nominated in Best Actor categories. </p>
<p>In broad terms, motion capture (or MoCap) is a method of capturing the movement of objects or people in physical space. Actors wear Lycra and Velcro suits with markers, and cameras mounted on their faces, to help computers track their movements. This is then translated to the screen to create realistic characters that mimic human expressions and gestures</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142262/original/image-20161018-15096-v3qgmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142262/original/image-20161018-15096-v3qgmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142262/original/image-20161018-15096-v3qgmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142262/original/image-20161018-15096-v3qgmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142262/original/image-20161018-15096-v3qgmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142262/original/image-20161018-15096-v3qgmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142262/original/image-20161018-15096-v3qgmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142262/original/image-20161018-15096-v3qgmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andy Serkis in motion capture, behind the scenes of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">LucasFilm</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s often used as a tool to analyse movement in the health sciences, but has recently become more commonly used in the commercial film and gaming industries. </p>
<p>Andy Serkis’ role as Caesar in the revised <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3450958/">Planet of the Apes</a> series is acclaimed as one of the most notable performances on screen in recent years. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XM9Pvfq1KhE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Yet Serkis and others committed to advancing the practice of motion captured performance are continuously snubbed by their peers, with this work often regarded as nothing more than “special effect”. </p>
<p>In 2012, Wired voted Serkis “<a href="https://www.wired.com/2007/09/pl-serkis/">King of MoCap</a>” for his revised performances as Gollum in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)">The Hobbit trilogy</a> (2012-14). In the article, Serkis observed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The acting community has worries about motion capture because they believe it’s some form of replacement for performance when in fact, it’s the opposite … Motion Capture is a tool that allows actors to transform themselves into many different characters. You’re not confined by physicality. You can play anything.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w_Z7YUyCEGE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>You would think this transformative work would be universally and critically applauded, but unfortunately this is not the case. And Serkis is of course not alone acting in features that rely heavily on motion capture.</p>
<p>Notable actors such as Jeff Bridges, Willem Defoe, Ellen Paige, Brad Pitt and Kevin Spacey are among those blurring the boundaries between performance on screen and in the MoCap studio. </p>
<p>Yet no motion captured performance has ever been nominated for an Academy Award. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/">Avatar</a> (2009) was nominated for nine Academy Awards, but none of them were for acting. Nearly 50% of the film was made using motion capture (as will the next series of Cameron’s Avatar films).</p>
<h2>Early MoCap</h2>
<p>The earliest forms of MoCap existed long before the digital age and can be attributed to two photographic pioneers: <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eadweard-Muybridge">Eadweard Muybridge</a> and <a href="http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/marey.html">Etienne-Jules Marey</a>. </p>
<p>Muybridge captured the first surviving optic/mechanic record of captured movement by setting up a dozen cameras in an array taking sequential photos triggered by the movement of a horse’s feet. </p>
<p>This <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm9vIJTJR6o">iconic image</a> was generated as a commission to settle a bet over whether a horse in a canter had all four feet off the ground at any one time. </p>
<p>In 1882 Etienne-Jules Marey met Muybridge in Paris and was inspired to invent a camera with a timed shutter, enabling him to capture multiple images onto a plate. </p>
<p>Marey used his recording device in conjunction with a special suit that allowed him to plot human movement, setting the scene for contemporary motion capture.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142259/original/image-20161018-15119-5gnh24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142259/original/image-20161018-15119-5gnh24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142259/original/image-20161018-15119-5gnh24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142259/original/image-20161018-15119-5gnh24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142259/original/image-20161018-15119-5gnh24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142259/original/image-20161018-15119-5gnh24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142259/original/image-20161018-15119-5gnh24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/142259/original/image-20161018-15119-5gnh24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Marey Suit, an 150-year old form of motion capture.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The art of acting to empty space</h2>
<p>The mode of performance central to MoCap technology is called Performance Capture. The term is used to describe the total recording of a motion caption performance without cuts. While at first glance this seems like a relatively simple concept, it is inherently complex. </p>
<p>This form of acting is ultimately theatrical at its core; it allows an entire performance to be captured in one take. In a sense, this returns the methods of filmmaking to the stage. </p>
<p>Performing in a MoCap environment relies on the ability of the actor to create a character using imagination and movement. While this may not seem so extraordinary, the environments their performances will finally be placed within are not available to the actors while they are generating these characterisations.</p>
<p>Performing in this way is without question a unique craft, and in many ways the truest example of an actor’s ability to make the characters they control seem authentic. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W_kD0AgGlf0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>This is why some of our greatest classically trained actors are drawn to, and excel in, the Motion Capture studio. </p>
<p>Anyone who has seen the behind-the-scenes footage of Benedict Cumberbatch bringing Smaug the dragon to life will attest to the extraordinary power of this mode of capturing performance – it is more than special effects, and demands the accolades of critical awards. </p>
<p>I’m not suggesting there need to be separate categories for motion captured performances, and I don’t believe Serkis is either. </p>
<p>But I do hope that Serkis’ call to arms to finally have this mode of performance recognised by the Academy will finally be heard once and for all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67138/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Delbridge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Motion capture actors help bring superheroes and fantastical creatures to life on screen. Andy Serkis, who played Gollum in The Hobbit trilogy, is campaigning for these actors to be eligible for Oscars – and it’s time the Academy heeded his call.Matt Delbridge, Head, VCA Theatre, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/652352016-09-14T04:36:37Z2016-09-14T04:36:37ZHow Game of Thrones’ Emmy-award-winning battle scene was made<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137683/original/image-20160914-4936-1tl8xez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Seventy real horses mixed with the fake to create the chaos of battle. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Iloura</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Melbourne based visual effects provider Iloura – also known for creating ghosts for the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters – has won its first Emmy for the Game Of Thrones (GoT) season six episode “Battle of the Bastards”. </p>
<p>Iloura’s first time working on GoT was on the biggest, most spectacular episode the series has attempted to date. Its work on Battle of the Bastards is astonishing in both its scope and flawless realisation. The 22 minutes of the eponymous battle are gritty and visceral, giving the viewer a real sense of the chaos of men and horses fighting in the mud. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OKA4fcY3eeo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The battle is a showdown between Jon Snow (Kit Harington) and Ramsay Bolton (Iwan Rheon) over control of the North. Many of the narrative threads of the last six seasons were bought together in a single high-impact collision, and it required a mammoth effort to pull it off. </p>
<p>Iloura worked for eight months with 120 people to create a battle that combined 70 real horses, hundreds of extras and computer-generated images. Precise planning was required to keep the entire production on the same page, from meticulously plotting action sequences, to keeping track of what kind of light was used on-set. Visual Effects Supervisor Glenn Melenhorst told me,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Thrones is very tightly controlled from a creative perspective. The sequence was all in the preplanning, necessarily so as there were so many stunts and horses charging about on set.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sequences like Battle of the Bastards require just about every trick in the VFX book. Actors and stunt performers are filmed on location or against <a href="https://www.videomaker.com/article/c10/17026-how-does-green-screen-work">greenscreen</a> but must then be integrated into a scene with CG characters, props and other elements.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137582/original/image-20160913-4983-flcj19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137582/original/image-20160913-4983-flcj19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137582/original/image-20160913-4983-flcj19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137582/original/image-20160913-4983-flcj19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137582/original/image-20160913-4983-flcj19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137582/original/image-20160913-4983-flcj19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137582/original/image-20160913-4983-flcj19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Massive’ armies generated by computer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">iloura.com.au</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Animation staff are often broken into teams, with some working on detailed character animation while others deal with effects animation such as smoke and fire. The various elements are combined into a composite image by specialists called compositers, who adjust each element to ensure the finished image looks like a complete whole rather than a patchwork of bits. </p>
<p>For GoT, Iloura used software called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MASSIVE_(software)">Massive</a>, pioneered by Peter Jackson’s VFX company. Massive allows for simulations of large crowds, with each individual character moving and interacting with their environment according to a predetermined set of possible actions. </p>
<p>Using Massive, Iloura’s 120 strong team was able to enhance the 500 extras and 70 real horses, creating three separate armies, each comprised of thousands of virtual soldiers and horses. Melenhorst said,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This was really one of those ‘how the hell are we going to do that?’ type of jobs. Everything was hard, particularly as we had to generate totally photo-real humans and horses acting in close-up as well as simulate and animate thousand-strong armies in wide shots. It was all terribly unforgiving work…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Iloura had to build every element in the battle, with the exception of the castle Winterfell, which had already been created – and a raven that had appeared in an earlier episode. </p>
<p>Virtual actors didn’t just appear in the sweeping overhead wide shots. The signature shot of the Battle of the Bastards shows Jon Snow, on foot fighting his way through a chaotic melee of charging horses and men, dodging spears and flights of arrows. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137581/original/image-20160913-4936-1yo595j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137581/original/image-20160913-4936-1yo595j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137581/original/image-20160913-4936-1yo595j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137581/original/image-20160913-4936-1yo595j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137581/original/image-20160913-4936-1yo595j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137581/original/image-20160913-4936-1yo595j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137581/original/image-20160913-4936-1yo595j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kit Harington battles imaginary enemies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">iloura.com.au</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Actors are far too valuable to risk, so for one shot where Jon Snow leaps from his horse into the fray, Harington’s head was digitally composited onto a CG body. Once on the ground and apparently in the midst of battle, Harington had to dodge and parry imaginary targets, which were later added as CG elements. Still, Melenhorst stresses, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We used live elements and green screen bits and pieces as often as we could. My mantra has always been to use live action as often as possible. Nothing beats reality.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To build a scene such as this takes time and incredible attention to detail. For maximum realism, virtual creatures are created from the inside out. First, a detailed skeleton is built and rigged to move with the same range of movement as a real horse. This is fitted with anatomically correct musculature that’s carefully crafted to stretch and deform accurately, then a skin that hugs the musculature is applied.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137585/original/image-20160913-4936-1krzxsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137585/original/image-20160913-4936-1krzxsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137585/original/image-20160913-4936-1krzxsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137585/original/image-20160913-4936-1krzxsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=677&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137585/original/image-20160913-4936-1krzxsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137585/original/image-20160913-4936-1krzxsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/137585/original/image-20160913-4936-1krzxsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=850&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">CG horse and rider are integrated with live action.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">iloura.com.au</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The skin moves and deforms realistically over the muscles as the creature is manipulated by an animator. The skin is textured, hair is applied in the places and at the density it should be, and the skin and hair are given colours and textures that react to virtual light sources just as the real thing would react to light on location.</p>
<p>Clothing, armour, saddles and tack also need to be added, which must not only be built to scale but also appropriately aged and marked to appear well worn, with increasing layers of mud and muck added to all the CG assets as the fight rages on.</p>
<p>Hair and bits of hanging cloth and leather are given physical properties that allow them to swing and react naturally according to the laws of physics – but these elements also need to be manually controllable to allow animators to control the aesthetics of a shot.</p>
<p>A television program, unlike most feature films, usually has an established visual style that must be replicated. Iloura had to ensure their completed shots matched the established look of the show. The effects were so successful that, according to Melenhorst, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The producers of the show began to have to check the original plates to work out what was CG and what was not.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Watch a breakdown of the entire battle here:</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/172374044" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><br></p>
<hr>
<p><em>Iloura are currently working on Underworld: Blood Wars, due for release in 2017 plus the television series Outcast (2016).</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Allen has previously worked for Iloura as a visual effects artist.</span></em></p>An Australian VFX company has won an Emmy for its work on season six of Game of Thrones. Over eight months a team of 120 pulled out every trick in the book to create the visceral ‘Battle of the Bastards’.Peter Allen, Lecturer in Film and Television, Victorian College of the Arts, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/561372016-04-07T20:05:04Z2016-04-07T20:05:04ZFriday essay: Star Wars, Mad Max and the ‘real’ vs digital effects furphy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117769/original/image-20160407-13948-1fjwan8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Star Wars: The Force Awakens has been praised for avoiding computer generated effects, but why does CGI deserve such a bad name?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image courtesy of Lucasfilm.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been a lot of talk recently about the superior results achieved with “real” effects and stunts in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392190/">Mad Max: Fury Road </a>(2015) and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/find?ref_=nv_sr_fn&q=Star+Wars%3A+The+Force+awakens&s=all">Star Wars: The Force Awakens</a> (2015). </p>
<p>Both films have cleverly traded on audience nostalgia. Indeed uber-
geek Kevin Smith (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109445/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Clerks</a>, 1994) said in an <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/06/kevin-smith-the-force-awakens-on-par-with-empire-strikes-back">interview</a> of The Force Awakens, “The moment they
put Han, Luke, Leia and Chewie in it, we knew that he was crafting the fountain of youth, and how much would you pay to drink from the fountain of youth?” </p>
<p>Of course it wasn’t just the casting of aging actors that got fans excited.
Throughout production and in the lead up to release, director JJ Abrams and Disney were careful to promote the return to “<a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_vii_the_force_awakens/trailers/11228207">real sets and practical effects</a>”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117767/original/image-20160407-13987-oyrm39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117767/original/image-20160407-13987-oyrm39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117767/original/image-20160407-13987-oyrm39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117767/original/image-20160407-13987-oyrm39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117767/original/image-20160407-13987-oyrm39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117767/original/image-20160407-13987-oyrm39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117767/original/image-20160407-13987-oyrm39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117767/original/image-20160407-13987-oyrm39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The creation of an Imperial Walker model from ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ (1980).</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In other words, they were doing everything possible to distance themselves from George Lucas’s much derided prequel trilogy, which <a href="http://mypicturedesk.com/gal/upload/2011/04/15/20110415162250-cabbdc5c.jpg">wholeheartedly embraced</a> and helped advance the emerging digital technology of the late 1990s and early 2000s.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Aussie director George Miller relaunched his much-loved dystopian sci fi franchise with Fury Road, a film universally lauded for its prolific use of in camera stunts, made without computer generated imagery (CGI). The <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/movies/watch-how-mad-max-fury-road-pulled-off-its-127798141787.html">stuntwork</a> in Fury Road is undeniably impressive, but so too is the vast amount of digital effects work done by <a href="http://iloura.com.au/news/the-toxic-storm-sequence-of-fury-road-recognized-with-visual-effects-society-award">Australian VFX provider Iloura</a>. (Iloura received a Visual Effects Society award for their work on a sequence depicting a toxic storm.)</p>
<p>What both Fury Road and The Force Awakens have in common are thousands of
digital effects seamlessly integrated into the film - amongst an array of real sets and practical stunts and effects. Yet while exciting, this is not particularly new or revolutionary. </p>
<p>Films are baked from a mixture of ingredients. In very rare cases, a filmmaker like Alfonso Cuaron will choose to test the limits of technology with an almost entirely computer animated film such as <a href="https://youtu.be/rCm3FYp4hdI">Gravity</a> (2014). But for every Gravity there is a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/aug/14/moon-sam-rockwell-special-effects">Moon</a> (2009), Duncan Jones’ sci fi film that made extensive use of miniatures, practical sets and props.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rCm3FYp4hdI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Once upon a time, Blue-screen was king, but with the advent of digital technology Green-screen now dominates. With Green-screen, the green areas of an image can be digitally selected and deleted. This allows what remains to be pasted onto a new background. Digital cameras usually have twice as many green sensors as red or blue ones allowing for greater detail around the edges when separating elements from a green background. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A0h_BVLRSeI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Most films made today fall somewhere between the two extremes, with real props and effects augmented by digital effects.</p>
<p>However there is a growing vocal minority who blame poor CGI for “ruining movies”. Their premise is that at one time movies were real, but now computers make everything look <a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects/">fake and unconvincing.</a></p>
<p>Common complaints are that CGI images result in a plastic look that is too clean and perfect. This can be true, but only to the extent that everything made for a film will look new and clean unless someone makes the effort to “dirty it up”.</p>
<p>There are many examples of realistically aged CGI effects that are rarely noticed by viewers, especially on a show such as The Walking Dead, which must create a <a href="http://uproxx.com/tv/the-undetected-visual-fx-on-the-walking-dead-will-blow-out-your-mindhole/">believably decrepit vision</a> of a post zombie apocalypse. </p>
<h2>A brief history of visual effects</h2>
<p>1993 saw a turning point in the world of visual effects filmmaking. For almost 70 years beforehand, they were created in more or less the same way. </p>
<p>The silent film <a href="https://youtu.be/QJaXxY3citM">The Lost World</a> (1925) - a technological marvel produced by Willis O'Brien - set the standard for decades to come. O'Brien revolutionised filmed special effects by integrating 3-dimensional animated puppets into scenes with footage of actors. While clearly fake by today’s standards, at the time the realistic interaction of light and shadow on the 3D puppets was utterly convincing to audiences who had never seen anything like it. Indeed, the technique was only challenged eight years later when O’Brien refined his own techniques to make <a href="https://youtu.be/Wvs3T1_sSec">King Kong</a> (1933).</p>
<p>The techniques pioneered and refined in these early blockbusters would remain broadly unchanged throughout the 20th Century - until Steven Spielberg filmed Michael Crichton’s 1990 novel Jurassic Park. Spielberg and his creative team had expected that the visual effects would be assembled from the usual matte paintings, miniatures, <a href="https://youtu.be/uEK9mitagS8">stop motion animated creatures</a>, and life sized <a href="http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Jurassic_Park_Tyrannosaurus_rex_Animatronics">animatronic robot dinosaurs</a>, which would interact with actors.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uEK9mitagS8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>However, a small group of technicians and artists at Industrial Light and Magic, George Lucas’s ground-breaking effects company, thought they just might be able to do something with computers. By the early 1990s computers were being used to simulate the interactions of light with various objects and surfaces. The new technology resulted in more convincing images due to highly detailed and extremely accurate digital lighting.</p>
<p>After viewing a short computer animated clip of a dinosaur skeleton running that had been produced entirely by computer (without physical models), Spielberg was convinced to forego stop motion puppets in favour of CGI. At the time this was a risky move that could easily have backfired.</p>
<p>As it happens, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/">Jurassic Park</a> (1993) did deliver. Amongst the animatronic robots that made up the bulk of the movie’s dinosaurs, were 63 CGI shots - mostly of dinosaurs viewed from a distance or travelling together in vast herds. These 63 shots changed the world of filmmaking forever. By 2014, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Guardians of the Galaxy</a> had CGI enhancements on 2750 shots - equivalent to 90% of the film.</p>
<p>Of course CGI is a highly misleading term. Computers “generate” images the same way that paintbrushes do, as tools being manipulated by highly skilled artists. When less skilled artists attempt to use the same tools the results are invariably inferior.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117232/original/image-20160404-6816-e7y2wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117232/original/image-20160404-6816-e7y2wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117232/original/image-20160404-6816-e7y2wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117232/original/image-20160404-6816-e7y2wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117232/original/image-20160404-6816-e7y2wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117232/original/image-20160404-6816-e7y2wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117232/original/image-20160404-6816-e7y2wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Le Voyage dans La Lune (1902) was the first special effects blockbuster.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>CGI has been lauded as a cheap and efficient alternative to traditional effects. This is only partially true. It is certainly much faster and cheaper to preview images on computer than to go through multiple stages of photographing elements, sending the film to a lab for processing, rephotographing the processed film through an optical printer to combine the elements and sending the new film back to the processing lab. And if something didn’t quite work, having to start all over again.</p>
<p>But how cheap is CGI actually? In 1993 Jurassic Park
cost <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jurassicpark.htm">US$63 million</a>. Just four years later James Cameron’s CGI-heavy <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Titanic</a> (1997) cost a record-breaking <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=titanic.html">US$200 million</a>. These days US$200 million-plus budgets for visual effects laden blockbusters are common. The rumoured budget for <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nv_sr_1">Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice</a> (2016) is <a href="http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Batman-V-Superman-May-End-Up-Being-Hollywood-Most-Expensive-Movie-89397.html">US$410 million</a>, a total that is admittedly arrived at by combining the US$250 million production cost with another US$160 million in marketing and distribution. </p>
<p>If you wonder what causes modern movies to be so immensely expensive just try sitting through the entire credits of any of the latest Marvel or DC comic book adaptations.</p>
<p>It takes literally hundreds of people to make Superman fly, or to have The Avengers save/destroy New York. All of those people need to be paid and they also need to be provided with expensive computers and even more expensive software. CGI may be ubiquitous but it has most certainly not resulted in cheaper movies.</p>
<h2>Road to ruin – or path to success?</h2>
<p>What about the argument that CGI is “ruining the movies”?</p>
<p>Well firstly, most viewers have no clue just how much CGI is used in films and TV programs. If you are in any doubt as to the prevalence of effects being used in “average” movies take a look at <a href="https://youtu.be/yvwS_E91fZA">this visual effects breakdown</a> from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Gone Girl</a> (2014) or this one from TV program <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805669/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Ugly Betty</a> (2006-2010): </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zqNfT4p4wYQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>I have yet to hear of anyone who saw either Gone Girl or Ugly Betty complaining that CGI ruined their viewing experience. </p>
<p>Sometimes CGI will be used to create fantastical characters or otherworldly
locations. But more often it is used for digitally extending sets, removing
unwanted elements in a scene or even eliminating unsightly blemishes from a performer’s skin. </p>
<p>There was a time when something as simple as a boom microphone dropping
into frame meant that a shot was unusable. Now a digital cleanup artist can
simply erase the offending microphone from the image. Of course, as directors became aware of these possibilities they demanded more and more from CGI. </p>
<p>Smart directors consult with visual effects supervisors to plan their effects shots carefully before shooting. Other directors fly by the seat of their pants in the mistaken belief that computers can fix anything. </p>
<p>The result of this failure to plan is usually an <a href="http://uproxx.com/tv/lena-headey-body-double/">obvious CGI shot</a> such as this nude scene in Game of Thrones that even the most forgiving of viewers will feel is somehow wrong. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d28NWseRua8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Still, only obvious CGI is noticed and remarked upon, such as the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/ten-things-wrong-with-twilight-20121117-29inf.html">infamous digital baby</a> from the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1673434/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part 2</a> (2012), while an overwhelming majority of digital effects go completely unnoticed. When a VFX artist has done their job well their work is invisible.</p>
<p>Secondly, those supposedly “real” movies of yesteryear never actually existed. Movies have never been real. What has changed over the years are the methods by which reality is faked. </p>
<p>Wind and rain machines, studio sets replicating exterior locations, shooting day for night, or dry for wet - all of these techniques have been around for decades. The earliest days of cinema treated film as a stage play, with large painted backdrops and two dimensional mechanical illusions as seen in George Méliès <a href="https://youtu.be/aZfq1uE1zjI">Le Voyage dans La Lune</a> (1902) - the first effects driven sci-fi blockbuster. </p>
<h2>Believable or not?</h2>
<p>Visual effects do not have to be completely realistic to be effective, they simply have to be believable in the context in which they are presented.</p>
<p>Just as 3D puppets and miniatures took over from 2D
paintings due to their superior interaction with light, digital effects have mostly taken over from practical models for the same reason. </p>
<p>Computer simulated effects are able to be scaled up or down while simultaneously adapting to real world physics. This has always been a problem with filmed effects involving water, fire and smoke - just look at any film made before the advent of CGI that used miniatures to depict a dam bursting, a building on fire or a <a href="https://youtu.be/3ftYho4K3FQ?t=1h45m27s">ship sinking</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3ftYho4K3FQ?wmode=transparent&start=6327" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>CGI, like any other tool in a filmmaker’s repertoire, can be and often is used badly. But that is hardly the fault of the technology. </p>
<p>Movies inspired by comic books often include characters performing feats so far removed from reality that we should not be surprised when the results appear “cartoony”. </p>
<p>This is less a problem with how the scene is realised technically than with what is being realised. No matter how strong an individual character may be, if that character grabs a passenger jet by the nose and attempts to gently place it on the ground, the weight of the plane would surely tear the metal skin away from his or her grip and disaster ensue. </p>
<p>Jet planes are not engineered to be manhandled in such a way. So no matter how intricately detailed the scene is rendered, it will always feel somehow wrong. </p>
<p>For a great visual summary of how CGI can be used to enhance all kinds of film, take a look at this video from RocketJump Film School: </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bL6hp8BKB24?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>When skilled artists apply digital effects in a way that both supports the
narrative and honours the laws of physics, the results are much more likely to be accepted as “real”, and more often than not will go completely unnoticed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56137/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Allen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A growing vocal minority blame poor computer generated images for ‘ruining’ the movies. But digital effects can co-exist with real sets and stunts - and films have always been fake.Peter Allen, Lecturer in Film and Television, Victorian College of the Arts, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/554812016-02-29T07:26:25Z2016-02-29T07:26:25ZOscars 2016: expert reaction<p><em>The buzz leading up to this year’s Academy Awards was tempered with protests against an institution that has remained too white and too male for too long. How would host Chris Rock handle the issue of race? Would a theme emerge among the winners? Our panel of experts break down some of the night’s biggest questions, surprises and moments.</em> </p>
<hr>
<h2>In a social justice pageant, ‘Spotlight’ crowned</h2>
<p><strong>Kevin Hagopian, Media Studies, Pennsylvania State University</strong></p>
<p>When Morgan Freeman announced “Spotlight” as Best Picture, it was a fitting end for a pageant of inclusiveness and social justice – some of it awkward, some of it comic, most of it earnest. </p>
<p>The film’s producers, in accepting the award, called on the pope, no less, to acknowledge the international outrage of child sex abuse in the Church. </p>
<p>Earlier in the Oscar ceremony, we heard pleas for action against climate change, honor killings, LGBTA violence and corporate financial malfeasance. Most insistent were the calls for action to offer greater representation for people of color in Hollywood.</p>
<p>Indeed, in an age of media saturation and government paralysis, Hollywood finally acknowledged its pivotal social role. </p>
<p>When Vice President Joe Biden used the Oscars as a platform to denounce campus sexual assault, it became clear that the movies – together with sports and popular music – form a public sphere more influential than government can ever hope to be. </p>
<hr>
<h2>A few red carpet hits, and one sea green miss</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Mamp, Fashion Merchandising and Design, Central Michigan University</strong></p>
<p>With all the discussion of diversity at the Oscars, one would have hoped for greater representation of African-American designers such as Tracy Reese. Instead, most played it very safe: traditional Armani, Calvin Klein, Givenchy and Chanel.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the women were the stars of red carpet, with many exhibiting heavily encrusted, revealing looks. </p>
<p>Of particular note was the 1950s-inspired silhouette of Julianne Moore’s Chanel black ball gown with encrusted bodice and shoulder straps.
Moore, as usual, was timelessly elegant. Her earrings, unfortunately, distracted from her otherwise on-target look. </p>
<p>Rooney Mara was a vision in white. She complemented her <a href="http://pictures.reuters.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCIXII3UV9&SMLS=1&RW=1277&RH=700#/SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCIXII3UV9&SMLS=1&RW=1277&RH=700&POPUPPN=3&POPUPIID=2C0FQEDHVM0H">Givenchy encrusted gown</a> with equally impressive Fred Leighton jewelry (Ms. Moore’s stylist, take note). The simple [chignon hairstyle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chignon_(hairstyle) and rouge lipstick provided just enough contrast to the glowing ensemble. </p>
<p>But with all eyes on Cate Blanchett, her fussy <a href="http://pictures.reuters.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCIXI8EXY8&SMLS=1&RW=1277&RH=700#/SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCIXI8EXY8&SMLS=1&RW=1277&RH=700&POPUPPN=1&POPUPIID=2C0FQEDK1LCU">sea foam green dress</a> looked more like a bad bridesmaid gown than a choice befitting one of the world’s most impressive actresses. </p>
<p>Male looks – with the exception of Jared Leto’s <a href="http://pictures.reuters.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCIXI8OIRQ&SMLS=1&RW=1277&RH=700#/SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCIXI8OIRQ&SMLS=1&RW=1277&RH=700&POPUPPN=4&POPUPIID=2C0FQEDHUC5E">red piped Armani blazer</a> and red floral corsage tie – went the traditional (and, frankly, boring) route. Sylvester Stallone was another outlier: he had more style and sex appeal than men half his age walking the red carpet. </p>
<p>Mr. Stallone remains forever sly. </p>
<hr>
<h2>A monologue full of contradictions</h2>
<p><strong>Amberia Sargent, Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles</strong></p>
<p>During his opening monologue, host Chris Rock’s first applause break came after he asked why black people chose this year to protest the lack of diversity in film, as opposed to the 1950s or 1960s. </p>
<p>He attributed this oversight to civil rights-era blacks having “real things to protest.” But this year’s awards are taking place in the wake of a dynamic Black Lives Matter movement, #JusticeForFlint campaigns and activism decrying mass incarceration. Rock’s joke suggests that black people can’t be simultaneously discontented about a range of issues. </p>
<p>Why shouldn’t I be able to want access to clean water and also bemoan seeing Gerard Butler portraying an Egyptian in “Gods of Egypt”? </p>
<p>Rock commendably advocated dismantling gender-based Oscar categories. But he went on to reinforce racialized categorization by suggesting that the way to get black nominees every year is “to have black categories.” Perhaps the better way to see black actors represented would be to rid the Academy of the critical mass of members who have been around so long that they could have probably voted to secede from the Union. Rock’s gender commentary also fell short when he trivialized the “Ask Her More” campaign. </p>
<p>Yet, Rock’s consistent message was clear: “We want [the] black actors to get the same opportunities as white actors.” </p>
<p>Absolutely. But diversity means that the industry should represent everyone who has been systematically excluded: women and <em>all</em> people of color.</p>
<hr>
<h2>New directions in visual effects</h2>
<p><strong>Patti McCarthy, English and Film Studies, University of the Pacific</strong></p>
<p>While “Spotlight” and Leonardo DiCaprio’s wins were expected, one of the night’s biggest surprises was in the Visual Effects category, where “Ex Machina” bested favorites “Mad Max: Fury Road” and “Star Wars: A Force Awakened.” </p>
<p>In the months leading up to the Academy Awards, many had <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-turn-against-digital-effects?curator=MediaREDEF">praised</a> “Mad Max” and “Star Wars” for rejecting excessive computer generated imagery (CGI) in favor of special effects that were grounded in the physical world. </p>
<p>In some way, that’s what may be happening with “Ex Machina”‘s victory. The film not only examines technology’s role in society, but also explores human relationships – specifically, gender bias. While “Star Wars” and “Mad Max” were high-octane, action-packed rides, “Ex Machina” is a more subtle, interior journey. Ava, after escaping the confines of her robotic existence, emerges as a woman who finally feels comfortable in her own skin – without the help of a man. </p>
<p>Working on a paltry US$15 million dollar budget, Sara Benette, along with fellow nominees Andrew Whitehurst, Paul Norris and Mark Ardington, did a superb job using digital visual effects to depict the transformation of a robot controlled by men to a woman controlling her own destiny. In the process, they turned Hollywood’s love triangle trope on its head. </p>
<p>It’s fitting, too, that Benette is the first female nominee in the visual effects category in more than a decade, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-oscars-vfx-woman-20160226-story.html">and only the third woman to be nominated for an Oscar in that category in 86 years</a> (the last was Pamela Easley, for 1993’s “Cliffhanger”).</p>
<p>Throughout dramatic and literary history, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina">Deux ex machina</a> has functioned as “a person or thing that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.” </p>
<p>In an academy that is trying to diversify, “Ex Machina”’s surprising victory in the Visual Effects category fits the bill.</p>
<hr>
<h2>The guys behind the scenes get their due</h2>
<p><strong>Kathy DeMarco Van Cleve, Cinema Studies, University of Pennsylvania</strong></p>
<p>Oh, screenwriters – we do know you are “the backbone of the movie industry and we love you for it!” Or so said Charlize Theron and Emily Blunt when they presented this year’s award for Best Original Screenplay. </p>
<p>But do we really know that? Actually, one of the banal “truths” batted around the movie business is that writers are traditionally the least respected in the otherwise revered three-sided filmmaking triangle: director, actor and uh, that other, writer guy. (And yes, it is almost always a guy. Or two. This Oscars season was no different.) </p>
<p>Yet I would offer that this presumed lack of respect is (mostly) inconsequential. Screenwriting is a job, one for which the Oscar-nominated screenwriters are paid well. The winning screenplays tonight hold their own as a piece of art. The scripts can be read without seeing the resulting film, and the words themselves will grip the reader’s mind and not let go – just like all great literature, no movie required. </p>
<p>Both the winners – “Spotlight” by Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy (Original Screenplay) and “The Big Short” by Charles Randolph and Adam McKay (Adapted Screenplay) – fulfill the mandate of superior storytelling, and also manage to dramatize social issues that are more often explored in documentaries.</p>
<p>This isn’t always the case with Oscar-winning scripts. (Even “Birdman” – last year’s winner – is more of a cinematic extravaganza than a story-driven experience about something that genuinely matters.) And that’s what makes tonight’s winners so special. It’s impossible to celebrate “Spotlight” and “The Big Short” without acknowledging their stellar scripts as their backbone – indeed, their beating hearts.</p>
<hr>
<h2>And only three-and-a-half hours long!</h2>
<p><strong>Thomas Leitch, Film Studies, University of Delaware</strong></p>
<p>If there’s one thing every viewer of the Academy Awards ceremony agrees on, it’s that the broadcast, which routinely runs longer than “Gone with the Wind,” should be shorter, or at least seem shorter.</p>
<p>The festivities this year maintained the usual stately pace of six awards an hour, and there were stretches that seemed even longer. The animated clips of digitized heroes from “Minions” and “Toy Story” presented awards with even less efficiency than their live-action counterparts. Then there was Chris Rock’s Ellen DeGeneres moment, when he urged all the millionaires in the studio audience to support his daughters by purchasing Girl Scout cookies.</p>
<p>But there were signs of life amid the posturing, bombast and DOA humor. The clips from the eight Best Picture nominees were squeezed into four economical pairs, and only three of the five songs nominated for Best Original Song were treated to production numbers. The most hopeful sign of all was a crawl that ran below the screen as the winners of each category approached the stage, identifying all the dozens of people they wanted to thank. </p>
<p>Imagine the possibilities if we applied the same technology to presidential debates, relegating all the forgettable pontificating to the bottom of the screen!</p>
<hr>
<h2>Tired of hearing about #OscarsSoWhite?</h2>
<p><strong>Kellie Carter Jackson, History, Hunter College</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/oscars-2015-expert-reaction-37689">Last year</a> I was writing about the Oscars and the stark white cast of nominees. And here we are again. </p>
<p>Let’s be honest, the disappointing lack of nominees of color is compounded by the current political climate. It’s becoming eerily uncomfortable to see how many Americans are comfortable with ideas based on exclusion, division, and hate all under a banner of “Making America Great Again.” </p>
<p>Is Hollywood as racist as the Klan? No. But shouldn’t we be disturbed that an industry as powerful and omnipresent as Hollywood is on the spectrum? When did we become okay with something or someone being “race-ish?”</p>
<p>Frustration over the homogeneity of the Oscars is not limited to black Americans. It’s about reminding audiences that whiteness is not the standard; it’s not even the norm. (Forty-eight percent of Americans <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html">in the last census</a> do not identify as white.) Certainly, there are other things to protest. But the battle over film is also about the presentation our imaginations and lived experiences.</p>
<p>Awards aside, I want a diversity of stories where people of color aren’t simply athletes, rappers, or warlords. </p>
<p>Did last night make you uncomfortable? Tired of being beaten over the head? Tired of hearing about the “great whiteout.” </p>
<p>I’m tired of seeing it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55481/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>From Chris Rock’s opening monologue to red carpet hits (and misses), our experts analyze key moments from this year’s Academy Awards.Kevin Hagopian, Senior Lecturer of Media Studies (Cinema Studies), Penn StateAmberia Sargent, Doctoral Student in Sociology, University of California, Los AngelesKathy DeMarco Van Cleve, Senior Lecturer in Cinema Studies, University of PennsylvaniaKellie Carter Jackson, Assistant Professor of History, Hunter CollegeMichael Mamp, Assistant Professor of Fashion Merchandising and Design, Central Michigan UniversityPatti McCarthy, Assistant Professor, Film; Department of Theatre, Film & Communication Arts, Whittier CollegeThomas Leitch, Professor of English, University of DelawareLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/442542015-07-08T05:24:24Z2015-07-08T05:24:24ZDo 3D films make you dizzy – or is it just your imagination?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87622/original/image-20150707-1281-zcu5p7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">3D films had a strange effect on Jason.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The realism of today’s 3D blockbusters can blow audiences away. By using 3D glasses to present different images to the two eyes, stereoscopic <a href="http://journal.smpte.org/content/121/4/24.abstract">3D technology fools the brain into believing it is viewing a real scene</a> rather than a flat image on a screen. Now 3D televisions enable viewers to experience the effect at home as well. </p>
<p>Yet 3D has not become as popular as some might have hoped. Many people say watching 3D gives them unpleasant side-effects such as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/6952352/Do-3D-films-make-you-sick.html">headache or nausea</a>. Scientists don’t fully understand why this is. It’s true that <a href="http://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2121032">badly made 3D effects can cause discomfort</a>. However, makers of 3D content are <a href="http://www.sky.com/shop/__PDF/3D/Basic_Principles_of_Stereoscopic_3D_v1.pdf">well aware of the possible issues</a> and work hard to avoid them.</p>
<p>A more fundamental problem may be conflict between different senses. When we watch a film such as <a href="http://www.avatarmovie.com/index.html">Avatar</a>, our visual system may tell us that we are wheeling high in the skies of a distant moon, but other senses tell us that we are sitting motionless in a chair. Of course, 2D films present this kind of conflict as well, but our brains may simply be more used to accepting that 2D content is not “real”. </p>
<p>Some people have suggested that 3D content may cause more serious side effects. For example, <a href="http://www.samsung.com/ca/pdf/3D-tv-warning_en.pdf">Samsung’s safety leaflet</a> links its 3D TV set to a vast range of possible symptoms – not only headache, fatigue, motion sickness and eye strain, but also decreased postural stability, altered vision, dizziness, cramps, convulsions and even loss of awareness. Clearly if 3D TV has such effects, there are important safety implications. But to date, very little work has been done to assess this. </p>
<p>We recently <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsos.140522">invited 433 volunteers</a>, aged from 4 to 82 years, into my lab to watch the film <a href="http://toystory.disney.com">Toy Story</a> on either a 2D or 3D TV. We used two common types of 3D TV, known as “active” and “passive”. Participants carried out a battery of tests designed to assess their balance and coordination, both before and after viewing. They wore two triaxial accelerometers – small devices to record their body movements – as they walked around a simple obstacle course. To assess eye-hand coordination, participants played a “buzz the wire” game, guiding a hoop along a convoluted wire track without allowing the two to come into contact. </p>
<p>We argued that, if viewing 3D made participants dizzy, they would take longer to complete the obstacle course, and/or the accelerometers would show that their body movements were less stable. If it affected their vision, they would take longer to complete the “buzz the wire” game, and/or make more mistakes. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.3deyehealth.org/">Some people have suggested</a> that adverse effects with 3D reflect underlying visual problems. So we also had our volunteers’ vision <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/action/downloadTable?id=t0003&doi=10.1080%2F00140139.2014.914581&downloadType=PDF">thoroughly assessed</a> by eye care professionals before they visited the lab. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87623/original/image-20150707-1302-7ork3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87623/original/image-20150707-1302-7ork3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87623/original/image-20150707-1302-7ork3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87623/original/image-20150707-1302-7ork3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87623/original/image-20150707-1302-7ork3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87623/original/image-20150707-1302-7ork3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87623/original/image-20150707-1302-7ork3k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Of course, Holly’s nausea had nothing to do with the 1kg of popcorn she’d just eaten.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On our objective tests of balance and coordination, we couldn’t detect any effects of 3D at all. Not surprisingly, people tended to perform a little better the second time round. But it didn’t seem to matter whether they had watched the film in 2D or 3D, or whether the 3D was active or passive. We also couldn’t find any links between age or eyesight and whether people were affected by 3D.</p>
<p>We did find that people who had viewed the 3D movie reported that the depth was <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140139.2014.914581">more realistic</a>. They also reported more <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140139.2014.914581">adverse effects</a>, mainly headache and eye strain, but also including dizziness or nausea. However, it’s not clear that the dizziness was really due to 3D.</p>
<p>Craftily, we gave some of our volunteers 3D glasses, making them think they were viewing in 3D, but showed them the film in 2D. These people <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/terg20/2014/terg20.v057.i08/00140139.2014.914581/20140704/images/large/terg_a_914581_f0007_oc.jpeg">reported dizziness</a> at about the same rate (3%) as those viewing real 3D. In contrast, people viewing real 3D were much more likely to report headache or eyestrain (around 10%) than people who just thought they were viewing 3D. This suggests that while 3D gives some people a headache, it doesn’t really make people dizzy – people just expect it to. </p>
<p>Of course, it’s possible that 3D caused an impairment that was so subtle or transient that our tests failed to detect it. On the other hand, that also implies less cause for concern in everyday life. We also tested only one 3D film, choosing Toy Story as something fun and engaging for all age-groups. Even if computer-generated 3D from the experts at Pixar doesn’t cause dizziness, it remains possible that less carefully-controlled 3D content – say, live-action football – could do so.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, given the lack of previous work in this area, our study provides welcome reassurance. Can 3D effects give you a headache? Yes, for some people. Can they make you dizzy? Probably not. Do they make Toy Story more exciting? That depends who’s watching.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44254/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Research in Jenny Read's laboratory is funded by the Leverhulme Trust, the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health. PhD students co-supervised by Dr Read are currently funded by Epilepsy Action, the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, BSkyB, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Biology and Biotechnology Research Council. The research study described in this article was funded by BSkyB while Dr Read was also funded by a University Research Fellowship from the Royal Society.</span></em></p>New research suggests if 3D films make you dizzy it’s probably all in your mind.Jenny Read, Reader in vision science, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/396702015-04-08T15:33:21Z2015-04-08T15:33:21ZWill more dead actors be coming to a theater near you?<p>On November 30 2013, actor Paul Walker died in a car crash before filming of Furious 7 was complete. The accident meant the franchise’s filmmakers had to resort to workarounds to finish scenes featuring Walker. This was made possible by combining footage from outtakes with the construction of a “digital mask” of the dead actor’s features, which was projected onto motion captured by Paul Walker’s brothers Cody and Caleb, who have similar builds. </p>
<p>Casting actors after they’ve died is nothing new, and neither is the use of many digital tools in film making. The real question is how the acting profession and the audience will react if this practice were to become more commonplace. </p>
<h2>From editing to animation</h2>
<p>Three techniques are currently used to “re-cast” actors after they’ve passed away. The simplest is the juxtaposition of older and newer footage. Outtakes of Larry Hagman’s performance as JR Ewing from the TV soap opera Dallas (1978-1991, 2010-2014) allowed him to appear in episodes not actually filmed until after his death. However in the case of The Sopranos (1999-2007), the same trick lacked emotional depth. Livia Soprano was played by actress Nancy Marchand, who died in 2000, and HBO ultimately decided to give her character an off-screen death.</p>
<p>A second approach, <a href="http://www.motion-capture-system.com/resources/Documents/History%20rotoscope.htm">rotoscoping</a>, allows clever montages using footage from different eras, showing living and dead performers together in the same shot. Notable examples include Bruce Lee in a recent Johnny Walker whisky ad, or Natalie Cole’s Grammy-winning <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9zy5UKCTU">duet</a> with her late father Nat King Cole. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7aJkbu0Wi8">A famous Coca Cola ad</a> from the same year featured Elton John and put the deceased Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney and Louis Armstrong in his audience.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SPyoiOTdHio?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Rotoscoping was used to ‘resurrect’ Bruce Lee in this 2013 Johnnie Walker advertisement.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The third and most complex technique involves the computer recreation of someone’s likeness (facial expressions, skin textures and hair modeling) to create synthetic actors. One landmark of this technological feat was The Lord of the Rings’ Gollum (2001-2003). Computer graphics fleshed out the character as played by actor Andy Serkis, who wore a motion capture body suit. </p>
<p>Oliver Reed died of a heart attack before finishing his role in Gladiator (2000), but computer graphics allowed his image to be recreated. The same is being done with Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, set to be released later this year. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mbW-Zv_kR5Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Actor Andy Serkis wore a motion capture body suit to create the character Gollum.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Innovations in computer graphics key</h2>
<p>The high-tech reconstruction of Paul Walker for his uncompleted scenes in Furious 7 is a remarkable feat. But it hardly comes as a surprise given the development of computer graphics, from the early line graphics of the 1960s to the two-dimensional surfaces with simple lighting effects that give the illusion of 3D in the 70s and 80s (1982’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3efV2wqEjEY">Tron</a> is one of the earliest efforts to create a feature length film on a computer). </p>
<p>Other milestones include the wireframe spaceships in Star Wars (1977-1983) and the particle rendering that has propelled Pixar to success since Toy Story (1995). But just as important is the demand for immersive graphics in computer gaming, which has driven innovation in chip design and animation software. </p>
<p>Over the past 20 years, accelerating cross-fertilization between computer graphics and film and television has taken place – from the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park (1994) and the video game Doom (1994), to movies like Wall-E (2008) and the video game Mass Effect 3 (2012). </p>
<p>Simply put, without the rapidly scaling demands of computer games, today’s special effect movies simply wouldn’t be possible.</p>
<h2>What are the implications for dead actors?</h2>
<p>As anyone who watches Furious 7 will notice, it pivots on competition between the old and the new – between a predator drone and a 60s muscle car, between an omniscient surveillance chip and urban street savvy. The film, which can be seen as a sentimental tribute to Paul Walker, is poignant also in its juxtaposition of new and old questions about what audiences expect from film stars. </p>
<p>Whose body and whose face is it there on the screen? Who holds the rights to these images, to these performances? Tom Cruise was recorded performing in a motion capture suit for the movie Oblivion (2013), but after it opened in theaters, <a href="http://www.triplewidemedia.com/2013/04/projection-mapping-in-the-making-of-oblivion-starring-tom-cruise/">Cruise acquired the rights</a> to all data recorded during his performance. It’s unknown whether he did this to enable future use or to prevent future use, but less established actors might not have as much clout in this kind of decision.</p>
<p>And then there is the question of what will prove acceptable to the fan base of an actor (and of a movie franchise). To what extent are the re-animators of Paul Walker bound by public perception of the actor? And to what extent are they constrained by available technology? Will other filmmakers resort to casting from the beyond, and how will audiences react? </p>
<p>Ultimately, the technical and emotional range of what can be done with someone’s posthumous digital recreation will be defined – and limited – by our living memory of the actor’s onscreen performances.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39670/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Krapp does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Paul Walker is only the most recent dead actor to appear on screen. But as the technology develops, what are the legal and ethical limits?Peter Krapp, Professor of Film & Media Studies, University of California, IrvineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/239412014-03-04T06:05:39Z2014-03-04T06:05:39ZHow Harry Potter magic turned Gravity into Oscar gold<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/42990/original/5s8qk65g-1393866341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">George and Sandra were relieved to hear they wouldn't actually be filming in space.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Warner Brothers</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The huge success of Alfonso Cuarón’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/03/oscars-2014-gravity-win-12-years-a-slave">Gravity</a> at this year’s Oscars is a genuine cause for celebration for much of the UK film industry – not least for the many visual effects artists involved in its creation.</p>
<p>Tim Webber, Director of VFX at Soho’s Framestore, proudly took the stage to receive his team’s Academy Award, but the film’s closing titles reveal just how much of a collective effort it is to create a photorealistic movie set in the Earth’s orbit.</p>
<p>More than 450 people, many based in the UK, were credited for their VFX work on Gravity and hundreds more took on post-production duties without credit. The VFX industry has grown so dramatically in the UK over the past few years that an army of skilled people were on hand to create visual material even when the cameras stopped rolling on this spectacular film.</p>
<p>A jaded movie-goer might be tempted to forget the critical acclaim that Gravity received in order to bemoan the rise of <a href="http://www.thewrap.com/greenlighting-movies-tentpole-era-numbers-game">tentpole blockbuster films</a>. These are mega-budget productions that are used to make big bucks for studios through ticket sales and merchandise and are seen by many as a business opportunity rather than real movie making.</p>
<p>Examples in this genre tend to use fantastic computer graphics to shore up the A-list cast, but are often accused of lacking narrative nuance. Special effects are damned by association and are sometimes seen by critics and commentators as a less worthy part of the film-making process. This is a simplistic and short-sighted view though.</p>
<p>VFX techniques are used because they can make visual stories more viable as a subject matter for a film. The industry has grown because it has gradually become more practical to use computer graphics in film than to opt for special effects shots using scale models, animatronic creatures, optical in-camera effects or other physical methods. Whilst these techniques still have an important role to play in film-making, it is now cheaper, safer and often visually slicker to go digital.</p>
<p>This basic economic principle holds true for almost any film project, not just those with science-fiction, superhero or fantasy content. Rewind a couple of Oscar ceremonies and another big winner can be used as proof. The King’s Speech – a noble Brit-flick with not a single spaceship, orc, or dragon in sight – is an excellent example of the unsung categories of “invisible” effects techniques. Set extensions, background replacements, matte paintings and crowd duplication all played their <a href="http://www.cgarena.com/newsworld/kings_speech_vfx.php">respective parts</a>.</p>
<p>Contemporary visual effects give all filmmakers a wider toolset to choose from, and consequently more artistic scope. If a production budget won’t accommodate a thousand extras for two days of shooting, then how about filming a few hundred people, moving them to different positions on screen, reshooting and compositing various shots into one?</p>
<p>The cost-effectiveness of computer graphics has even led to the development of pre-visualisation or <a href="http://www.blendernation.com/2014/02/11/non-blender-the-impact-of-previsualization-in-hollywood-film-industry/">previs</a> as a sub-industry. Whole sequences, and even entire films can be created using basic 3D graphics before filming even starts. They can be developed, fine-tuned and used as templates to plan and orchestrate the principle photography phase. This can save time and money in the production of a film and often means you can avoid unnecessary spending on sets and shots that don’t actually make it into the final cut of a film. </p>
<p>In parallel with the development of graphics technologies, a share of the UK’s VFX success story is of course thanks to a certain young wizard. The <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/07/harry-potter-visual-effects/">Harry Potter franchise</a> provided an opportunity for visual effects to thrive, providing Hogwarts-like apprenticeships for a new generation of artists and technicians.</p>
<p>Some of the largest Soho film post-production facilities – Framestore, Cinesite, Double Negative and MPC – were all in place before the first wave of a juvenile wand but the volume of work that developed across the Harry Potter series ensured that junior VFX staff were inducted, trained and in some cases moved onwards and upwards to supervise their own new apprentices. </p>
<p>Post-Potter, VFX is as politically and artistically complicated as any other corner of the creative industries, as two consecutive years’ of VFX protests outside the Oscars have highlighted. One country’s growth in market share is potentially another’s loss to <a href="http://variety.com/2014/film/news/oscar-protest-visual-effects-protestors-take-to-streets-1201123929/">outsourcing</a>; but the same market forces apply across the globe, meaning that potential work can be lost to other emerging territories, just as it can be secured. The UK is of course as susceptible to this phenomenon as anywhere else. </p>
<p>For now though, with the forthcoming opening of an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26162008">Industrial Light and Magic</a> outpost in London, in time for the next episode of the Star Wars saga, the immediate future of the UK VFX industry looks as bright as the sight of the sun rising over the horizon on a spacewalk. Or perhaps as noble as a monarch addressing a crowd of loyal subjects, depending on your cinematic tastes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Goodliff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The huge success of Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity at this year’s Oscars is a genuine cause for celebration for much of the UK film industry – not least for the many visual effects artists involved in its creation…Mark Goodliff, Senior Lecturer in Creative Technology, University of BradfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/6802011-05-18T20:52:04Z2011-05-18T20:52:04ZSuperman returns – but who’s looking after his water?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1146/original/aapone-20090513000179000144-topshots-australia-film-auction-superman-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is it a plane? No, it's Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">William West/AFP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Watching films such as Superman Returns or The Day after Tomorrow, you would have seen dramatic sequences of surging water and crumbling buildings.</p>
<p>While doing so, mathematics was probably the last thing you thought about; but without it, scenes of this nature would be virtually impossible.</p>
<p>Take the 2006 film Superman Returns. In one scene, a giant spherical object smashes into a water tank releasing a huge amount of water (see below).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1144/original/Screen_shot_2011-05-18_at_4.02.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1144/original/Screen_shot_2011-05-18_at_4.02.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1144/original/Screen_shot_2011-05-18_at_4.02.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1144/original/Screen_shot_2011-05-18_at_4.02.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1144/original/Screen_shot_2011-05-18_at_4.02.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1144/original/Screen_shot_2011-05-18_at_4.02.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1144/original/Screen_shot_2011-05-18_at_4.02.30_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=283&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Still image from Superman Returns.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of Sony Pictures Imageworks</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Traditionally, the only possible way to create this kind of sequence would be to use small models – which produce unrealistic results. Or we could create a computer simulation.</p>
<h2>Swapping droplets for particles</h2>
<p>These days, one of the most popular methods for simulating water is to replace fluid with millions of individual particles within a computer simulation.</p>
<p>And the way these particles move is determined by an algorithm that my colleagues and I invented to simulate the formation of stars in our galaxy’s giant molecular clouds.</p>
<p>The method is known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothed-particle_hydrodynamics">Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics</a> (SPH) and the use of SPH in Superman Returns is the work of an American visual effects company called <a href="http://www.tweaksoftware.com/tweak-films/tweak-films">Tweak</a>.</p>
<p>Superman Returns certainly isn’t the only film to feature SPH fluid simulations: think of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqlaeTphDho#t=0m06s">Gollum falling into the lava of Mount Doom</a> in Lord of the Rings: Return of the King; or the huge alligator splashing through a swamp in Primeval.</p>
<p>These particular scenes are the work of people at a Spanish visual effects company called <a href="http://www.nextlimit.com/">NextLimit</a>, who <a href="http://architosh.com/2008/01/next-limit-wins-academy-award/">received an Oscar</a> for their troubles.</p>
<h2>How does SPH work?</h2>
<p>Rather than trying to model a body of water as a whole, SPH replaces the fluid with a set of particles. A mathematical technique then uses the position and masses of these particles to determine the density of the fluid being modelled.</p>
<p>Using the density and pressure of the fluid, SPH makes it possible to map the force acting on each particle within the fluid. This technique provides results quite similar to the actual fluid being modelled. And the more particles used in the simulation, the more accurate the model becomes.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PCS7EgAftRQ?wmode=transparent&start=2" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This SPH simulation uses 128,000 particles to model a fluid.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Beyond the basics</h2>
<p>In Superman Returns, gravity also affects how the body of water behaves (the water spills out of the water tank) and SPH can easily be adapted to accomodate this. </p>
<p>In addition, fluids often need to flow around solid bodies such as rocks and buildings that might be carried, bobbing along, by the flow. The SPH method can be easily extended to handle this combination of solid bodies and fluids by adding sets of particles to the equation, to represent the solid bodies.</p>
<p>These adjustments and extensions to SPH can be made to produce very realistic-looking results.</p>
<p>In industry, SPH is used to describe the motion of offshore rigs in a storm, fluid flow in pumps, and injection moulding of liquid metals. In zoology, it’s being used to investigate the dynamics of fish. </p>
<h2>SPH and the stars</h2>
<p>As hinted at above, it’s not just water and its inhabitants that can be modelled using this technique.</p>
<p>SPH simulations of star formation by Matthew Bate, from the University of Exeter, and Daniel Price, of Monash, have been able to <a href="http://users.monash.edu.au/%7Edprice/pubs/magsf/price_stromlo06.pdf">predict the masses of the stars</a>, and the number of stable two- and three-star systems that form from a typical molecular cloud. </p>
<p>In the case of stable two-star systems (known as <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/24203/what-is-a-binary-star/">binaries</a>) SPH can predict the shape of the orbits in good agreement with astronomical observations. </p>
<p>To get this level of accuracy, millions of particles are used in the SPH calculation, and the motion of these particles is calculated on a number of computer systems that work together in <a href="https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/parallel_comp/#Whatis">parallel</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IxKdtjVDh8s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>SPH is also the method of choice for following the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang. This evolution involves <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-chatter-on-dark-matter-19">dark matter</a> and gas, and the simulations have one set of SPH particles for the dark matter and one set for the gas.</p>
<p>An advanced SPH code – known as <a href="http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/gadget/">Gadget</a> – used for this purpose was developed by Volker Springel. The code enables astrophysicists to predict the way galaxies form and their distribution in the universe, including the effects of General Relativity.</p>
<p>But for non-astrophysicists, admittedly, the movies may be more of a draw.</p>
<p>So next time you’re watching a film and you see large swathes of water in unusual places or doing incredibly destructive things, think about maths for a moment: without it, such breathtaking scenes would be virtually impossible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/680/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joe Monaghan receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p>Watching films such as Superman Returns or The Day after Tomorrow, you would have seen dramatic sequences of surging water and crumbling buildings. While doing so, mathematics was probably the last thing…Joe Monaghan, Professor of Applied Mathematics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.