But by "real" I didn't mean, "Say, that looks like a real robot." What I meant was, "Say, that cgi almost like it exists in the real world." Of course, the reason the 'Machine Man' looks like it actually exists is because it did actually exist - it was a pliable wooden costume made roughly sixty years before computer generated effects would even be used in films.
I'll say this one more time to be clear: I was watching a silent movie from 1927 and my reaction was that the computer generated special effects looked pretty good.
If you’re familiar with the “uncanny valley” theory, skip this paragraph. If not, here’s a pretty cool idea: In 1970 Masahiro Mori, a Japanese roboticist, published an article in which he describes a hypothesis he termed the “uncanny valley.” Basically, it says this. The more a robot or human facsimile looks like a human, the more familiarity we have with it, and the more we respond warmly towards it. (For example, for the most part people have warmer feelings towards baby seals than they do towards snakes, because baby seals look more human-like. And we like apes even more than seals, etc.) But there comes a point where this familiarity becomes too great, and instead of warmth, we feel repulsed.
According to Mori, people think that a little robot toy that hobbles around on two legs is cute, but the more super-human-like robots become, the more we’ll get creeped out by them. If one were to chart out this phenomenon, that dip where familiarity becomes repulsion is called the “uncanny valley.”
Star Wars = cute and cool. Back in the late 70s, this was a picture in a calendar hanging on my bedroom wall.
I, Robot = disturbing. This guy was never hanging from anyone's bedroom wall.
Polar Express = very disturbing. The only reason you'd hang this on your kid's wall is if you hated your kid.
But this still doesn't explain why I thought the robot in Metropolis looked "pretty good for cgi." I'm wonder this...The reason the uncanny valley exists is because our brains know we're being tricked, and our brains don't like it. When you're watching Star Wars, and you see a guy in a robot suit, your brain acknowledges that it’s a guy in a suit, and then your brain says, “Okay, so there’s a robot. What’s next? How’s that robot going to figure into the story?” But when we are presented with an image of a subject that we know can’t exist, but we’re being told does, our brains put up a fight. They resist the untruth. A paradox thus arises. The more realistic a fake character becomes, the less real it seems. When the filmmakers can’t get it just right, if there’s just one little movement off – the direction of a pupil, the weight of an arm, the bounce of hair – our brains yell out “Fake! Don’t believe a word of it! Liars!”
So while I was watching Metropolis, instead of seeing an actress in a mask, my brain saw a computer generated woman in a computer generated mask – because that’s what my brain is used to seeing. And my brain is trying to help me out. It doesn’t want me to be tricked, even when it’s not. So my brain flashed a red warning light: "Look out, dude. This is probably not real. We can't tell exactly why, but it's better to err on the side of caution."
So here’s my question: Is this new existence of ours in the ‘uncanny valley’ retraining our brains? Is this the boy who cried wolf? We’re so used to being lied to (in terms of digital images), that we’re don’t accept the truth even when there is no lie?
One of these two futuristic cities actually existed in the real world - at least in terms of being a model made of wood and glue and paint - and the other existed only as data, as a series of imaginary ones and zeros. And our brains are being trained to work very hard to tell the difference. Maybe too hard. Are we starting to see ones and zeros even when they aren't there?
I guess I’ll call this hypothesis the “wolf in the valley.” So, do you agree? Am I right? Or am I over thinking things? To what degree, if any, are modern digital special effects ruining our ability to appreciate the non-digital special effects of yesteryear?
Stephanie Kaszuba:
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that digital special effects do muddle with our brains. When you see something that is done non-digitally you keep on thinking "How'd they do that?" Even in Metropolis when we were told that there were no digital effect, I kept on questioning myself on how the effects were done ("it has to be digital, how is that possible?"). So yes, all the science fiction movies have gotten to our heads. It makes us question ourselves more than necessary. Polar Express was a good example- when I saw the movie, I couldn't tell whether the people were animated or real (which is sort of scary). There is a new movie that just came out called Surrogate. Basically its about robots being made to look exactly like humans and almost take place of their lives when the people wanted them to. But what makes it so disturbing is that when one robot goes bad, you can't tell the others from humans (if you think about that realistically, people would get very paranoid). This was probably done both digitally and with non-digital effect (which makes it more confusing because real people play the robots). Therefore, it is harder to appreciate non-digital effects today. Uncanny means strange or mysterious. I don't really think it is strange that we question effects so much- "wolf in the valley" would be a good name for this theory because we think of many robots as cute and cool, but then there are those certain ones that come along (many modern day) and its like "whoa, that is weird". You can think of it like one or two wolves in a herd of a hundred sheep. I guess it makes the wolves strange but I still think this may be a better name. Mr. Cowlin, I don't believe you are over thinking this, because I see all the points myself. I really didn't realize that I thought about effects till you mentioned that the Metropolis ones are digital. I've been thinking about reality and the effects unconsciously. It's fascinating that movies could make you debate this topic.
I definitely do believe that digitally enhanced or created images are messing up our thought processes. As soon as I started reading this, I immediately thought of a style of photography called HDR photography. It stands for High Dynamic Range, and it looks a little something like this: www.flickr.com/photos/xnuzha/461797916. Just like movies and films today, it drives me nuts. It's so fake that I don't even want to try to believe it. My main reason for taking this class was that I was so repulsed by the horrible, and VERY fake "special effects" of modern day movies, that I needed to somehow give it a chance. There's no doubt we're now falling for non-existant bait. I agree entirely with Stephanie; when I first started seeing Surrogate advertisements on billboards, I would stand there and stare, debating whether or not they photoshopped Jennifer Lopez's face on there or digitally created the whole thing from scratch. Everywhere one looks, they're unsure if it's digital or real. It's a shame. This topic isn't being overthought whatsoever. Rather, it's being underthought, because apparently society is okay with being mindlessly tricked continuously.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the special fx that they have in films now a days are messing with our minds a bit. If you've seen in any big motion picture film that has a lot of action (Transformers, Transformers 2, GI Joe, Star Wars ep. 1,2,3, etc.) they all have a lot of the same fx to them. Ex. in Transformers you have big robots that change into vehicles and have human like fight scenes. In those scenes you see the computer generated robots fighting, on the scene, what the camera actually sees, is just some building, artifact, or set that they are using to shoot. Another movie that I recently saw the trailer to was, 2012. In the trailer of the movie it had a big earthquake with the ground tearing apart, buildings being destroyed, bridges being destroyed, people getting killed, just a whole lot of chaos. Anyways, when I was watiching the trailer i'd have to say only about a 1/4 or 1/5 of the whole trailer was actually real. Back in the day when special fx weren't as sophisticated as todays made people watching them believe what they were seeing more than they would have. Almost as if our brain was showing a sign of pitty to what they, the film makers, were trying to show. One example that I know personally well of is in Star Wars episode 5. The scene that i'm talking about is when Liea feels like they left Luke behind and he's still alive, so she tells Lando to turn around. When they got to the shot, where it shows them in the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon, she points out Luke. Now, (I personally think they did a good job at this) if you notice when she is pointing Luke out, that that whole entire shot of the outside is a drawing! I was amazed when I realized that it was a drawing. That drawing was so good so realistic that my brain for a long time thought it was real. Even now when I still see that part of the movie, I still think that that is Cloud city. The computerized pitcures/scenery now days make it things seem so real that we know that they're fake. The drawn pictures/scenery are so fake we accept them. Makes you think, do we really need all the expensive special fx?
ReplyDeletecaleb-- to answer your question, I would like to think we DON'T need all this over-the-top obviously-fake FX. I think the ART of filmmaking and having the title of director of photography should include some PASSION-- actually taking the time to build your set by hand, not by computer mouse. I like the points you've made.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that digital special effects really toy with our minds. Sometimes I wonder if it is just an illusion because I wonder how do they do these special effects if it is not special effects what is it?? I think they do this on purpose either for to distract us from the real situation or just some satisfaction they get from it. The funny thing I actually works at times I’m to busy wondering what could that be if not special effects and if what I am looking at is fake. Some of the times I think they lie when they say no special effects. This drives me insane because I say they really know how to lie or they are just that damn good. At times I know what is really happening but others I don’t but I guess that is just another interesting thing about film.
ReplyDeleteI most definitely agree with the idea that the digital effects and complicated imagery are altering our view of film and everything in it. The way I view movies now is much different than if I were to only see movies with non digital effects that play with the average viewer's mind. All I think about know when I see special effects are what program did they use to create that?? And so on.. But is not what the true purpose of film is supposed to be. I think that when I watch old movies and go back in the special features(which i do a lot) and find the little clips on "how-to" for the special effects in the movie and look at how they are created, it blows my mind. The amount of effort they put into the effects of the old movies is astounding. I'm not saying that the new effects don't take hard work, its just that it seems as if the old movies and their special effects take much more creativity and originality to create them rather than drawing a figure in flash/photoshop. So I think that the new computerized effects in modern film have distorted our minds into thinking that the more complex, graphically enhanced scenery and figures, the better. This is wrong. We need to go back to appreciating the creativity of the special and home made effects in the older movies, which most of the time are much more impressing than the newer movies.
ReplyDeleteOwen Moynihan, I agree that the digital effects of today are making our brains tell us there is no way this is real. However for me I don't think that this ruins the special effects of movies before digital. When I saw the Metropolis special effects in the movie I was amazed because it looked so real and my brain bought it. But I couldn't help thinking how did they do it without special effects. Today you can do almost anything with digital but back then you could not and it makes it more impressive that the movie makers were able to convince my brain that it was real back then, when today my brain always tells me it is just digital special effects.
ReplyDeleteMr. Cowlin, I understand what you are saying. The sort of complicated thing about the human psyche is we will accept characters when they look human but not TOO human, such as the Polar Express example. However, we do find some androids to be really cute, like Robby and C-3PO. The thing about them is they look kind of human but not too much: not every little detail is included. I believe CGI is being taken too far because the realism is just too much.
ReplyDeleteTo add a little to what I said, I think the Metropolis Machine-Man is an in between sort of thing because it's not too realistic and not too unrealistic but at the same time, my mind kind of rejected it because I found it's face sort of creepy because the mouth always seems to be slightly open just like the eyes. My subconscious must have been wondering what the Machine Man was up to.
ReplyDeleteI think we, the film-goers, have been reconditioned to view all special effects in the manner of "hey look at that! wonder how much cmputer time was needed for that?"
ReplyDeleteIn this modern age film-makers have gotte lazy. Using computers to fix a solution, rather than being inventive. That is why i believe Michael Bay is the anti-Christ, and he should be left in a dungeon somewhere. I think the CGI in Transformers 2 was horrible. I sat through nearly 3 hours of that garbage heap to watch giant, shiny, computer-generated Ford car commercials fight.
This is why i think Ed Wood is a better director than Michael Bay. Watching a hubcap on fishing wire fly as a UFO seems more frightening than Optimus-Prime who just looks like someone left a mirror in the sun.
In conclusion, CGI has been a breakthrough in the visual side of films but has detracted from the story side of things as we now believe the image we see is a fake, why do we care what happens to the CGI or anything else in the film?
To an extent CGI is ruining our ability to appreciate non-digital special effects, because when we watch a movie, we immediately believe that all the effects are fake (digital). I think a lot of us were surprised when we found out that the special effects in "Metropolis" were created DURING the scene and not just edited in later. I almost feel bad for the film-makers because they worked so hard to create those scenes by hand, and as audience members we immediately question if their work was really created with no digital effects. Usually, when I watch a modern movie, I don't expect any of the special effects to be real, I expect all of it to be computer generated. I think all of us are just way too desensitized by the special effects we see in modern movies, we don't even question how a movie was created, but we assume that all of it is created by digital special effects. I'm not saying digital special effects aren't cool, but I think there is something special about creating the special effects by hand. I believe it's only to an extent because, when I found out that all of the special effects in "Metropolis" were created in the scene, I began to wonder how they created it during the 1920's. I think by learning that all the special effects were created by hand- in the scene, it helps us to appreciate the work even more. It gives us a break from all the modern movies with digital effects and we see the raw and real special effects created physically instead of just a digital altered picture. The film-makers of Metropolis deserve some props for making us believe that the special effects were CGI.
ReplyDeleteI agree that digital effects used today mess with our minds and cause us to over analyze certain scenes that are not realistic. Instead of agreeing with what we see on the screen, our brain begins to attack the scene by pointing out how fake it is. Our brain says, "Alright, this is made digitally. That building never actually blew up on set. No way José." So when we see a scene that does not seem realistic, but was in fact shot on set, our brain does not know what to think. Even though this might hurt our brains, it also makes our film-watching mature. I'm not familiar with how you can digitally make a building blow up or add huge flying UFO's to a clear sky, but after countless movies that use these digital effects, my mind begins to grasp the techniques just by watching the scenes. I am sure this happens to many people around the world, so once the population begins to realize how fake certain digital effects are, digital filmmakers need to step it up and create more intense effects that seem more realistic. Our film maturity affects the drive of digital filmmakers which then makes our future film-watching more exciting. If onset effects were always used, like those of Metropolis, then it would not create any sort of growth for the film watchers and the filmmakers. Basically what I'm saying is that the growth of both the audience and the filmmakers is apparent by the contrast of old movies, such as Metropolis, and current movies such as I, Robot.
ReplyDeleteI think the effects made by humans are better than thoes of computers in metropolis the set design was fantastic. humans making special affects show great effort
ReplyDeleteI agree also on that the digital effects of today are too much. They have broughten the effects to make it look too much like people without it actually being a real person on the screen. At a certain point it needs to be a real person on the screen. When animation tries to be SO similar to the real thing it comes off as creepy or trying too hard. Animation is better when it doesn't look like the real thing, that's what it's supposed to be! If you want the real thing, use the real thing. Don't fake it
ReplyDeleteReply to Griffin: True it does take a lot of effort to create a mind-blowing set, but the computer can't create digital effects all on it's own. It takes truly talented digital artists to acheive a realistic effect, too.
ReplyDeleteBrandon Stark
ReplyDeleteI do believe that CGI messes with our minds alot. But after seeing countless movies with CGI my minds adapted to it. When i see a movie i know wether its CGI or not because it's truly obvious. I don't think CGI is a bad thing. I just believe it's over used alot. Some scenes in movies don't have to have CGI, it could be made doing real stunts. But movie companys would rether be lazy about it and use computers and not do the real thing. But Metropolis blew me away. It's amazing the effects they had during that early time period in movie history. The effects weren't CGI and that's whats so amazing about them. That movie truly made me ask question, which i haven't done in a long time "how did they do that". It makes the movie more natural when there's less CGI. But i understand if CGI is necassary to do in ceratin movies and scenes. I'm really looking forward to one day seeing a movie being released that doesn't have alot CGI or none at all and uses effects they used like in Metropolis. It'll be amazing to have a movie like released that will truly makes us question whats real and whats how did they do that and what makes it possible to create that non-CGI effect
Will Campbell said...
ReplyDeleteYeah definetly I would have to totally agree with what Brandon said. This movies affects are amazing and surprises me. The techniques that we learned they used seem so easy yet very advanced for movies in the 1930's. When I say this I mean that they use basic things like mirrors, light and wood cut-outs to make everything seem real in this movie and these techniques are nothing you could have imagined thats why they make the movie seem like it was a modern day movie. This is because they affects they do basically look the same as a modern day CGI affect that is used all the time in a modern day sci-fi film and personally i think the techniques in Metropolis were alot better and looked better than a CGI filled film. Also along the lines of the uncanny valley, I would have to say that things made to look as close to a human as possibly can definetly scare the crap out of me because they try to make you feel comfortable and make you believe everything is ok but in alot of those kind of movies there is always something wrong with the human looking being and makes you think, "hey? if eveyone thinks this being is human, than how will they ever no whats real and not real?" and this just creeps me out like the women in the movie "Stepford Wives". Does anyone agree?
In response to Will:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your comment on the Stepford Wives. I think the creepiness factor coems from a sort of "Pinnochio" Complex by the CGI designers. They want to make what looks like a "real boy" so bad that they forget about what inner qualities that make things real in the first place. And in the very few instances where the creators do try to infuse these inner qualities into their computer drawn creations, the effect that is then felt is that of the subject portraying a emotionally stunted, evil seeming scourge on the human race (like Ben Affleck).