Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Metropolis in the 21st Century


I'd like you to take a look at a post I made last semester. I think you'll find it pretty interesting. Read the whole thing and then come back here for further instructions. (You DON'T have to do the assignment at the end. Just READ the whole thing. You'll get a new assignment below.)

Click here to read about "The Uncanny Valley"



Okay, you're back. Good. So here's the question: describe your experience of watching the film. To what degree were you distracted by the quesiton, "How did they do it?" To what degree, in comparison, are you disctracted from modern movies by the same question? In other words, how can you tell when special effects are getting in the way, how can you tell if they are helping to tell a story? Please make you responses thoughtful and thorough paragraphs.  Feel free to comment on the the comments of others for extra credit.

For extra credit, you might also wish to respond to this question: What movies have you seen has there been a moment in which you've encountered "the uncanny valley?" (Think Avatar, among others.)

10 comments:

  1. While watching Metropolis there were a couple times where I was distracted by the special effects. Although normally, in a modern movie, I would not notice them at all. Since I knew this movie did not have the same technology that we do today, I found myself thinking a lot about how the special effects are done.
    One example is when they first show the whole Metropolis, as an establishing shot. One thing that I noticed was that there were people and cars moving in the city. I wanted to figure out how that was done with out using computers. I tried to come up with many conclusions, but none of them satisfied me. And before I knew it, I had missed five minutes of the movie because I was thinking about the special effects.
    I do not get as distracted as I do in modern movies though because I know that with the technology we have we can put almost anything into a movie and make it seem realistic. When I do get distracted it's not because the special effects are so good, it's usually because they're so bad. I don't ask "How do they do it?", I ask "Why did they do that?". Special effects don't really get in the way of movies anymore, except if they are not used correctly, or if they are very poor quality. One example is Twilight. I was very distracted by the special effects because they seemed so fake to me.
    Most of the time special effects help to tell the story because it helps explain what humans can't. For example, if a person is telling another person about a giant alien they saw, it would make the story easier to understand if they showed what the alien looked like (which is done using special effects).

    EXTRA CREDIT:
    A movie that I have seen where I have encountered "the uncanny valley" is when I saw the movie Across the Universe. In one scene there are army sergeants whose faces have been transformed into very square and thick faces. Watching them kind of made me scared and uncomfortable because their bodies were normal, but their faces were so different from what normal faces to look like. Also, they way they moved was very robotic and not normal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really had a great experience of 'Metropolis'. I didn't get distracted at all by special effects, as a matter of fact, instead of wondering how they did the effects, I marveled at how expensive it would hafe been to build a city of that magnitude just for a movie. Strangely enough, I am like a three-year-old trapped in the body of an adolescent; so my brain, while it does analyze, tends to accept whatever it sees. There are, of course, some things that even MY infantile brain won't beleive ('Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs' is among them). Often it isn't people that I can't beleive, but events. Even I won't beleive that meatballs fall from the sky, or that a giant smoke monster terrorizes a bunch of castaways on a magical, invisible island ('Lost').

    ReplyDelete
  3. While watching Metropolis, even though i disliked it, i was impressed by the special effects this movie had. i was shocked most when i saw the high rise buildings along with the scene when there were several men in the Colosseum. That was honestly the only thing i paid attention to in the film after i stopped caring about the plot. i Dont think they got in the way of this movie at all, in fact i think the special effects made the movie legendary.

    Extra Credit: Beowulf, Final Fantasy, 300, Terminator, The day after Tomorrow, The Fifth Element, Jurassic Park

    ReplyDelete
  4. While watching Metropolis, i had a few disractions with the special effects. One distraction is when Freder went to the depths to see his brothers and the workers place turns into a huge monster. Another distration was the expersions of the characters in the movie. Some of the expresions didn't go with the scene. Evne though i didn't liek the movie that much, the movie had a great way of putting it into a silent movie.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rather than being disturbed or distracted by the special effects in Metropolis, I was more in awe. I was especially impressed by the city scenes, particularly the one establishing shot of the city at night. It left me wondering how an 80 year-old film could manage such an enormous special effect. The idea of using stop-motion animation never occured to me. Another impressive effect that had me thinking of 'how they did it' was the robot sequence where it takes on the appearance of Maria. Throughout the entire scene my mind couldn't get out of the 'cgi' mentality. My mind couldn't fathom how a film could create aurora rings and electircal discharges without using computer technology. In a way, it's pretty sad.
    I thought the effects were very effective in its contribution towards the outcome of the movie. I thought the garden and city settings were effective in adding to the futuristic, yet sort of bizzare atmosphere of the film. The effects definitely also gave the movie a modern, futuristic look at the time of its release.
    Today, modern movies can either make or break with its use of special effects. To me, good usage of effects is when its both realistic and essential for the storyline. For example, I thought District 9 did a phenomenal job with its effects of the alien weaponry. It was both very realistic looking, and important in displaying the futuristic autonomy and danger of the aliens. An example of bad usage of special effects is the second Transformers movie. Personally, I thought they used way to much special effects, and for one reason or the other I didn't like the appearance of the robots. The filmmakers made them almost too real looking with flamboyant colors, which consequently made me criticize the effects rather than appreciate them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Personally I would have never picked up the movie, Metropolis, and watched it all the way through, but once we began watching it in class, I began to appreciate the talented and interesting way that the special effects had been done. Therefore, I was less distracted with the special effects than I was interested in them. Obviously Metropolis looked a bit corny because of the low quality special effects they had compared to modern day movies' special effects, but the special effects truly helped tell the story. Some scenes did make me wonder how film makers in the 1920s were able to make such special effects without the advanced technology. For example, how they made the large city, or how the working machine place turned into a huge monster. Truthfully, I am not distracted at all with special effects from modern day movies because I have gotten so used to seeing them constantly in all types of movies. Now seeing a special effect in modern day movies has no impression on me since I have seen those effects in almost every modern movie I watch. I also know that with the incredibly advanced technology that we have today, almost any special effect can be done and still look realistic. You can tell that special effects help tell the story when you come out of a movie knowing what the movie was about and why the special effects were used. Meanwhile, if you come out of a movie confused about why the movie seemed unrealistic, then the special effects may have been getting in the way. For example, The Day After Tomorrow is a movie with tons of special effects used to help tell the story. Without the special effects, the movie would pretty much be nothing.

    EXTRA CREDIT:
    An example of a movie where I have encountered the "uncanny valley" is the movie Beowulf. In this movie, at some points it was even hard to tell what was animated and what was truly real. After watching some parts of the movie, I found out that the film makers of this movie filmed it in live action, but then turned it into animation. The way they did this is partially interesting, but mainly strange with the way that the animations look almost absolutely human.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Coming out of vshow watching this movie, i had just finished all the cgi for the vshow video. i absolutely love special effects and when watching movies i am in a constant mode of "how did they do that". it has come to a point that it just comes as part of how i watch movies. in metropolis i was loving the constant questioning of how did they do things. the best part was when i actually got to see the how it's made special feature that really opened my eyes to what went into the process. i am fascinated by the concept of how much care and time went into every single shot. when it comes to the movie metropolis, there really wasn't an effect shot that i felt was out of place. because of the time spent on every shot, i'm sure that they didn't want to add more special effects than absolutely necessary as it would take more time and effort to complete them. my constant questioning really applies to every movie i see and it really isn't a distracting factor. in modern movies though there are definitely times when i think that effects are way over used, and it becomes overly distracting. the only times that that tends to happen is when the special effects either look ridiculously fake or subtract from the scene. CGI has truly opened the doors to special effects, as well as making real looking effects ALOT easier, so recently the movies that have those poor special effects i mentioned earlier also just tend to be poorly produced overall.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Julie - Regarding Across the Universe. I haven't seen it, bu it sounds like a case in which the filmmakers WANT to create the uncanny valley, as apposed to a situation in which they're trying to create reality and fail. Good observation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Margaret - The British poet Samuel taylor Colleridge called it "suspension of disbelief." In other words, it's not that we believe a given story is true or not, but whether a writer or filmmaker can create a world that we are consciously WILLING to believe in. (For teh record, Cloudy WACofMB did work for me. I was surprised it did. I actually enjoyed it more than Up. I suspect this had to do with low expectations for meatballs, and high expectations for Up.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. To be perfectly honest I didn't really enjoy Metropolis that much as a movie, or content wise. However, the effort put into the special effects is quite amazing. For one scene, just to move the lights across the sky I thought it was incredible how the artist erased and redrew it over and over. It's really quite impressive.
    I never even imagined how they did special effects in the 1920s until this movie. I often wonder in modern movies how things are done because i take an interest in film making and I want to learn more about it. But after watching the extra on the special effects from Metropolis, I truly am quite impressed. I never imagined that what the did could've been accomplished so early in movie history.

    ReplyDelete