CGI vs Practical Effects Plus Jack the Giant Slayer Movie Review

Much like the government has had a slow creep into every facet of our lives, so has CGI had a slow creep into every shot on the big screen. CGI is not inherently bad, but at some point, the level of technology has not advanced to the point of replacing one medium for another. There are pros and cons to either side of the issue, and there are other factors involved with why CGI has become so prevalent. Today, preproduction is given about three months where in the past they were given as much as nine months. The same may be true for CGI where not enough time is given to digital artists to place the very nuanced details required to make a shot look real and believable.

The documentary "Side By Side" goes over the history of movie making using film to the advent of digital film. While digital film is the future of movies, it has taken a long time for the resolution of the picture to increase to suck a level that it looks as good if not better than film. Back in 2008, 4K resolution was the standard to be reached, and shortly after, they had reached even higher resolutions. Before that time, the look of digital film had its place in lower budget films to give it a certain look. Once technology has advanced to the point where it is superior, it is time to make that the standard.

For CGI, the level of technology has not reached that far yet. The fact that so much money is spent on CGI to not get the same realism as a practical effect is worrying for movies. The trade off from practical effects to CGI has happened too quickly. Leaving out practical effects with sub par CGI results in a movie that looks terrible. Video games have always been digital, and the few games that have tried their hands at including live action actors do not do well. One of the major causes is the dichotomy of what the viewer is seeing. There is a clear distinction between live action and the video graphics of a video game, especially back in the 1990s. Today, console games strive to create the most realistic graphics, but they still have the look of being a completely digital world.

Movies have been real for almost a century, and the inclusion of CGI requires the same gradual step as digital did with film. Economics and other elements have forced CGI to prominence that has hurt movies. At a given time, a new movie with special effects that has pushed the boundaries of what it can do looks amazing at the time. A good example is The Matrix Reloaded when Neo flies in and rescues the Key Maker and Morpheus as two semi trucks collide and explode. At the time, the shot was amazing, yet years later, it does not hold up. Jurassic Park on the other hand does hold up after twenty years. This is partly because of the use of practical effects with animatronics and the use of CGI when it could be used.

Either when there is not enough time given, or the technology has not advanced far enough, the CGI can look terrible even for audiences who are used to CGI. Movies like I Am Legend and Oz the Great and Powerful can look more like video games than movies. For all of the advancements in technology for video games, there is a higher standard for movies. In the movie Jumanji, the CGI compared to the animatronic lion was obvious even back then. It was not to say that the practical effects were bad, but the level of CGI was not good enough to seamlessly transition from one to the other. The use of close up shots where actors can react to something real does wonders for the quality of the movie. CGI should be used to complement the practical, allowing the character or object to do what the animatronic cannot. The same is true now, nearly twenty years later, with Oz in the use of CGI versus the practical props of the balloon and the structures in China Town.

There are other issues with CGI such as the removal of chaos. Just as explained in Jurassic Park, tiny elements in nature can work to create unexpected outcomes that, as an observer, cannot be predicted. In the digital realm, every aspect of the shot is controlled as they strive to replicate the realism of real life. Not everything can be considered, which is why a CGI shot can look completely fake. The weight and forces of gravity and nature cannot be 100% replicated in a computer yet. So when a continuous shot of two characters running in Oz the Great and Powerful transitions from live actors to CGI, the CGI looks terrible.

The cost of CGI can also take away some of the budget from other aspects of the film, just as overpaying an actor for his role can take away money better spent on the film. In the case of Jack the Giant Slayer, much of the CGI was put into the giants. For all of the money they spent, the giants do not look all that great. There are some unique designs, but there was better animation with the Pirates movies. It is important to bring up Pirates of Caribbean because Bill Nighy played Davey Jones as he did play one of the antagonists in Jack the Giant Slayer. Bill gave a great performance in his voice, but it was all lost with the level of animation of the giant. The giant cook had more facial movements than Bill's character. In fact, everyone in the film did a great job acting, which put it above Hansel and Gretel. Some of the armor designs looked very cool, yet it looked like they ran out of money halfway through making it, especially in the case of Princess Isabelle. The breastplate looked reminiscent of Alice or Snow White in their remakes, yet below the waist, it looked like a prop from a high school play. It was not even the case that it looked decorative and was not meant to be practical armor for battle; it just looked horrible. You can imagine the discussion behind the scenes:
"We've run out of money for props, and we're half way done with her armor."
"Most of the shots are from the waist up, so just spray paint some cardboard gold."
"Won't the audience notice?"
"They'll be too distracted with the giant picking his nose."
"We could have used a fraction of that $50,000 for her armor."
"Get back to work!"

Just as with Warm Bodies, Nicholas Hoult does a great job as Jack, being likable, believable, and adding heart to the role. Apart from the props and CGI, the only problem I had with the film was not their fault, but more the fault of George R. R. Martin with Game of Thrones. It is difficult to watch any medieval or fantasy type movie, or read another book without considering the high standard of realism that he puts into his books. There is a scene with the Princess and Queen, and the Queen says, "Having adventures is good; it will make you a better queen." The thought going through my mind was, "That's not what Cersei Lannister would say," and went on to consider the cunning and viciousness she would need to rise to the top. Around the same time, Jack's father, a farmer, is reading a story from a book to Jack. Again, I could only think of how Jack's father is too low born to know how to read. Even Eragon in the Inheritance Cycle could not read at first growing up on a farm. One last nit pick I had about the film was the battle strategy utilized at the castle. They pour boiling oil not onto the giants, but into the lake before the giants even arrived. Then without waiting for the giants to enter the water they lit the oil on fire. It is as if no one making the movie knew what boiling oil during a siege was actually used for. You poured it on the attackers to burn them alive. It is a great film regardless, with the quality of acting raising it higher than some of the other fairytale remakes.

Check out more: Alec Gillis Full Interview: Uncut