Tuesday, March 20

Surf's Up

Surf's Up trailer.

It's a shame what Hollywood has done to CG animation. They have made the same film about 10 times now. Taken a creative art-form and moulded into a stuck record of a money spinner. It has to be the least innovative category of film ever. Unlike most movies which are made from a varying mix of many clichés, this genre is built out of just one! (That is, until Pixar periodically come along and add to it.)

On the Surf's Up trailer, check the Sony Animation Studios logo at the start… It is very Pixary - big, clean, widely-spaced type sitting on a white background, with stylistic shadows. Sony have simply bought up a load of animators and chained them to computers with instructions to remake a load of derivative crap. Actually, 'derivative' implies more originality than is due. And they have paid some PR firm to create the illusion that they have heart and and charm by mimicking superficial traits of others that do. [Revere the gorgeous Pixar title].

I can imagine a scenario in which Big Corp. hires some management consultants to find out why employee-owned Fun Co. is so successful. The management consultants spend 3.5 billion dollars on a 5 year research plan in 18 countries, and discover that things like 'enthusiasm' and 'smiling' are "like an international language" and can increase sales.

They then hire some another multi-million dollar company who will use the cutting-edge research findings to train Big Corp. workers in how to strain muscles on the front of their head to emulate being happy. And other things, like at what elevated frequencies to speak at to emulate enthusiasm. In my imaginary scenario, people buy suits to make presentations that include graphs that show a positive correlation between mood-enhancing behaviours exhibited and customer satisfaction. Of course, the presenter does not leave the matter on such an altruistic note, he will then go onto explain that the reason you care about whether people are satisfied or not is because it can impact profits.

That's what comes to mind when I see the Sony Pictures Animation logo… something that looks like it looks tasteful but isn't quite. Like the difference between the genuine and the fake smile. Reading into it too far most likely.

On a related note, even having ethics and integrity is now a marketing gimmick. For fake decency, take the insurance company More Than. It has now got the innocent smoothies ads. They avoid the unpopular 'corporate' vibe by paying a company to make them an advert that looks like it was made by a couple of play-school kids. The whole world is taking the piss!


--

And the new Shrek trailer is not better. It just reveals loads of new, ugly shots with no colour palette - a palette of murky grey. The people look like a bad impression of the SIMs - and to create the impression of uniqueness, the cloned extras are assigned a randomised murky hue and facial distortion [pic]. The shot of Shrek throwing a bottle at a boat is staggeringly flat and lifeless [pic]- especially considering the subject matter - although most other shots are equally uninspiring. Shrek 3 already looks like the inevitable, crap, videogame spin-off it will later become.

I am just dissing the art here, not the script. I am saying the film is not made by people that love the visual image.

For a great example of a lack of care and quality in matters visual, look at the word 'THE' in title 'SHREK THE THIRD'. It has just been been scaled down and stuck in the middle. This destroys all the sense of scale and material of the type. Even their crummy shrek texture has been shrunk on that word. Is the word farther away? What possible explanation is there? If this operation had been done by somebody that cared, then the serifs on the text would not simply by shrunk like that - the features of the type should be on the same scale, with the effect of the smaller type seeming more rounded than the larger type. The brutal shrinking has also made it look higher contrast.

Minutiae like that make such a big difference. The difference is simply, quality. The Ratatouille trailer is the perfect antidote to the shrek blues.

Another long one, sorry. If you read all the way through, post a comment citing issues raised, to flout your industrial-strength attention span in front of other reader(s). Non-topical issues are also fine. I'll take whatever I can get.

2 Comments:

At 4:04 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like Dreamworks but their films do feel a bit like they're off a factory production-line.

I recently stumbled across Pirates of Silicon Valley (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7941901498664355924&q=pirates+of+silicon+valley+duration%3Along) on Google Video, so your post conjured a parallel between Apple's passionate, personal touch (Jobs/Pixar) and Microsoft's unitiated, machine-like tone (Gates/Dreamworks).

A good example is the extra characters in the Shrek 3 trailer, which look a little like--good--video-game characters, whereas the extras in The Incredibles are much more natural.

Still, Pixar produces a film a year, and I think Dreamworks go for two a year, maybe more!

Whatever.

 
At 7:05 AM , Anonymous Nate said...

I agree, the fully cgi films are becoming bland. One that I think actually did a good job was Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It had nothing to do with Final Fantasy, but had a great variety of scenes. The charachters were very lifelike for the releasing in 2001.

As far I as am concerend they can push our all the crap they want. It might make some advancement in the technology. Or maybe the employees at said crap producers might leave and start their own productions. Much like Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington left microsoft and started Valve.

At least cgi in regular films is getting better. Many films are done entirely in "green screen" rooms with only a few actors.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home