One of the most commonly watched movies in my family as I grew up was The Great Muppet Caper. My family enjoyed other Muppet productions, although I didn't see an actual episode of the original Muppet show until I was married. My family now owns the first season on DVD and my children enjoy watching them. I find it entertaining trying to figure out how they manipulate the different muppets, particularly the big ones. Like any performance media their are mistakes made and you occasionally see someones head or hand. In the original pilot episode An End to Sex and Violence they zoom out during the credits so you can see what a filming actually looks like.
The Jim Hanson Company has been used by film, TV, and independent producers for the last 55 years. They work in both physical and digital effects, but I would say that they may be well known for their physical creations. Many people may ask how they are able to stay in business with the advent of CGI and the advanced images that can be produced now. Why create something physically when you can do it digitally without physical limitations?
I remember when the George Lucas digitally remastered the original Star Wars trilogy and they included a scene with Jabba the Hutt. However, many fans were up in arms about how Jabba was done digitally as opposed to with a physical creation. The original Jabba was done by the Jim Hanson Company and, as I understand, took about at least three people to work. The picture to the right shows the digital Jabba on the left and the "real" one on the right. On a side note, "jabba" is an English pronunciation of the Russian word (written in transcription as) "zhabba" which means toad. Another fun note. Chewbacca sounds like two Russian words, "chelavec" and "sabaca" which translate as "man" and "dog" respectively. I heard Lucas wanted to use foreign sounding words.
While I can't say that I was "up in arms" I was rather disappointed about the digital Jabba. Mostly because of the continuity. Jabba looked different. I can understand the reason for digitizing him - the biggest is that the scene with Jabba had been shot as part of the original filming, but they had a human actor playing Jabba (as Lucas wasn't sure what Jabba should look like. Even if they had used a physical Jabba they would have had to put the image in digitally anyway. It certainly made sense to just do it digitally.
The biggest reason I was disappointed about them doing Jabba digitally was because no matter how well the CGI is done, you can often see that it isn't real. Or instance, in the latest version of Alice in Wonderland a lot of it was shot with CGI. If you watch the Knave of Hearts when he walks, you can see a bounce in his step that isn't really natural. Like he's wearing drywall stilts, which is exactly what he is doing. I really enjoy that film and love the imagery they use, yet every time I see the Knave it pulls me out and wrinkles the illusion for me.
I could go through all kinds of examples of good and bad, but I there isn't enough time or space for that discussion. Physical models are not perfect either. But the thing is that such a creation is actually real and in the world, no matter how odd it is. In the behind the scenes of the movie Zathura the director explains that they used physical creations (people in suits) in place of digital images as they wanted to give the children actors something to react to. It is not everyone that can make a CG image look real. Again, in the behind the scenes for Who Framed Roger Rabbit they explain that Bob Hoskins (the actor for Eddie Valiant) was hired because he acted like there was a real cartoon rabbit in his world as opposed to nothing that was filled in later.
In the end, I can't complain too much as both mediums have their faults. Sometimes they are well done and many times they are not. Granted, if they are bad enough the film because a cult classic. Like the original Doctor Who - which I do love dearly. I guess that means that I just have to take them as they come.
The Jim Hanson Company has been used by film, TV, and independent producers for the last 55 years. They work in both physical and digital effects, but I would say that they may be well known for their physical creations. Many people may ask how they are able to stay in business with the advent of CGI and the advanced images that can be produced now. Why create something physically when you can do it digitally without physical limitations?
I remember when the George Lucas digitally remastered the original Star Wars trilogy and they included a scene with Jabba the Hutt. However, many fans were up in arms about how Jabba was done digitally as opposed to with a physical creation. The original Jabba was done by the Jim Hanson Company and, as I understand, took about at least three people to work. The picture to the right shows the digital Jabba on the left and the "real" one on the right. On a side note, "jabba" is an English pronunciation of the Russian word (written in transcription as) "zhabba" which means toad. Another fun note. Chewbacca sounds like two Russian words, "chelavec" and "sabaca" which translate as "man" and "dog" respectively. I heard Lucas wanted to use foreign sounding words.
While I can't say that I was "up in arms" I was rather disappointed about the digital Jabba. Mostly because of the continuity. Jabba looked different. I can understand the reason for digitizing him - the biggest is that the scene with Jabba had been shot as part of the original filming, but they had a human actor playing Jabba (as Lucas wasn't sure what Jabba should look like. Even if they had used a physical Jabba they would have had to put the image in digitally anyway. It certainly made sense to just do it digitally.
The biggest reason I was disappointed about them doing Jabba digitally was because no matter how well the CGI is done, you can often see that it isn't real. Or instance, in the latest version of Alice in Wonderland a lot of it was shot with CGI. If you watch the Knave of Hearts when he walks, you can see a bounce in his step that isn't really natural. Like he's wearing drywall stilts, which is exactly what he is doing. I really enjoy that film and love the imagery they use, yet every time I see the Knave it pulls me out and wrinkles the illusion for me.I could go through all kinds of examples of good and bad, but I there isn't enough time or space for that discussion. Physical models are not perfect either. But the thing is that such a creation is actually real and in the world, no matter how odd it is. In the behind the scenes of the movie Zathura the director explains that they used physical creations (people in suits) in place of digital images as they wanted to give the children actors something to react to. It is not everyone that can make a CG image look real. Again, in the behind the scenes for Who Framed Roger Rabbit they explain that Bob Hoskins (the actor for Eddie Valiant) was hired because he acted like there was a real cartoon rabbit in his world as opposed to nothing that was filled in later.
In the end, I can't complain too much as both mediums have their faults. Sometimes they are well done and many times they are not. Granted, if they are bad enough the film because a cult classic. Like the original Doctor Who - which I do love dearly. I guess that means that I just have to take them as they come.
No comments:
Post a Comment