The uncanny valley of entertainment value
This image from GraphJam maps the entertainment value of SFX-laden movies onto the so-called "uncanny valley." The New Scientist suggests that despite the comic intention, it's a somewhat more incisive insight than the original valley, a pseudoscientific but compelling representation of how cartoons and robots become creepier the more realistic they are.
The entertainment value of CGI started to drop sharply just after it managed comprehensive realism ... Perhaps a lot of the entertainment value of '90s CGI was watching the progression of the technique as it expanded into new areas and pushed towards being 100% realistic.
The other side of the uncanny valley [New Scientist]
the latest
latest episodes
How the ooomph is Transformers merely mediocre?? The first time I went to see it in the cinema, I spent half the movie on the floor between the seats, searching for my jaw. As an animatin student, I take this as a personal insult (and besides, c'mon, if that wasn't entertaining, what is??)
transformers should prolly be closer to the ZOMG INCREDIBLE!!! 1
Pointless.
@1, perhaps you spent so much time between the seats that you missed the repetitive spin-flipping, the blatant disregard for physics, and the simple plot. I spent more time trying to figure out the girl's fingernails.
I still would have put it somewhere around "Impressive," however.
I think the problem stems from the slightly distorted world-view that some producers seem to have: if there's a problem with the movie in production and it's not going well, throw money at it to solve it. If you end up getting a better script or direction or acting out of it, great... but more often it's too late for that, and the money just goes into more effects.
Or you have a director like George Lucas who has no interest in directing actors and really just wants to do special effects.
The graph is flawed (I second the vote of ZOMG for the cgi in Transformers, if not the dramaturgy) but points out a fundamental truth, which is: movies that over-rely on cgi - especially for close-up flesh and blood characters - really do tend to blow.
Compare the scare factor of the creatures in The Descent with those in I Am Legend. They're almost identical - pale, veiny, naked, cannibalistic hominids, right?
In I Am Legend, which utilizes untold computing power and state of the art animation, they're about as scary as Nigel Longbottom falling off the broomstick in Harry Potter (my benchmark for non-convincing cgi).
In The Descent, which utilizes anorexic French gymnasts in Nosferatu makeup and latex, they make you poop yourself repeatedly.
The line is comming down when it hits the original star wars. Which actually had what, like 30 seconds of CGI? Is that 2001 back there pulling that line up?
So... somebody copied the uncanny valley graph and put movies on it according to... nothing. What is this valley supposed to be, as opposed to the actual uncanny valley? There seems to be no accompanying concept or argument, just an image that makes no sense-- the original Star Wars does not belong on a graph of CGI films, Transformers was Awesome, and what is Indy 4 doing there?
Ahhh, its the robot that is Uncanny, not the graph.
Makes sense.
Salsa, I think the point is that CGI as it advances closer to reality, the more revolting it becomes.
That said, it is someone of a misnomer because the real sucking is caused by incorrect use of the technology.
The original version of Star Wars: A New Hope has zero CGI in it. None. It was all matte painting, blue screen and models. Even the lightsaber effects weren't computer generated. This graph gets a massive FAIL. You can't use a film as a CGI benchmark when it has no CGI in it.
Note that the graph's turning around and soaring into the stratosphere is purely an article of faith.
It makes a little sense if you view it as how appropriate/non-gratuitous the CGI is. Not sure why Star Wars is on there at all, and I thought the CGI in Terminator 2 was great both effects-wise and story-wise for the time... moving on, Jurassic Park used CGI effectively, but only where necessary, so it would get a pretty high score.
The Matrix and Lord of the Rings were stories that couldn't be portrayed without lots and lots of CGI, but it never really felt like they were made just to show off CGI, and it usually enhanced rather than detracted from the films, so they score very highly.
I never saw Transformers, but from what I've heard it was mostly just eye candy without much story, so it scores lower. And then there's Indiana Jones 4, where fans were promised that CGI would be used very sparingly, yet in the first 20 minutes we're repeatedly shown CGI gophers. Completely inappropriate and unnecessary (they couldn't afford to film real gophers??), and badly done to boot. Move on to fake-looking monkeys and an ending that looks like it came straight out of a cutscene from a video game, along with the fact that the previous 3 movies did just fine with none or almost no CGI at all, and Indy 4's place at the bottom of the list seems quite proper.
Some people along this thread seem to have confused "entertaining" with "telling a good story". These two concepts may have some connection, but often as not there mustn't be any at all.
@Stratosfyr: I did state "being an animation student", thus implaying it was purely the CGI I was talking about. As to laws of physics, hell it's SciFi, and it's all about beautiful machines bashing other machines or else laying waste to virtually everything in there path, with some hot ass (Fox) and questionable wittyness (LaBeouf) thrown in the mix. The story's just there to support the action, not the other way around (as in, say, a good thriller or drama). And that's what most action/scifi titles are about, which is why they appeal more to men than to women.
So, summing up, Transformers had a HUGE entertainment value, depening on your interpretation of the word "entertainment". Flawless CGI, and I think I can tell :)
I still watch it at least once a month, it's so awe-inspiring (and it never becomes boring just because I already know the story. Ha! Point proven ;))
"Star Wars: A New Hope has zero CGI in it."
they death star in the briefing scene as well as the animation of a successful run, from the same scene are both computer generated images.