special effects Tagged Articles at Cinematical

See, that's what you get for playing around with missiles. As is usually the case with any film that deals with explosives and missiles that are launched from helicopters, unfortunate accidents will sometimes occur. With that said, a special effects assistant was injured on the set of Charlie Wilson's War when a simulated stinger missile accidentally exploded. The man (whose name was not released) was rushed to a nearby hospital where he is currently listed in critical condition.

The film, which is based on the book written by George Crile and scheduled to be released this Christmas, stars Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and is directed by Mike Nichols. The story follows congressman Charlie Wilson's (Hanks) top secret efforts to assist rebels in Afghanistan during their war with the Soviets. None of the stars were on set during the explosion (which is under investigation), and there's no word on whether the accident will delay production on the film. The incident comes only a few months after assistant propmaster Nick Papac was killed in a motor vehicle accident on the set of The Kingdom.

One thing I love about the guild awards is their need to break things down as specifically as is tolerable. The Oscars only satisfy if you're simply looking to award films with general categorization, but guilds and societies satisfy the more detailed classifications. For example, there is only one Oscar given for Best Visual Effects, but there are nine awards given in different motion picture categories by the Visual Effects Society.

The VES has announced their nominees for their 5th annual awards, which will be given out February 11. Some of the specific honors include Outstanding Animated Character in a Live Action Motion Picture (no, Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties is not nominated), Outstanding Animated Character in an Animated Motion Picture (read: computer animation), Outstanding Created Environment (think green screen scenes), Outstanding Models and Miniatures (good to see they still exist!) and Outstanding Compositing. There are also awards given separately to both the best effects in an effects-driven movie and the best effects in a non-effects-driven movie (called "supporting visual effects"), an award for best in-camera effect ("special effects") and an award for single best visual effect (very specific -- though only Children of Men's nomination lists a distinct sequence).

As much as I complain about CGI in movies, I do recognize and respect the few films that have used computer effects well. The truth is, some bad movies have great digital effects that go under-appreciated, which is far more tragic than the so-so movies that are ruined by weak CGI. Sure, Tron is a guilty pleasure for me and many others, but its only real worth is in its place in film history. Other movies that are important for their advancement of digital effects include Forrest Gump, Cliffhanger and The Perfect Storm -- none of which needs to be thought of for any other reason.

Popular Mechanics has listed these four films with six other (better) milestones. Many of them are not surprises; everybody thinks of Terminator 2: Judgment Day when thinking of significant digital effects, even though it wasn't even the first movie to feature morphing (Willow is not included in the ten, but it is referenced). Jurassic Park is also obvious, but then, this isn't really an opinion-based list. It is a chronological top ten based on real, monumental breakthroughs. There are a few on the list, such as Cliffhanger, that I didn't even know were of importance. Did you know it was the first film to use digital effects as an eraser?

So, I may have to take a look at this list whenever I'm about to curse the existence of computer effects. A lot of the worst effects are appropriately featured in movies that are already terrible, anyway (personally, I think The Lord of the Rings and its CGI fall into this worst/terrible category, but I probably shouldn't be admitting this, especially since it is on the list).

What do you think was the most important advancement in special effects history (pre-digital era included)?

Related stories:

Visual Effects Oscar Down to 7 Contenders

Ray Harryhausen's Greatest Hits

Every year I'm shocked at how few nominees there are for the visual effects Oscar. Typically it's down to three. A few times it has been as little as two (the last year was 1995) and occasionally there's only one title worthy of the award (see 1990), which is just presented as a "Special Achievement Award," as it was called for most of the '70s when there was no official category or annual obligation to recognize special effects.

But long ago it could be anywhere from 5 (last was in 1979) to 14 (check out 1940!). So why are there so few noms these days? Doesn't it seem like most Hollywood movies these days have special effects? Well, most probably do, but technically they don't all fit the requirement for the category. According to the Wikipedia, the major determiner of eligibility is whether or not the effects are used to present something that can not otherwise be filmed without help from effects artists. The Academy Awards website, however, states that the determining factors are defined by the Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee, which means the factors might be different each year. It also states that the maximum number of films selected for the preliminary shortlist is seven.

This year's seven are: Casino Royale, Eragon, Superman Returns, X-Men: The Last Stand, Night at the Museum, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Poseidon. Surprisingly missing, says Variety's report, are Charlotte's Web and Flags of Our Fathers. Shockingly missing, says I, is Snakes on a Plane -- that snake-vision effect was genius (okay, I kid).

Before the three finalists are announced on January 23, the Visual Effects committee will watch 15-minute reels of each of these seven shortlisted pictures and then vote on their choices for the nominees. My prediction: Pirates, Superman and X-Men.

In what surely will come as no surprise to anyone who has seen a big-budget film out of Hollywood lately, digital effects are transforming the way movies are made and giving filmmakers new opportunities to show things on screen they could only dream about a few years ago. Over at the New York Times, they have a pretty good article that explains how digital effects are used by filmmakers to enhance several recent films, including Director Tony Bill's WWI story Flyboys.

Digital effects have been around for quite awhile and really came into the spotlight when a computer generated stained-glass knight dropped from the window of a church and started trying to kill people in Young Sherlock Holmes. This film has the distinction of being one of the first, if not the first, to use CG effects in such a way.

The first time I fully realized that Hollywood had gone slap happy for CGI was when I saw Jan de Bont's remake of The Haunting (1999). I am a huge fan of Robert Wise's original 1963 version which, with the exception of a door that seems to breathe, scarcely has a special effect to its name. It's a masterpiece of subtle horror, while the remake is an atrocity of in-your-faceness; Wise gave us eerie cries in the night, while de Bont's protagonist is attacked by a four poster bed.

Sure, CGI has its place. Used in concert with other techniques it can be quite effective. It's when filmmakers refuse to acknowledge the limitations of the process and turn out features that look like extended cut scenes from video games (XBox if we're lucky, PS-1 if we aren't), that CGI gets a bad name.

Along these lines, Rob Wright has a cool article called "CGI Gone Awry: The Worst Special Effects of the Computer-Generated Era" up over at twitch guru. After establishing a few ground rules (no B-movies, reasonable expectation of quality, etc.), Rob explores some of the worst sins committed in the name of computer-generated imagery. The article is broken down into:

1. Bad CGI Orgies: Wall to wall CGI badness like The Hulk, Van Helsing, and the aforementioned The Haunting.
2. Giant Leaps Backward: CGI-heavy films that represent a drop in quality from their predecessors like Terminator 3.
3. Why Didn't They Just Use Real Animals: Exactly what I was saying during the deer scene in The Ring 2.
4. The Effects Were Great Except: A single digital blemish in an otherwise solid film, like the digital Jabba the Hut in the re-release version of Star Wars.
5. Showstoppers: Similar to the previous category, but this single case of bad CGI is so heinous it brings the rest of the film down with it, such as the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns.
   

I don't agree with everything Rob has to say -- I didn't think that bit he picked out from Spider-man was all that noticeable -- but he makes some good points and the article is a fun read.

When you think about it, there are really only two reasons why someone would travel to New Zealand: 1) Their favorite color is green or 2) They have business with Peter Jackson. While it's been rumored, Jackson does not officially own the entire country of New Zealand ... yet, but he does do a lot of work there. Top secret work. I've heard the words 'post production' used, though I feel they're just code for something much much bigger.

Not long ago, Denzel Washington traveled to New Zealand and revealed to a newspaper there that he had met with Peter Jackson about using the Lord of the Rings director's WETA visual effects workshop to handle the effects on a film Washington will be directing. As of now, the only film Washington is scheduled to direct is The Great Debaters, based on the true story of a Wiley College professor who assembles the school's first debate team, only to watch them go on to challenge Harvard in the national championship. Not for nothing, but I can't imagine a film about a debate team would require the intense special effects Peter Jackson and his team are capable of. So, could this be a different film? Washington noted that the film would most likely be released in two years. According to IMDB, The Great Debaters is set to bow sometime in 2008. I don't know, you be the judge.

Now that we've seen bluescreen technology abused in the recent Star Wars prequels, it might be more difficult for some people to appreciate Arthur Widmer, who died of cancer at 92 on May 28. In the 1950s while working for Warner Brothers, Widmer developed the Ultra Violet Travelling Matte process, which would evolve into bluescreen (and greenscreen, orangescreen, etc.); one of the first films to use his techniques was 1958's The Old Man and the Sea.

Widmer received a special lifetime achievement Academy Award in 2005, mostly for his work with bluescreen, but also for helping develop 3-D, widescreen, and other special effects for Warner and, later, Universal. Before his time at the studios, he also worked on film processes at Kodak. He retired in 1979.

As the summer movie season is upon us, it is hard to ignore Widmer's influence. How many movies playing in the next few months use blue screen? A lot. Some might say we depend on it too much. But without this technology, many of our favorite movies of the past 30 years would not have been possible.

Digital Domain is one of the biggest special effects companies in Hollywood. It is no Industrial Light and Magic, but it has its share of the industry, having worked on such blockbusters as Titanic and, umm, Stealth. Sure, they've done some bad work (The Time Machine and the first X-Men were pretty awful-looking), but I think they did an amazing job with The Fifth Element, even though it too is consistent with the company's lack of ability to create seamless visuals. Nearly every one of their films has a certain artificiality about it; ILM is typically better at putting real people together with CGI.

Anyway, to the point: the 13-year-old company has just been acquired by Wyndcrest Holdings, LLC, a firm led by demolitions expert director Michael Bay and investor John Textor, who will both now sit on Digital Domain's Board of Directors. Carl Stork, formerly a Microsoft executive and currently a principal at Wyndcrest, has been appointed CEO of the company, replacing Scott Ross, who will remain a consultant. While it is generally a good move to invest in special effects companies these days, as they are being touted as more important than movie stars, I can't figure out a specific motivation behind the buy. Not that there needs to be anything more to it than money -- I mean this is Hollywoood -- but I like to think that most creative people have some other interests in the world besides a paycheck. Oh wait, I forgot -- I'm talking about Michael Bay.

Digital Domain worked on Bay's film Armageddon in 1998; they have no involvement in his current project, Transformers.