Week 1:

CGI is for LOsers!

“Why do some filmmakers say no to CGI?”

Some filmmakers like Christopher Waltz are against the use of CGI in films because filmmaking began as an artform of only acting. This meant if a film back then did not look as aesthetically pleasing but, had well acted characters, this film would be well recognised.

As time went on and more CGI was introduced to cinema such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, the demand for CGI increased drastically. This is because the idea of a super hero is something fictional in the sense that the elements used to bring these “super heroes” to life are not real therefore, filmmakers need to bring in CGI such as a laser blast that emits from someone’s eyes. Originally, a character with this ability is written in a comic book where acting is not something that dictates how good the story in that medium is unlike a film. In a comic book it works, in film adding this laser to a character overshadows their acting ability because the character being played would not work without this laser ability. Hence, some filmmakers are disappointed that CGI is becoming the main driving factor for how good a role is played.

The “loser” bit Waltz uses implies that CGI is lazy in the sense that an actor is heavily dependent on his CGI abilities within the film’s world and can sacrifice some of their acting skills because the CGI would be in the spotlight as the main driving factor for how good a scene or a character is to an audience.

What impression might these comments give to an audience?

Claims like the Waltz made, are to drive audience away from CGI heavy films because using the logic I explained earlier, if CGI is “lazy” and “for losers” because actors do not have to improve their acting abilities to be featured in CGI scenes, practical effects would however force an actor to improve their acting ability because they need to interact within a physical environment. So if a movie can only be good because of the acting, CGI would be rendered useless.

However, films like “Gravity” (2013) heavy rely on CGI in a way where actors do need to be aware of their non-practical and fake environment. This is because space scenes for example are impossible to film as of today and therefore are made digitally. This statement disproves the idea that using CGI is lazy.

Moreover, human beings are curious by nature, what I mean is that an audience would eventually get bored of a non-fictional form of media, we need bigger stories, stories that are alien to us to really keep us entertained. I believe, filmmakers should not sacralise a good story simply because acting is not the main driving factor. Even as of today, certain films with certain CGI elements like “Star Wars” and their “lightsabres” have custom built training grounds to teach their actors how to adapt to a fake element which does involve their acting skills.

Potential topics for my investigative study fmp

1- How close an actor is to a specific VFX based role.

Actors such as Robert Downey Jr. and Hugh Jackman are heavily associated with their CGI based character roles, Iron Man and Wolverine. Most audience tend to refer to them by their roles instead of their name. Whereas, you have other actors like Robert De Niro and Al Pachino, heavily being referred to by their names and when they are brought up in a conversation, how good their acting career has been- is the centre of the conversation, rather than one of their roles. Even when an actor plays a role with no VFX multiple times, they still are not associated with that role the same way VFX roles are. My question is, what makes audience give a new identity to these VFX based actors?

2- Human VS AI production: who can make the better production within a given timeframe?

I will conduct two live industry briefs of the same idea. One where I dominantly use AI and one where I do not use AI at all. In the aftermath, I will compare results and see where I worked better. For example, I can get someone to learn how to create a non VFX production using AI from scratch and compare how fast they learned that skilled in comparison to me starting a VFX production from scratch.

3- Virtual production VS green screens

Virtual production has rapidly emerged as a game changing alternative to traditional green screen filmmaking. Using LED walls powered by real time rendering engines like Unreal Engine, filmmakers can display digital environments directly on set, allowing actors to perform within immersive worlds instead of a blank backdrop. This topic relates to the “lazy” element I spoke about earlier in “CGI is for losers!” because it talks about how actors should interact with the CGI rather than it just be put on them in post-production.

Deepfakes

This video shows a computer-generated image of Queen Elizabeth II delivering a Christmas message. It looks and sounds exactly like her, but it’s not actually her. This technology, called “deepfake,” uses artificial intelligence to create realistic but fake videos, making it seem like someone is saying or doing things they never did. In this particular video, the deepfake Queen talks about current events and even performs a TikTok dance, highlighting how convincing these fakes can be.

Comparing: “The Mandalorian” deep fake with Queen Elizabeth’s deepfake

The Queen Elizabeth and Luke Skywalker deepfakes highlight the technology’s divergent paths of social commentary versus cinematic storytelling. Channel 4’s “Deepfake Queen” was a transparently fake satire created by a professional studio to deliberately warn the public about the dangers of misinformation, using the spectacle to deliver a message about trust. In contrast, the deepfake of a young Luke Skywalker in The Mandalorian was a narrative tool intended to be accepted as “real” within the story, famously showcasing how a fan’s version could surpass the official studio’s initial CGI efforts and lead to a new era of digital characters in film. While the Queen’s deepfake was designed to make you question what you see, Luke’s was created to make you believe in it.

Ethicality