Investigative Study

WEEK ONE

Consider: “ Why do some filmmakers say no CGI?”

To promote the authenticity or realism of their films. This is an attempt for marketing and creating a USP within their studios.

Has anyone else said similar things about VFX?

  • Christopher Nolan is known for minimizing CGI and favouring practical effects — especially in Tenet, Dunkirk, and Oppenheimer.

  • Quentin Tarantino has expressed scepticism about digital effects, favouring film stock and analogue methods.

  • Martin Scorsese has critiqued blockbuster filmmaking (including VFX-heavy films), calling them more like “theme parks” than cinema.

If we’re considering Christopher Nolan then perhaps directors want to create a USP that others cannot achieve and where CGI is so widely accessible, the USP seems less fascinating when CGI is announced. Otherwise individuals like Tarantino seem to prefer less CGI due to their lack of trust in art done by computers and done by Visual Effects Specialists, suggesting that it could be the lack of creative control that a director has when hiring CGI Specialists. Furthermore, individuals like Scorses, who has referred to the use if excessive CGI as films that are like ‘theme parks’, may want to bring the art of filmmaking to narrative and concept over advancements and aesthetics.

This being said, these directors and many likewise directors often do use VFX but they distance themselves from the idea of “CGI-heavy” or “synthetic” filmmaking.

What impression might these comments give to the audience?

The audience may undervalue the immense creative effort and technical skill that go into modern visual effects.

  • Do such claims help or hurt visual effects as an art form?

It hurts the art and efforts of VFX creators. By celebrating the absence of CGI, these statements imply that digital effects are a form of cheating, rather than a creative right. This erases the complexity and innovation involved in VFX.

  • Reflect on how VFX labour is made invisible by these comments:

The VFX/CGI employees will not be credited for the film but the Studio owners and actors will gain the credit for making this film. Failing to acknowledge the many VFX artists who did contribute to the film in invisible yet crucial and significant ways

  • Does it imply digital media is somehow less “true” than analogue film?

It may give independent/smaller film makers the impression that traditional film methods as well as physical SFX can be achieved, whereas in reality it was expensive and advanced software and VFX specialists that have achieved blockbuster films. These claims reinforce the idea that digital media is somehow less “true” or “authentic” than analogue film, when in reality a film is always fiction, so it is never raw, ‘true’ or ‘authentic’, no matter if CGI is used or not. It can also lead to the distortion of perceptions for both audiences and small/starting out filmmakers and film producers.

If you were interested in this discussion, how could you develop a research paper on this topic?

Why did Christoph Waltz say, “CGI is for Losers”? In what ways are filmmakers controlling the narrative of VFX.

In what ways do high-profile figures in film, such as Christoph Waltz, contribute to shaping elitist narratives about CGI and VFX within the industry?

How does the rejection of CGI by figures like Christoph Waltz contribute to the marginalization of VFX worker and reinforce elitism in the film industry?

Topics of interest:

  • The elitist side of the film and Visual Industry.
  • Timeless films in the industry and why will they remain with us forever.
  • AI’s role and is it taking over?
  • Is film dead?
  • How VR challenges traditional narrative structure
  • Accessibility vs. exclusivity in VR filmmaking
  • Film festival culture and the exclusion of digital/genre films
  • Scriptwriting with AI (e.g., ChatGPT/Screenplay AIs)
  • Ethical and creative boundaries
  • Algorithmic Influence on Creative Content
  • Outsourcing digital work to lower-wage countries
  • The disappearance of drama, indie thrillers, or adult comedies in favour of superhero and horror IPs
  • Learning film through YouTube, TikTok, or even AI tools
  • Use of CCTV, drone footage, and digital realism in storytelling
  • Changing audience expectations (immersive experiences, shorter attention spans, interactivity)
  • Does CGI-heavy blockbuster risk feeling “dated” faster than classics shot on film?
  • Or can new storytelling forms (VR, AI) create future timeless works?

Does anyone know the origin of this image of The Queen? What can you find out about it?  

Deepfakes.

Many Channel 4 audiences were upset by seeing the Deepfake clip of the Queen. I believe it was because a serious figure, the Queen, serious matters like Covid and the event, the Queen’s speech was ridiculed and taken lightly.

Many audiences initially believed it and were put in a false sense of security; Channel 4 in itself is a verified and trustable news channel, so many audiences could have received that as a means of pointing out how much influence and control Channel 4 has over audiences’ thoughts, feelings and attention. The Queen’s deepfake speech started off with stating that the Queen is on Channel 4 because she needs to speak without anyone putting words in her mouth, This was initially suggesting to the audience that there is something alarming that is to be announced. Therefore the audience would be brought to an attentive and cautious sense, this sense then was toyed when revealing the video was a fake when the Queen started making jokes and dancing.

Short Article on Deepfakes, Holograms and Chatbots and How Far can they Manipulate:

Some argue that deepfakes are wrong if they’ve are non-consensual, especially with the consideration that deepfakes of the dead have been made and that can have a shocking impact upon the family. This can lead to the question of where the impact of deepfakes can lead to.

Trust of many authoritative and important figures can be broken. Also, false narratives can be made so easily and with all the distractions that media provides already, as well as the lack of verification. People can start to easily feed into a false and misleading views, without even realising and before you know it, a fake narrative has been cultivated. This is already seen within Media and News just through fake headlines – a simple text. The impact of an actual figure: their dialogue, body language and reputation could have a strong impact on audiences. However, with the common use of deepfakes, audiences would probably be aware that deepfakes are everywhere and this would just result in a great level of mistrust and frustration within the audiences.

For example, people may start demanding deepfakes of their deceased beloved ones as a way of seeing them again. In the past and traditionally, some grieving people can resort to finding ‘psychic’ people that can ‘talk’ to the dead; what is so obviously fake can be means of great importance to others, Therefore, this leads to a new ground in the visual world where grieving people turn to deepfakes.
For example, a few years ago, Kanye worked with a production company called Kaleida to create the “holographic resurrection” of Robert Kardashian Sr, Kim Kardashian’s Dad. It was a present to her and her family on her birthday. The hologram of Rob expressed pride in her accomplishments and referenced their shared memories and heritage.  The projection reportedly used a thin gauze (“Holonet”) to achieve the illusion, employing traditional techniques like Pepper’s Ghost illusions (rather than a “true” hologram, since fully three-dimensional holographic projection is still largely experimental).

While many found this fascinating, a lot of people pointed out on how disturbing it is to make a life size hologram of someone who has passed and then to show it to their loved ones. Kim Kardashian’s and her family themselves were not offended by the hologram but were deeply touched.
Kim stated, “A special surprise from heaven. A hologram of my dad. It is so lifelike and we watched it over and over, filled with lots [of] tears and emotion … I can’t even describe what this meant to me and my sisters, my brother, my mom.”

This leads to the question of where the use of deepfakes, holograms and likewise digital arts can lead to in the future. Whether it can just take over people’s identities but take over people’s emotions and memories. Robert Kardashian’s hologram shows the technical ability to re-create someone’s face, voice, and even mannerisms with enough data. This brought up such an overwhelming and astounding impact on the family. It really shows how convincing illusions can evoke authentic emotions. The family grieved, cried, and felt a sense of connection to someone who wasn’t really there. They started grieving over a hologram of a person that ultimately doesn’t exist.

Historically, people have turned to psychics or spiritualists to feel connected to the dead. Holograms and AI could become a far more persuasive “medium.” This makes us question if deepfakes, holograms, visual art alike and even chatbots will take over the jobs of psychics that claim to see and speak to the dead, catching the attention of desperate people riddled with grief. Could deepfakes become a new method of grieving and remembering loved ones? The possibility could be highly likely but only if that attention and focus of creating this is there.

Development points if I continue with this topic:

    • Companies have already begun experimenting with this (e.g., AI “memorial chatbots” trained on a loved one’s texts, videos, and social media).
    • manipulation of memory and carrying on the work of people.

WEEK TWO