Director's Commentary Notes/DVD Extra - 'Terror Takes Shape'

Unfortunately the Avatar DVD doesn't have a commentary, but I made notes for the other films. I probably won't use all of the information, but I noted down anything which I thought might be useful:

The Thing

-Carpenter wanted the Thing not to look like a typical man in a suit monster (and referred to Alien).

-The tentacles (in the dog scene) were operated off-camera. A reverse camera effect was used for the tentacles being pulled in, which gave the effect that they were spreading outwards.

-The alien ship was 'matte painted' (I will do some more research on this effect).

-Norris transformation scene - everything was built and on-set. Tongue effect - reverse action again.

-Spider - operated from underneath, legs pushed out.

-50 people operating the final monster in the climax.

-The camp was actually blown up, the later used as the set for the Norwegian camp.

'Terror Takes Shape' Documentary (DVD Extra)

-Opening scene used a model spaceship.

-Matte paintings (such as spaceship were edited in during post production.

-Careful lighting was used to to makes the monsters look convincing (hiding seams, etc)

-The fake stomach was operated with an interior mechanism with people inside the table.

-Arms replicated to be ripped off used rubber veins, gelatin and bones to make it look realistic. An amputee was used for the scene, and a prosthetic face of the actor was made for his face. The power of the jaws actually ripped the fake arms apart.

-The spider-head had a fully animated mechanical face.

-Stuff they put in the neck was explosive and accidently blew up for the take - a new head had to be made within a day.

-Carpenter didn't want "a guy in a suit".

-A whole detailed miniature set was made for the unused stop-motion sequence.

Alien

-The Nostromo was made using models.

-Matte painting/set combo (same as The Thing)

-"I believe if you can do it physically, do it. You could spend 100,000 dollars on this movement" - Great quote from Ridley Scott ( when referring to the movement inside the egg, which was actually his hands in rubber gloves).

-Acid blood through floor was actually acid going through polystyrene.

-The facehugger was made out of shellfish - actual organic matter to make it look realistic.

-The actor's didn't know what would come out during the chestburster scene. It was shot in one take with several cameras.

-An artificial chest was screwed to the table. Hurt was in an 'S' shape around the fake chest, and the operator was also under the table.

-The explosion of the ship was created by using a series of paintings.

Terminator 2

-Opening battle made with models (miniatures combined with full-scale explosions. Real location (an abandoned air-force base).

-T1000's blade arms are prosthetic until they morph - then it's CGI.

-The movement if the T1000 CGI had to be matched exactly with the physical movement.

-Nuclear nightmare scene - CGI/models.

-For the freezing T1000, prosthetics attached to an amputee were used (similar to The Thing). The shatter effect was created with a hollow puppet.

-T1000 reforming - mercury in reverse and CGI. Difficult because the model had to reflect the fire and sparks of the steel mill.

-For quick glimpses of the T1000, a guy wrapped in aluminium was used.

-Three T1000 puppets were used in the climax - one to get to blow up, one with articulated movent, and another to fall in the fire.

FS4 Research Update

Question: Creating Realism in Science Fiction: CGI vs. Physical Effects

The films I will be using for this project are: The Thing (1982), Alien (1979), Terminator 2 (1991) and Avatar (2009).

I will use The Thing as my main focus film because of the alien effects, which were all created physically. Although they were impressive for the time, I believe that the effects still hold up well today, despite the recent emphasis on CGI. My main focus will be on the big transformation scene, and I will also discuss the deleted stop-motion scene, which was cut because it didn’t look realistic enough. I chose Alien for the same reasons, especially for the ‘chest-buster’ scene and for the design of the alien itself. I also think it would be good to compare the actor’s relationship with the effects (as opposed to pretending they’re there and being added in post-production), and if this has any effect on the audience or realism. I might also refer to Prometheus briefly, because it would be interesting to compare the effects of a similar film made more than 30 years later.

I chose Terminator 2 because it uses both physical effects, such as prosthetics, and CGI. It often combines these two methods, for the sake of creating realism and not just for spectacle or convenience. For example, the ‘knife arms’ of the T1000 were prosthetics, until they morphed back into real arms. The T1000 is the main reason for choosing this film, as it was one of the first fully rendered animations of a person to be used in a major film. However, animatronics and other physical effects were used throughout the film, with the opening futuristic battle being a key point of discussion. I also think that it would be interesting to look at how models were used, such as the Terminator ships and the nuclear bomb scene. I might also refer to how the Nostromo ship from Alien was used in a similar way.

I thought that T2 would bridge the gap nicely between the physical effects from The Thing and Alien to Avatar, of which the vast majority is CGI. One of the main appeals of Avatar was its ground-breaking computer generated imagery, which I calculated would take over 2000 years to render on a regular computer! I will look at how particular effects were created, such as the use of motion capture, as well as the digital process. I will also research how this could affect the film’s budget and the industry, and possibly the audience, in terms of rising cinema prices. It would also be good to directly compare the CGI of Avatar to T2; bringing the T1000 to life cost $5.5million and took 8 months to produce, which ultimately amounted to just 3.5 minutes of screen time. This clearly shows the technological leap within less than 20 years; CGI is used in some way in almost every shot of Avatar.

This area of film appealed to me because I am interested in both science fiction and special effects, and how they are made to look realistic. The genre is probably more reliant on CGI than any other (apart from perhaps fantasy), but science-fiction needs to be plausible and have a basis in reality. Therefore, the effects should be realistic and be believable to audiences. A good quote to use from Rod Sterling (the maker of The Twilight Zone) is: "it is said that science fiction and fantasy are two different things. Science fiction is the improbable made possible, and fantasy is the impossible made probable”.

By the end of the project, I would like to have a clear list of advantages and disadvantages for both physical and computer generated effects, and what impact they have on realism. I would like to find out some of the technical processes, as well as what effect they can have on the audience and the industry as a whole.

Some of the books I will be using are:

'Special effects: the history and techniques'

'From Alien to The Matrix: reading science fiction film'

'Performing illusions: cinema, special effects and the virtual' actor

'Science fiction cinema: from outerspace to cyberspace'

'Alien: the special effects'

Other sources at the moment include:

-Film commentary (director’s quotes)

-Empire feature: 30 Years of Alien

-Website articles
-DVD documentary - Terror Takes Shape

I found a quote from Rod Sterling, the maker of The Twilight Zone, saying that:  "it is said that science fiction and fantasy are two different things. Science fiction is the improbable made possible, and fantasy is the impossible made probable."

I thought that this would be a good quote to use in the opening of my project, because it links directly to my main point about realism. I think that I could expand upon the concept further, and go into detail about how the genre as a whole needs to have a basis in reality, unlike the fantasy genre. 

Here are some key scenes from each of my films:
The Thing - The dog (first use of effects), Norris transformation, the climax (big Thing), stop-motion deleted scene.
Alien - Nostromo landing, chest buster, climax (air lock).
Terminator 2 - T1000 scenes (use of CGI), removing the head chip (prosthetics)
Avatar - need to rewatch, but most action scenes would be useful.

I'll also rewatch these films with the commentary to see if there's any interesting about the choice of effects or motivations.

There's a book in the library all about the special effects in alien, which will be very useful.

CGI Rendering, Stop Motion and Chest-Busters

I made the image above in a 3D animation program, Blender (following a tutorial very closely!). It includes all the basic tools need to create objects, characters, effects, and animations. In a film such as Avatar, dozens of seperate programs would be used, with each one focusing on a specific area, such as model design, lighting, movement, the environment or editing (a list of programs used can be found here).

I added a basic rotation of the Earth with the camera in a fixed position. The animation lasted for 60 frames, at a standard 24 frames per second, which is less than 3 seconds. I rendered the animation, which means that the program basically 'draws' each frame, and then they play in sequence. Because of my ancient computer, it took about an hour to render all 60 frames.

Before Avatar was released, James Cameron told audiences that each frame of finished film takes 30-50 hours to render, then double that up for 3D. 

So if that's 40 hours on average, and Avatar is 9720 seconds long (162 minutes), and it's 24 frames per second, then: 9720 x 24 = 233,280

So there are 233,280 frames in Avatar.

If each one takes roughly 40 hours to render, then: 233,280 x 40 = 9,331,200

Then double that for 3D, the whole of Avatar would take about 18, 662, 400 hours to render. That's 777600 days, or 2129 years. (That took ages, I hate maths).

Rather than releasing the film 2 millennia later, loads of highpower servers were used, such as the ones below (source).



Cameron is apparently planning to release Avatar 2 and 3 in 48 frames per second, becausehe belives that it "makes for better 3D". The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is shooting at 48fps.

But was it worth it? The film's profit shows that it probably was, and the effects created were very detailed and realistic.


The Thing experimented with a frame by frame method, although it was not nearly as technical. Stop-motion was used for the alien in the climax of the film, but Director John Carpenter didn't think that it looked believable to audiences, so it was deleted:

These particular examples show that, in this case, computer generated imagery is more effective than physical stop-motion.


Something else to consider when thinking about how believable something looks on screen is not just the effect, but the actor's reaction to the effect. When there is physically nothing in front of them, apart from perhaps a ball on a stick, they have to react to what they imagine is there, rather than what is there. In Alien, the actors apparently had no idea what would happen in the 'chest-buster' scene, and because everything in that scene was phyical, it lead to a more realistic reaction.


On a side note, The Dark Knight Rises was great, especially in Imax!

3 More Avatar Films On The Way

Link



If the main attraction of the first one was its visual effects, and if these are more of the same, will audiences start to lose interest? Probably not...

Initial Project Ideas

Proposed title: Believability (or maybe credibility/plausibility) in science-fiction films: physical effects vs. CGI

Focus film: The Thing (1982) to talk about all the physical effects

Supporting films: WestWorld (1973) or Alien (1979) for the same reason

Terminator 2 (1991) for the CG liquid Terminator

Avatar (2009) most of it is CGI

Resources so far from the library:

'Special effects: the history and techniques'

'From Alien to The Matrix: reading science fiction film'

'Performing illusions: cinema, special effects and the virtual' actor

'Science fiction cinema: from outerspace to cyberspace'

'Alien: the special effects'

I was going to talk about the genre in general, and then why special effects are so important, especially in relation to the audience. I would then talk about how believable the effects are in older and more recent film, and how they are created, as well as the impact they can have on the narrative and film as a whole.

Spiderhead!

A good scene from The Thing for physical special effects.