For a dearly departed friend

A good friend of mine's little lady lab passed away a couple weeks ago at the ripe old age of fifteen, so here is my tribute to what she looked like as a pup.  Rest in peace, old gal.

Digital effects are dazzling, but only in the right hands.

     Just as politicians keep making the same mistakes over and over again while civilians remain more aware of the true problems at heart, the same has been starting to go for the relationship between filmmaker and audience. Despite the same repeating negative reviews, filmmakers continue to draw out these same mistakes movie, after movie, after movie.

     I watched Oz the Great and Powerful last night, and I've been trying to put my finger on why it sucked so much. Then I realized that the only way to describe it's failure is to define what made movies such as Hugo and Life of Pi such a wild success.

For going on the last decade, much of technology has ultimately reached its peak, and included in that realm is the sophistication of computer animation/effects. Film after film is being released that expects to impress audience and critics alike by putting every ounce of energy into the animation budget, sacrificing a good base script in the process. The day the film industry regains its dignity is the day that people realize that, just like true love, a successful movie cannot be bought with all the money in the world. Hugo was a stunning movie, a one of a kind which used dazzling computer generated effects within an earthly, non-magical, historically-based reality. The effects were not a crutch for the script; on the contrary, they were implemented to enhance an already successful script by allowing it shimmer just as much visually as it did emotionally. With or without the glitter, Hugo is a brilliant movie, and it would STILL be a brilliant movie if it had been executed with the same script and actors 40 years worth of technology ago. A fresh coat of wax on a sleek pristine Porsche will turn heads, but a fresh coat of wax on a 1991 Civic that has survived about 15 fender benders and 2 pissed ex wives will make pasersby wonder why the hell you are trying to draw even more attention to your dented up piece of crap.

     I took a digital painting class in my Bachelor's program in illustration, with an accomplished professor at the helm, and he told us one of the most important things I have learned at school - that the computer is not there to make good art for you. Only with the prerequisites of proper human skills learned through paper, pencil, and persistence, can the computer help you; as it is only there to enhance what YOU are capable of doing. Film is art, and just like a digital painting, computer effects are only as good as the meticulous humanity that forms the armature.

     

     What it comes down to is this: When a movie's production relies on money, what will come out of it is money that will be spent within a year. When a movie's production relies on humanity, what will come out of it is a memory that outlives its cast and crew.

I'm not saying that money is not important. By all means, last week I read a friend of mine's TV pilot script, and I told him that it was so brilliant that he dare not attempt to film it until he attains the proper budget to do it justice. But using your budget as a crutch is en entirely different story. Superficiality and money are the fruit-cradling serpent of modern society's Garden of Eden. The easy way out is obviously temping and people will continue to use it until the end of time. But memories don't lie, and neither do reviews. You get what you give, and a movie isn't going to stay with people if the ace up your sleeve is your effects budget.

     You know what an effects budget is gold for? Advertising; Short films, anywhere from ten seconds to 5 minutes, that are designed to grab you visually so that you associate given product with imagery so dazzling you can taste it. Because the truth is that visual dazzlement is only interesting for about that long. The trailer for Oz was absolutely beautiful. Because it was a trailer. It was used to promote something, which is a perfect use for beautiful digital effects. Unfortunately, when the feature film was exposed to us, we were opened up to the unfortunate fact that the directors were going to try and use this song and dance to keep us interested in a 2 hour and ten minute-long endeavor.

     Part of the reason I like the video game industry is because while this particular issue exists in the gaming realm as well, its presence WILL directly affect the revenue drawn by a game. If a shitty movie is fluffed by pretty images, it will still rake in millions of dollars if it's well advertised and/or is aimed at children or simpletons. But if a game has sick graphics but really really horrible gameplay, people are not going to buy it. The game makers will actually get what they deserve for making a bad game, and are forced to learn from what makes great games so great if they want to keep feeding themselves. Now, I know that sounds a little harsh considering game making is a much more difficult field to make money in. But at least they have an incentive. Movie reviews can stink to high heaven, however if a movie is even budgeted enough that it appears on a big screen in the first place, the filmmakers are already swimming in bathtubs of cash before the first review is even written.

 

     Well Oz, take a page from your own script:

     There are lots of good movies in the world; but you don't want to make a good movie, you want to make a great one.

RIP, old blog.

I somehow lost access to the secondary account I used exclusively for my blog, so instead of going to the ends of the earth to find out how to get back to it, I am going to lay it to rest whilst using this as an opportunity to start anew in the blogosphere.  But incase you are interested, it is a pretty extensive portfolion of my stuff from 2010 to now.  

samdegen.blogspot.com

Here are some recent highlights/reposts from my old blog, just to have something here.

Stuff I did during my 6 months travelling Israel:

 A Back to The Future painting for the Bottleneck May 2013 Gallery.

A live model painting I did a year ago in in my last semester and never posted.

And for an extra buck, I also paint these nifty little watercolor portraits for my peers and beyond.