Chris Landreth might have the solution. Photo credit: Shira Avni.

I’ve always thought that — while the pencil is clearly a tool — a faithful, already perfect servant — the computer is more like taking on an idiot savant partner. You have to work with the computer, which is great at some things and dreadful at others.

Adding to the frustration, CG isn’t fully formed by a long shot and its development is out of our hands and maybe we would be smart to wash our hands of the whole affair… But then there is its potential to fulfill our most obsessive desires — an altogether dangerous combination. This doesn’t mean we can’t get on top of this technology but awareness is essential because when we are enthralled, we are vulnerable.

This enthrallment, particularly the feeling of being so close to the goal after all these years without quite being there, may be a bigger factor than you’d think. It might explain the compulsion to go photoreal before the tools are really up to the job: the miscalculated use in Toy Story of full frontal realism in the human characters even though they contrasted badly with the total believability of the toys; the creepy near-realism of the human characters in Shrek are just two examples of less than clear judgment at work.

And yet, at the same time, the goal is still so far away: eight years after Toy Story, explosions are still far easier to achieve than getting a hand to grab a shirt. This is enough to make anyone crazy.

But it doesn’t end here: there are still more complicating factors.

By taking the illusion so much further, CG throws a whole new spotlight on the dilemma of animated realism. The strength of any medium lies in its ability to reveal truth. An essential element of that ability grows from the underlying relationship between the medium’s inherent properties and its content. But how can we achieve that relationship with a technology whose raison d’etre is so closely tied to the imitation of another medium?

As long as CG is used to achieve photorealism, it will have to deal with that built in dichotomy — that there is a gap between what it appears to be (something recorded) and what it is (something invented). What we have to be aware of here is that the gap itself communicates a deep message that has to be accounted for in our storytelling.

There is also the lag in achieving photorealism between human characters and just about everything else. Part of that lag is undoubtedly technological but another part is in the thinking.

The original source of the blockage comes from that continued attachment to classical approaches. But the longer it goes on, the more complicated it becomes. Client expectation, practices that were set in place when the technology was more limited and just sheer complacency now all play a role. Meanwhile, the films suffer from an inconsistency in design and movement that makes the communication gap even wider.

This only confirms the importance of moving to the next stage before the first one becomes an orthodoxy.

But don’t economics prove that CG should just carry on with the approach established in Finding Nemo: high realism in the settings, non humans as the stars and a cartoony approach for the humans? A conservative route, yes, but a popular one.

But that presents yet another brand new dilemma. If we don’t address the issues CG raises about photorealism, particularly around the issue of human characters, there is a real risk that we will lose control over the whole thing. Never has an animation technology been so enticing or so threatening to the live-action industry. One thing we can bet on is that they will want to control and exploit this technology. If we don’t set the agenda, they will.

And have we really come all this way just so that live-action producers can extend the careers of aging action heroes, create new characters that seem totally real but require no star treatment and make films that can carry on production rain or shine? I don’t think so.

What a can of worms we’ve opened here. But don’t despair, there are solutions. And yes, they do involve Chris Landreth — I haven’t forgotten, I promise.

Only thing is you’re going to have to wait till next time to find out what they are. Yes, I know it was supposed to be a two-part series and officially it still is, so the last installment will be the first part of the new series. Given that this is, after all, only the most important issue facing animation today, I think we need to give it just as much time as it needs to be properly explored.

Meantime, meditate on the special traits of CG that we’ve uncovered so far and try to see which other ones you can uncover. See you next time.

Ellen Besen studied animation at Sheridan in the early 1970s. Since then she has directed award-winning films both independently and for the NFB, worked as a film programmer and journalist, taught storytelling and animation filmmaking at Sheridan and given story workshops at many institutions and festivals, including the Ottawa International Animation Festival. She is the director of The Zachary Schwartz Institute for Animation Filmmaking, an online school that specializes in storytelling and writing for animation.