Technology Vs. Narrative
ILM’s Brevig has experienced the pitfalls of the overindulgence that complete freedom of expression can invite. “Now we can do anything, and if we build one giant creature, you can have a thousand of them for almost the same price. I’m looking forward to when the pendulum swings back, and there are only as many CG creatures as you need to tell a good story. Just because we have a bigger hammer at our disposal, doesn’t mean should use it at full force all the time.”

A time-honored cinematic truth was again proven in this vfx crowded year: Story and character are still the foundation of a successful film, no matter what visual pyrotechnics are brought to it. After having spoken to visual effects supervisors and lead animators at ILM, Digital Domain, Asylum and Uncharted Territory, one theme was universally agreed upon: vfx cannot be the emphasis of a film — story must come first, a director’s overall vision must be the controlling factor in a film for it to inspire the fascination that will lead viewers to be awe of the spectacle. It’s not just a question of less is more; it’s about suiting the quantity of vfx to the narrative scope — not vice versa. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, with its Nautilus Sub so large as to seem the size of a submergible Empire State Building, does not have any single scene that can compete on an emotional level with the impact of the resurrection of Tinker Bell in Peter Pan, though she is merely a few inches tall.

X2’s vfx had an explosive impact on audiences to kick-off 2003 summer movie season. ™ & © 2003 Twentieth Century Fox. Unless noted otherwise, photo credit: Kerry Hayes/SMPSP.

X2 is a perfect case of an even blend of vfx and narrative, in which the vfx are carefully created to support and not overwhelm the story. There is an unforgettable sequence when Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) gives her life to save her partners on the plane that lies in the path of a collapsing dam. To their credit, the effects of the plane and water enhance the grief stricken feelings of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and the other crewmen that are conveyed amid the turbulent spectacle.

T3 was a roller coaster ride, but unlike League, it never went quite so over the top as to obscure its characters with vfx. Its comedic overtones were more pronounced than in the first two films, both played in stone-cold Cameron style. Such humorous touches in T3 made the apocalyptic ending seem out of place. One is led to think that, like the Matrix, the narrative juice of Terminator did not truly warrant a trilogy.

Shelob, the giant spider, was just one of the many amazing creatures The Return of the King added to the trilogy’s mythos. Photo courtesy of XYZ RGB Inc. 2003 © New Line Prods. Inc.

Best in the comedic category was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl — and it is a prime example of vfx supporting the action of a film, and enhancing the performances through the seamless realism and imaginative fantasy of the digital effects. I doubt there’s a single viewer in the world that would come away from that film remembering the pirate ghosts over Johnny Depp’s hilarious performance. As an example of vfx carefully tailored to suit both humor and adventure, Pirates sets a new standard of excellence.

But the hallmark film of 2003, and not simply in terms of vfx, was undoubtedly The Return of the King. Philosophically it presents a fascinating milestone. In the optical era, effects were still theatrical — still an art of suggestion. But in the case of Return, we get the idea that director Peter Jackson never once had to compromise his vision, and hence was able to create a staggering epic, a 10-hour unity, in which vfx and performances co-mingle, creating the most powerful moviegoing experience seen in decades.