Did CGI kill the movie star?

It is no secret that the movie industry is always trying to outdo itself. Hollywood always has to have the hot new actor, the most intriguing storylines, and the most impressive director. Making movies is first and foremost a business, with the goal ultimately being to make a profit. Everything down to what music should be played at what time is calculated in order to produce a film that will attract a mass viewership. So it is no surprise that with the development and expansion of modern technology, the use of computer-created visual effects in movies has soared. However, including these effects in a film does not insure a box office success. While the use of computer-generated imagery, more commonly referred to as CGI can be impressive, when done poorly it hinders a movie’s overall quality.

Before special effects were thought of as the flashy cinematic spectacles they are today, they were basic elements needed in order to provide the movie goer with a complete experience. They began with simple animation of cartoons drawn on paper. Usually this method was used only in a movie that was all animation, with no live actors. In order to create environments that would otherwise not exist, directors would use miniatures. They would create cities or far off galaxies from small models, and use camera angles in order to force perspective. Unlike other special effects of the past, this technique is still used today, in movies such as The Lord of the Rings. From there movie makers used paintings, makeup, and stop-motion to bring their ideas to life on screen. (Time)

While movies like Star Wars and Tron were among the first to use CGI, it is director Steven Spielberg and animation company Pixar that created the first completely computer generated character. In their film Young Sherlock Holmes, the “stained glass knight” comes to life for 30 seconds. Although the animation only lasts for a brief period of time, the clip took 6 months to create. In collaboration with Disney, Pixar later created Toy Story, which was the first feature length CGI animated film. The movie took 4 years to make, and about 800,000 hours of editing. Pixar has since dominated the field of animation, producing box offices success such as Monsters Inc. and The Incredibles.

Creating a computer generated effect is time consuming, but this time and effort is necessary to create the best possible effects. When done incorrectly, the viewer will certainly notice. These errors are most commonly found in movies that blend CGI animation along with live action. In the 2001 film, The Mummy Returns, actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson was cast to play “The Scorpion King”. The movie was a commercial success, bringing in $433 million with a $98 million budget, but it is most noted for its terrible use of CGI. Johnson’s character was intended to be his face and torso, with the body of a scorpion. However, his face is unrecognizable and looks like as if he jumped straight out of a dated video game. The animation company, Industrial Light and Magic, was said to have rushed to complete it, and it shows. The second the character emerges onscreen, the audiences’ thoughts shift from what is happening in the plot, to how laughably terrible the animation is (10 Terrible CGI Moments).

*From here compare how movies w/ CGI do in the box office vs. live action movies

Whether or not the use of cell phones creates health problems has been heavily debated. Most commonly, people believe that the radiation that mobile phones emit lead to the formation of cancer cells. However, despite studies, no link has been shown between the two. While cellular phones do emit radio waves that may be absorbed into the tissue nearest the phone, there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that this can cause cancer. In order for cancer to develop, damage to DNA must occur. Ionizing radiation does cause DNA damage, but radio-frequency radiation has not been shown to do the same. Although the studies that have been done show that there is no correlation, expert groups such as the American Cancer Society agree that since society’s use of cell phones is increasing rapidly, new extensive studies should be a priority. They also agree that importance should be placed on finding a definitive answer on the effects of cell phone use (Cell Phones and Cancer Risk).

Theories propose that since children are still growing and developing, they are at a higher risk to develop cancer through cell phone use. They suggest that since children have smaller heads, they have more exposure to the radio-frequency radiation. Also, since they begin use of these technologies young, they will accumulate much more use for longer periods of time than adults. However, while this theory is widely accepted, there is no data to back it up. A study called CEFALO was conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland and included children ages 7 to 19 who had been diagnosed brain tumors between 2004 and 2008. Through their research, it was concluded that while the results did not rule out the possibility of a slight increase in risk, there was no association between cell phone use and the tumors of these children. Currently, the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain is conducting a study evaluating technology use, along with other factors in relation to brain tumors in those ages 10 to 24 (Cell Phones and Cancer Risk).

“According to a recent study by Common Sense Media, 38% of babies under 2 have used tablets or smartphones, up from 10% in 2011” (ABC News). Retailers and product developers have seen the growing popularity as a great opportunity, and have put out an expansive variety of items that cater to young electronic users, like the ones above. However, while these products turn advanced technologies into a child’s toy are not the only smartphone-centered products on the market for toddlers. Not only are there now places for smartphones and tablets to be held in strollers, there are also “bouncy seats and potties” that have compartments to hold the electronics while the child sits and plays with it. Since children playing with smartphones and tablets is such a new concept, there is no way to know the neurological effect it may be having on them. Those who make these toys argue that they can be beneficial, and that it is the parent’s responsibly to monitor.

It is no surprise that the use of technology limits interaction with others. During childhood, social interaction is needed for proper development. These interactions allow children to have a sense of self, and identify expectations that other have for them. Through this they learn how to behave in a socially acceptable manner, and skills such as communication, cognitive, and motor skills. Most of these interactions occur during playtime. When children play with others they learn to share and to work with others. They learn how to make new friends, resolve conflict, and respect others (Importance of Social Interaction).  Without learning to form these relationships early in life, children will be affected as they get older. If a child spends all of their time forming relationships with a computer screen, they will more than likely be impacted in the years to come. These products for children that promote excessive use of technology should be used in moderation, if at all, in order for a child to develop social skills normally.

The excessive use of “screen time” by children has been directly linked to childhood obesity for some time. In previous years, it was the use of televisions that were a cause for concern. Now, the screens are brought on the go and can be used by children anywhere. Not only does too much screen time lead to obesity, it has also been shown to cause irregular sleeping patterns, which leads to fatigue; behavioral problems and trouble paying attention leading to impaired academic performance; violence due to the nature of certain games and exposure to the media; and limits the time for the healthy, active, creative play that is needed (Children’s Health).

If a child uses a smartphone or tablet often as a toddler, they are more likely to form a habit that will be harder to break as they get older. While smartphone use among children is too new of a concept to know all of its side effects, their use should definitely be kept to a minimum until more facts are uncovered.

Works Cited

“Cell Phones and Cancer Risk – National Cancer Institute.” Cell Phones and Cancer Risk – National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute, 24 June 2013. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.

“Children’s Health.” Children and TV: Limiting Your Child’s Screen Time. Mayo Clinic, 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 6 Apr. 2014.

“Importance of Social Interaction.” Child Family Services. Stanislaus County Office of Education, Web. 6 Apr. 2014.

“New Warning About Toddlers and Smartphones, Tablets.” ABC News. ABC News Network, Web. 6 Apr. 2014.

Childhood Development 

Children’s Programming 

Students and Technology 

Smartphones and Vision

Marketing to Kids in the Digital Age

Are Smartphones Bad for Your Kids

Cell Phone Health Risks

 

Found on Fisher-Price.com  & Buzzfeed.com

Questions 

1. Why is it that babies can understand modern technology while some people who are older struggle with it?
2. Do toys like this help babies development? Does this help them improve skills?
3. Any affiliation with Apple? Marketing?
4. Risks? Hasn’t the use of cell phones been proven to be unhealthy?
5. Why is it for children over 6 months? What developmental stage happens at 6 months that makes them able to play with/understand it?
6. Will using this toy help children understand new technologies in the future?
7. Is this no different than electronic toys I played with as a child?

I have no interest in science. In high school it was my worst class. I found myself tuning out what was being taught, instead doodling in my notebook or playing on my cell phone. I never felt the urge to learn more, and once I left the class room, I didn’t think about science until the next class. My best friend, however, is fascinated by anything science related. He is constantly curious, and tries to learn as much as possible about it. From chemistry to astronomy, everything about science seems to intrigue him. So why is it that a subject can spark indifference in one person, and captivation in another? We all have interests; what makes them different for everyone?
While the question of where our curious nature comes from is something that researchers have been unable to answer, there are two main concepts. The first, is called the drive theory. The drive theory suggests that we have a need to satisfy our curiosity in the same way we need to alleviate hunger with food. This theory explains why we learn new languages, skills, and do things that expand our knowledge. The second theory is called the incongruity theory. It explains that when we find something that does not fit into our prior understanding, we are compelled to learn more about it. This explains our curiosity as more object based than the drive theory (Clark). While both theories may be accurate, neither fully explains where curiosity comes from.
There are also two different types of curiosity; trait and state. Trait curiosity is lifelong, while some people love to learn simply for the sake of learning, others may not ever feel the desire to do so. It also suggests that what we are curious about are interests that we are born with, preferences that are no different than favorite color, or favorite song. State curiosity, while often fleeting, is provoked by an external stimulus (Clark). Something may happen accidentally, such as overcooking dinner, that leads you to wonder how ovens work. Both incite us to learn more and ask questions, and are different for each person, whether it be based on a lifelong interest or a coincidental experience.
One can often lead to the other. An experience in our lives can ignite a passion and a lifelong interest in a subject. For example, in his memoir essay, Khalifa Saeed explains, “My current love for travel, the world, and culture, was no doubt triggered by the spark to my curiosity on the subject matter, and this spark was most likely as a result of a particular childhood event” (Saeed). This can be attributed to both state and trait curiosity.
Certain encounters and experiences can stick with us, fueling our interest for years to come. As explained by state curiosity, sometimes it can be fleeting, a question simply answered by asking someone near you or looking online. However, sometimes we may enjoy learning about a particular subject so much, that learning more about it becomes a hobby in and of itself. As I had wrote about in my memoir, while movie making does grab my attention, I do now enjoy learning about it just as much. I also have begun to make short films, and use what I have learned to make them better.
Jamar Skinner wrote about something incredibly similar to this in his memoir. He explained how his interest in music grew, and how his curiosity about its production made the quality of his music improve. He describes his interest in mix and mastering, and how he continues to learn more about how to do it perfectly (Skinner). While the areas of interest may be different, my interest in movies and Jamar’s in music, the process remains largely the same. Through curiosity, we are able to develop our outlets and continue to improve.
While researchers have been unable to pinpoint where curiosity comes from, and why it is different to each person, I believe that it is human nature. We all have things that interest us, and things that we are curious about. I think that our interests and ideas are pre-determined, like our athletic or vocal ability. Wherever it may be that distinguishes us, I hope to learn more. I would say the thing I am most curious about, is curiosity itself.

I hate watching a movie that I don’t know the ending to. Before I sit down to watch any film, I look up the details of the plot. I find that the once I know exactly what is about to happen, I can watch from a critical standpoint. For me, watching a movie is not about the twists and turns of the plot, but instead about the way the film was made. The way the director chooses to shoot a scene, the way the actor decides to deliver their lines, and especially the movie reviews after its release interest me. For some people, music helps them through rough patches. They find the lyrics relate to their life, and listening to their favorite song can make them instantly feel better. While I have never found that kind of comfort in a song, I have found it in the movies.

Freshman year of high school, my step mother discovered Netflix. Initially, she and my dad rented popular movies for us to watch every other weekend. After they burned through all the appealing, well-known titles, they began to rent indie movies that seemed to have interesting plots. One weekend, they rented the movie Brick, an indie movie about the murder of a high school girl, and her ex-boyfriend’s journey to find out who killed her. I complained that I wouldn’t enjoy watching it, but we did anyways. After the first scene, I was proved wrong. The movie opens with a shot of the ex-boyfriend finding the girl’s body in a puddle under a bridge. Instead of focusing on the body, as most movies do, the shot cut between and image of her hand, and the pained expression in the main character’s eyes. The unconventional style of the movie was instantly obvious, and I loved it.

I have always loved rainy days, and the choices the director, Rian Johnson decided to make emulated the feel of a rainy day for the entire movie. The images were dark and dreary, using gray heavily and shots that seemed almost clouded. They were paired often with no dialogue, with a soft and repetitive melody playing in the background. When words were spoken, they were fast, smooth, and eloquent. At points, the words hard to follow, but it only made me more intrigued. The story presented a lot of twists and turns, and I found myself anxious to know how the movie would end. So, I opened my laptop and looked it up. After that, I found myself enjoying the movie even more. I wasn’t focusing on trying to figure out the mystery, instead I was watching camera angles, and appreciating the details I wouldn’t have noticed if my attention was on the roller coaster of a plot. After that, I was hooked.

By watching movies in this new way, I found myself forming very strong opinions about them. I loved analyzing the film so much, that I would often voice my opinions while it played. That quickly drove everyone who watched with me nuts, and I was banned from talking until the movie finished. So instead I would make mental notes, and share them with everyone the second it was done. I would also do my research; I would spend the next couple hours reading reviews, learning about the director, the production, etc. So, naturally, when I found an outlet to talk about my opinions endlessly without blank stares and an uninterested audience I was thrilled.

I found that in writing movie reviews. My junior year I took a journalism class, one of our assignments was to write one. I usually didn’t enjoy writing, but writing about a movie was so natural. It was just venting all of the thoughts that I had while watching, mixed with snarky comments, and the research I did on movies anyways. I poured all of my energy into making it absolutely perfect, and was ecstatic when my teacher read it aloud to the class as an example of a job well done, ran it in the school newspaper. From there, my love of movies only grew, and expanded into the passion I have today.

Today, I have to have my phone near me at all times, always to look up movie facts. Even if I am not watching a movie, I often quote them in everyday conversation. If I see something that reminds me of a film, it is more often than not accompanied by a question that I must immediately know the answer to. For example, my train of thought is often “Oh, that guy I just walked by is wearing a bright pink shirt. What’s that movie where the guy only wears pink? I need to Google that.” I would say that not a day goes by where I don’t strive to learn more about movies. I hope to continue with the desire I have, and find more ways to express my thoughts about them. Who knows, maybe one day I’ll find myself making a movie that inspires someone else to learn all they can about it.