In the wake of the uproar tied to
The Hobbit's release trailer in
48fps (frames per second), fans and critics have been in a constant
debate on whether or not this sort of filmmaking is necessary. Some are
claiming that this is the way of the future, that we need to bite our
tongues and accept the fact that sooner or later, all films are going to
be in this clearer than the naked-eye format, while others are finding
it difficult to watch with a jarring clarity. 48fps is dramatically
quicker than what our eyes are used to and while the picture quality in
still frames look monumentally better, the clarity does not come without
a price. Even if the film is shot in the more standard "cinematical"
format, film companies are upgrading to a higher picture quality. While
the picture quality is undoubtedly gorgeous, it enhances flaws just as
dramatically as it does perfections. Wrinkles that we wouldn't see in
person are now glaring at us in the face, and hairs beneath pores are
now seen on an insanely large scale. Without going into the details
about these enhancements making everything look like a Daytime Soap
Opera, I'm concentrating on the one thing that will affect the world of
horror movies more than any other film genre. Practical FX.
Ever since films fell in love with the quick and cheap process of using
CGI effects, the incredible art form of practical effects in films have
taken a back seat. Blood and guts have gone digital, and movie monsters
look faker than your sister's prom date. People have become so
absorbed with their new fangled hi-def flat screens, that we're
globbering up enhanced films quicker than they're coming out. That's
not to say that I'm not for the progression of film quality, because I'm
completely for it. However, comma, enhancements aren't always for the best.
Have you ever looked at your skin under one of those 15x mirrors?
Suddenly you're spending hours prodding pores, plucking hairs, and
applying more makeup. HD and higher FPS formatting do somewhat of a similar thing
when it comes to film. It takes something that already looks pretty
good, and enhances absolutely EVERYTHING. I mean EVERYTHING. It's
nearly impossible to hide imperfections in these formats because we
ourselves cannot see these imperfections with our naked eye. It's only
after things are enhanced that we think "Christ, do I really look like
that?" For practical effects, this is a death sentence.
As someone who only recently stepped into the HD scene, I've never
really noticed the issue. This past May was the first time I've ever
owned a flat screen TV, and it was also the first time I've ever had a
blu-ray player. Call me behind the times all you want, I prefer
"broke-ass college student," if I may. Moving on, the past week I have
been finally able to experience Netflix Instant Watch (again, broke
college kid) on a 52 inch LCD flatscreen with amazeballs picture quality. Forgive my ignorance, but as I am not an AV girl, I'm just going to refer to the hyper-realistic clarity as "super HD". I first watched
Pontypool in "super HD" and it was a
walk in the park. The only real special effects were vomiting blood and I
didn't have any gripes with it. Looking at a man's five o' clock
shadow in HD however, a little strange to get used to. Simply out of pure
boredom, I watched the final installment of the
SAW franchise. I
was curious to see how such an effects driven film was going to do in
such a HD setting, and my worst fears were realized. I commend the people behind
SAW 3D for the amount of practical effects used in the film.
Seriously, there were a butt load of practical kills and I was
pleasantly surprised to notice. I never noticed them when I saw the
film in theaters, probably because the theater didn't look like this. It's
a theater. It looked cinematical and in a completely different format. When I watched the film again in "super HD", everything
looked so...fake. Everything looked completely unrealistic and the
already over the top kills weren't scary, they were distracting. The
worst was by far the "skin grafted onto the car leather" scene, but
every single practical kill looked horribly amateur.
At first I thought it was a fault of the FX artist, but the more I
thought about it, the more I realized...it's not. It is absolutely,
100% not the FX artist's problem that their work looks fake in
HD. Now, before anyone starts to badger me about this, let me explain.
You see, these clarity enhancements make pictures crisper than what our
eye can see naturally. The visual enhancements are done in
post-production, after the FX have already been completed and shot. How
can we hold an artist accountable for something completely out of their
control? It would be insane to blame an FX artist for bad coloring
when it's physically impossible for them to see their work any clearer
than what their eye can give them. If the FX look fake, filmmakers are
going to opt for CGI. Not only is CGI much cheaper, but if practical FX
look as tacky as CGI, filmmakers are just going to go for the cheaper
route. This is a tragedy. An honest to goodness tragedy. The only real practical FX that seems to break the mold is
The Thing, but that film defies all logic and reason on its own. Again, let
me restate that I'm not against the progression of visual quality, but
maybe, just maybe we don't need to get this clear with EVERY film. In
the same sense that we're never going to have a need for
What To Expect When You're Expecting 3-D,
I don't think we need horror requiring practical FX in 48fps or in ridiculously high picture quality.
It could always just be my special eyes, but I'd love to hear your
thoughts on the subject. I've already heard people telling me that this issue can be fixed by changing a setting on the television, but even after making this change, the HD still made some practical FX look like muff cabbage. Tell me what you think and comment below!
