Watching the
excellent computer-animated movie Kingsglaive:
Final Fantasy XV got me thinking once again about some of the faults and problems
of superhero cinema. I keep on wondering if the forthcoming wave of DC pictures
and current Marvel phases are doing the mixed genre (of sci-fi and fantasy that
comic-books have often combined so well), a gross disservice. As seen in last year’s super-team epics - Captain America: Civil War, Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice, X-Men: Apocalypse, and pictures with
related themes, like Gods Of Egypt -
the main spectacular action is entirely or, at least, largely CGI. So, for
digital artists, actors become a liability when physical reality is shoehorned
into virtual scenes. If we pause to consider the contractual fudges that might
undermine genre narratives on screen, and the logistical nightmares of using
actors - never mind big-name Hollywood stars - in superhero movies, the
problems faced by filmmakers today seem a burden that could easily be avoided
if Marvel and D.C. were to follow trends established by Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001), and Robert Zemeckis’ stylish
Beowulf (2007), and continued by the
aforementioned Kingsglaive.
Simply abandon the practice of live-action, and make the new superhero movies
entirely with photo-real animation.
A standard measure of
potential for spectacle in genre movies used to be counting the picture’s
special effects shots. Nowadays, the gauge is far more likely to be how many
special effects companies have worked on the production. If cinema product
depends, so blatantly, upon digital visuals, what’s the point of maintaining a
system supporting the arguably narcissistic tendencies of American superstars
and human actors? Is this an example of artistic cowardice on the part of
studios? Are a majority of the cinema-going public too easily put off by the
prospect of watching animated features (are they ‘just cartoons’?), and/ or
perhaps so unhealthily emotionally-invested in following the career trajectories
of their favourite thespians, that watching fully-animated movies is
unacceptable as entertainment? “Must there be a super man?” What’s wrong with the end products of motion-capture
becoming the focus of attention, instead of the quick-ageing actors lending
their faces (or increasingly, only their voices) to superhero roles that can most
effectively be depicted (and often are, anyway!) by digital animation?
Since the millennium, we
have seen three live-action versions of Bruce Banner, three Peter Parkers, and,
if we look back further to 1989, there have been five actors cast as Bruce
Wayne. These examples, and various cinema or TV incarnations of Clark Kent
If audiences/ viewers can
suspend their disbelief enough to cross the ‘uncanny valley’, then photo-real
animation is clearly the option most likely to succeed - when it comes to
presenting superheroes as something more-than-human. So, whether these movie
characters are intended to be role models, or inspirational figures, only CGI
is able to showcase the various powers of Superman, Silver Surfer, Vision,
Hulk, Iron Man, and especially the likes of Dr Manhattan. Masks that conceal
stunt performers, who make the actors redundant in busy action scenes, are one
reason to abandon the constraints that expensive star-names bring against
artistic progress. Another aspect, of arguably bolder creative idealism, the
advent of digital costumes (like Green Lantern, and new Spider-Man) uses
animation effects instead of physical suits. When so little of what is on
screen is real and so much is made by
computers and virtual cameras, what do the actors have to offer compared to the
increasingly superior contribution of CGI artists?
