MatthewMeyer.net

I’ve been really busy, so I haven’t had much to say on here recently, but finally after seeing The Chronicles of Narinia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe I have something to say.

I’ll start out by saying that I didn’t like the movie, but that’s because I didn’t like the book. I think The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is one of the worst fantasy stories every written, redeemed only by the fact that it’s too short to feel like you’ve wasted your time after reading it. I thought the movie was a faily faithful adaptation of the book, which is impressive until you consider the fact that there’s almost no substance to the story, so included the whole book and more in the movie is nothing remarkable at all. Half of the CG was good, the other half was atrocious (the beavers and the wolves especially). The voices for the wolves and beavers sucked as well. Many of the sets looked like they were taken right out of an 80′s BBC production. And the soundtrack, which is usually one of my favorite parts of the movie, had the same absolute lack of drama that the entire story had. So… points for being faithful, but a lot of negative marks for being awful. Not once did the cinematography wow me, and the cheesiness of the story had most of the audience groaning out loud. The once scene I ended up liking was the battle scene, which ironically is also the once scene in the movie that is not in the book.

On the plus side, I think the actors chosen for the main roles did an excellent job. The four kids and the White Witch were all superbly done. Unfortunately, they were not enough alone to save the movie.

To be fair, if you’re one of those people who for whatever reason love the story, you’ll probably love this movie (except for the soundtrack, which is just unarguably lame).

I think one thing I gained from seeing this movie, or actually its previews, was insight as to why computer animation sucks so much. Before I begin, though, let me say that I really enjoy special effects, computer effects, and other various digital things done in movies. I can even love computer animation when it’s done right. I love when cartoons are brought into 3-d without ruining the style of the animators (for example, Futurama). I loved all the animation in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which probably has to do with the fact that they had real actors underneath the digital makeup. I generally like special effects if they add to the story rather than take away from it, even if the quality is not top-notch (compare the bad CG effects in Spider-Man with the bad CG effects in The Matrix).

I generally don’t refer to those examples as “CA.” When I say that I hate CA, I’m talking about shitty animation jobs taken on by people who clearly have no idea what they’re doing and just know how to make 3-d models move. Most 3-d kids’ cartoons fall into this category; the textures are flat and plastic-y looking, the ground and most objects are completely smooth with just a shitty texture overlayed on top, shadows are just fuzzy black circles, and the characters’ motions are jerky and robotic. These are examples of the ease of animating with a computer overtaking the talent involved in animation. This is something I’ve never liked about CA, but it never was completely satisfactory in explaining why I disliked the effects so much… something was missing.

Computer-generated movies have to have a number of overdone, hackneyed stereotypes before they can be marketed. This also applies to most recent traditionally animated movies as well… it seems the drain of originality in both fields is linked.

1) The huge, hulking brute who is somehow tender and loveable and completely nonviolent. A “gentle giant” who is absolutely useless in amount of effort exerted compared to body size, but has one amazing scene where his brutishness saves the day.
2) The short, scrawny, annoying sidekick. Pure comic relief, fart jokes, clearly made especially for the kids. Usually has a million annoying lines, a high pitched voice, and *always* proves his worth at one point in the movie by either inspiring the “gentle giant” character, or giving him the strength to go on when things get tough.
3) The sensible, “average” sidekick. The most realistic character in the whole movie. This character usually doesn’t get along with the other two retards (understandably so), until something perilous happens, and they end up saving his life… after that, all three become lifelong friends.

We’ve been seeing this pattern for years now, so it’s nothing new. And it works great for kids’ movies, so it’s forgivable for being a little formulaic. But the real kicker is something I’ve only just noticed recently, with the sick amount of CA movies being produced. I only just noticed this while watching the previews to Narnia…

4) Every CA movie must contain horrendous racial stereotypes. Look at some of the previews of kids movies coming out soon and you’ll see what I mean. Every CA movie has to have a number of the following: a black hoodlum, a white yuppie, a handful of drunk Irish, a stoic, stuffy Brit, a hot ‘n’ spicy latina or a thugged out latino, or an extremely flaming heterosexual (who represents all homosexuals, but we can’t have homosexuals in a kids’ movie).

At art school, I heard so much about emphasis on character and story development from the CA department. That was a major focus of their curriculum. So how is it that so many CA movies have the most overused stories and hideously stereotyped racial representatives? If you don’t believe me, turn on any piece of computer animation that features animals instead of humans, and see if you can’t tell what “race” each animal is within 10 seconds of seeing it.