Finchers 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'

[Crook]

CGI has been part of cinema for decades. It's not going to go away. The problem is when it becomes the forefront, instead of the story. That is not the case I found in TCOBB.

And I would really like someone to explain how the CGI somehow helped Pitt act. I've heard it so many times and yet no one goes beyond that simple declaration. All the CGI did was alter Pitt's age. It did not emote for him, speak his lines, or change his mannerisms. That was all Pitt. So again, what specifically are these naysayers referring to?

 

[Spider-Fan]

CGI has been part of cinema for decades. It's not going to go away. The problem is when it becomes the forefront, instead of the story. That is not the case I found in TCOBB.

And I would really like someone to explain how the CGI somehow helped Pitt act. I've heard it so many times and yet no one goes beyond that simple declaration. All the CGI did was alter Pitt's age. It did not emote for him, speak his lines, or change his mannerisms. That was all Pitt. So again, what specifically are these naysayers referring to?

His mannerisms and such would have been altered in the aging process also, since Pitt is obviously taller than old child Button. Thus, I can't look at Pitt trying to walk in its pure form. Cause he was desized. Things like this make his performance not natural to some extent. This is just one example of how it would have effected his performance.

Again, I loved the movie. But I don't feel Pitt deserves major award consideration for it.

 

[Crook]

His mannerisms and such would have been altered in the aging process also, since Pitt is obviously taller than old child Button. Thus, I can't look at Pitt trying to walk in its pure form. Cause he was desized. Things like this make his performance not natural to some extent. This is just one example of how it would have effected his performance.

His "old-man" walk? Something that for all we know Pitt could have done himself? And whether or not he did, isn't really acting at all? Not to mention that this facet lasted what...all of a few minutes on film? That's a drastically small percentage of his on-screen time. You're gonna have to come up with better examples than that.

And not natural? Man, I'd hate to break it to you that Marlon Brando really wasn't that old nor was his mouth naturally fixated in that mumbling state at the time he filmed Godfather.

Again, I loved the movie. But I don't feel Pitt deserves major award consideration for it.

At this point, Penn and Rourke are more deserving for the actual win. But Pitt certainly held his own and I'm not surprised that he is being considered.

 

[Spider-Fan]

His "old-man" walk? Something that for all we know Pitt could have done himself? And whether or not he did, isn't really acting at all? Not to mention that this facet lasted what...all of a few minutes on film? That's a drastically small percentage of his on-screen time. You're gonna have to come up with better examples than that.


At this point, Penn and Rourke are more deserving for the actual win. But Pitt certainly held his own and I'm not surprised that he is being considered.

The "old man" walk may not have looked as good when Pitt did it than when you add the CGI elements. We don't know. The old man part of Button was in far more than a few minutes also. MANY more. It does cheapen the performance to me. Plus, his character was fairly dry and not that interesting. It was the supporting cast, imagery, and Fincher's direction that made the movie...though Fincher's direction is also guilty of cheapening Pitt's performance and potentially harming the industry with people who will use poor examples of what he did in the movie.

 

[Crook]

The "old man" walk may not have looked as good when Pitt did it than when you add the CGI elements. We don't know.

I don't know how you can possibly think walking like an old man is so difficult that only cgi could be able to pull it off. It is so mundane and easily replicated by ANYONE, that I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing. But let's get back to the point. You've plainly stated that you are assuming and don't know for sure if the cgi did hinder anything at all. So why use it as a condemnation of the performance?

Fincher's direction is also guilty of cheapening Pitt's performance and potentially harming the industry with people who will use poor examples of what he did in the movie.

Now you're completely overreacting. Harming the industry? Not likely. At least not much more than the current state it is in now. I don't see it having that big of an impact.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't know how you can possibly think walking like an old man is so difficult that only cgi could be able to pull it off. It is so mundane and easily replicated by ANYONE, that I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing. But let's get back to the point. You've plainly stated that you are assuming and don't know for sure if the cgi did hinder anything at all. So why use it as a condemnation of the performance?


Now you're completely overreacting. Harming the industry? Not likely. At least not much more than the current state it is in now. I don't see it having that big of an impact.

Should we award people for uncertainty? I don't think so. I'd like to know exactly what Pitt did in the movie instead of ask myself how much of his performance was enhanced by the CGI. The difference between make up and CGI is with make-up, the actor is taking on the persona. When you change what he looks like on a computer, it is not a natural performance. Actor's should only be awarded for things they did naturally. Hence why voice actors will never win Oscars.

I don't think I'm overreacting at all. I think this is a legitimate question. Just cause you don't think it is potentially harmful doesn't mean it is not a point that someone should raise.

 

[Crook]

Should we award people for uncertainty? I don't think so. I'd like to know exactly what Pitt did in the movie instead of ask myself how much of his performance was enhanced by the CGI.

But you haven't put much evidence behind this argument. So far the only thing you've given me is his walk "might have" been created, even though that isn't likely. Moreover, it is an aspect that isn't even worthy of wholly judging acting performance.

The difference between make up and CGI is with make-up, the actor is taking on the persona. When you change what he looks like on a computer, it is not a natural performance.

You've got to be kidding me. CGI and make-up, for the most part, enhance what the actor has. They're layered onto them, but rarely does it overtake the actor themselves. Even with a completely cgi character, most of the time motion tracking is involved to capture the actor's performance.

I'd like for you to take even just 5 minutes of what Andy Serkis did with Gollum and King Kong. Then adequately explain to me why his performance wasn't "natural" or of merit, simply because it was cgi.

Actor's should only be awarded for things they did naturally. Hence why voice actors will never win Oscars.

Now you're just using the word in completely the wrong context. How is voice acting not naturally performed? What is your definition of that word?

I don't think I'm overreacting at all. I think this is a legitimate question. Just cause you don't think it is potentially harmful doesn't mean it is not a point that someone should raise.

Of course. But if you are to bring up a point, then surely to progress the discussion you'd have to back up your statements? I don't think TCOBB will greatly affect the industry at all because asides from the technical achievement in the aging process, it was not groundbreaking. But if you have examples of why you think this project stands above all the rest, then feel free to explain.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But you haven't put much evidence behind this argument. So far the only thing you've given me is his walk "might have" been created, even though that isn't likely. Moreover, it is an aspect that isn't even worthy of wholly judging acting performance.

He was an old man for a good part of the movie. Plenty of that could have been enhanced by the CGI. This is not like it was Pitt with makeup or touch ups. His size was altered also. This changes how you see Pitt in the film. That is more than just touch ups.

You've got to be kidding me. CGI and make-up, for the most part, enhance what the actor has. They're layered onto them, but rarely does it overtake the actor themselves. Even with a completely cgi character, most of the time motion tracking is involved to capture the actor's performance.

I wouldn't have supported an Oscar for Gollum either. A lot of what people liked about the Gollum character is the effects. When you discuss the effects more than the actor, like critics and people have with this movie, then the actor is overshadowed. Look at the reviews here. The CGI is like the first thing mentioned, and most of the CGI was used on Pitt. Thus, he is overshadowed.

I'd like for you to take even just 5 minutes of what Andy Serkis did with Gollum and King Kong. Then adequately explain to me why his performance wasn't "natural" or of merit, simply because it was cgi.

Because their performance is overshadowed by effects.

Now you're just using the word in completely the wrong context. How is voice acting not naturally performed? What is your definition of that word?

Ve acting is natural, but limits what the actor can show you visually. This is why voice actors don't get Oscar noms. All you hear is one aspect of their performance. Not the whole performance.

Of course. But if you are to bring up a point, then surely to progress the discussion you'd have to back up your statements? I don't think TCOBB will greatly affect the industry at all because asides from the technical achievement in the aging process, it was not groundbreaking. But if you have examples of why you think this project stands above all the rest, then feel free to explain.

I think make-up artists could potentially lose work and people may opt for CGI to do their films for things we used to do with make-up because it will become cheaper. Which is a shame to me, cause computers still can't make certain things look as good as make-up/practical effects. I could also bring up things like child actors. Why use them when we can just deage the actual person? Plus, makes scheduling easier since you don't have to deal with child labor laws. I also feel actors due to computers could be requires to do less acting. This may seem whacky now, but this is where we are going.

 

[Crook]

He was an old man for a good part of the movie. Plenty of that could have been enhanced by the CGI. This is not like it was Pitt with makeup or touch ups. His size was altered also. This changes how you see Pitt in the film. That is more than just touch ups.

His physical size and walk/stance affects how you see Pitt. I get that. But I am not getting how this is detrimental to his acting.

I wouldn't have supported an Oscar for Gollum either. A lot of what people liked about the Gollum character is the effects. When you discuss the effects more than the actor, like critics and people have with this movie, then the actor is overshadowed. Look at the reviews here. The CGI is like the first thing mentioned, and most of the CGI was used on Pitt. Thus, he is overshadowed.

CGI is mentioned because when it's done right, it is remarkably amazing and fresh. Something that cannot be said of acting. Good acting is found everywhere.

And let's not pretend Serkis' performance did not have a significant impact on Gollum. Please. Without good acting, Gollum would have simply been a technical achievement rather than a fully-formed character.

Because their performance is overshadowed by effects.

How? You are not explaining here. CGI, no matter how good, is rendered irrelevant the moment you stop believing it exists. All of that relies on character. In the case of Benjamin Button, Gollum, King Kong, Davey Jones....this is on the shoulders of the actor.

Ve acting is natural, but limits what the actor can show you visually. This is why voice actors don't get Oscar noms. All you hear is one aspect of their performance. Not the whole performance.

There is no such thing as visually limiting and incomplete performances when you refer to voice acting...because they are not part of the process. This is like saying digital art is invalid because it doesn't involve physical brush and paint. It is completely pointless in the medium that is being discussed.

I think make-up artists could potentially lose work and people may opt for CGI to do their films for things we used to do with make-up because it will become cheaper. Which is a shame to me, cause computers still can't make certain things look as good as make-up/practical effects.

This has been happening for years now. TCOBB changes none of this. It's already started. It's a natural process to progress towards new technology, even if it abolishes previous methods. If it's better and provides more to the film, then it will win out. Nothing wrong with that.

Do you think people are complaining that matte paintings, technicolor, and stop-motion are all but abandoned in cinema? Not likely.

I could also bring up things like child actors. Why use them when we can just deage the actual person?

This is an improvement. Why would you opt for a different actor if you can convincingly use your current one to portray the same character at a different stage of their life? It goes against logic.

I also feel actors due to computers could be requires to do less acting. This may seem whacky now, but this is where we are going.

When I actually see proof that acting has declined because of cgi, then I'll start worrying.

 

[Spider-Fan]

His physical size and walk/stance affects how you see Pitt. I get that. But I am not getting how this is detrimental to his acting.

Because I don't feel like I'm watching Brad Pitt act. I feel like I'm seeing mo-cap. This is detrimental to his performance for me. Obviously, you don't feel that way, but I do.

CGI is mentioned because when it's done right, it is remarkably amazing and fresh. Something that cannot be said of acting. Good acting is found everywhere.

CGI has its uses, don't get me wrong. My problem with it is that it is being used as a crutch anymore and not a device. Something is complicated, well we'll just do CGI. It takes imagination out of filmmaking. It may have been used as a device in TCOBB, but this is going to spawn far more that use it as a crutch.

And let's not pretend Serkis' performance did not have a significant impact on Gollum. Please. Without good acting, Gollum would have simply been a technical achievement rather than a fully-formed character.

I'm not saying Gollum wasn't a character. But he is no less an animated character. Gollum was amazing to look at in LOTR, and I do feel he was overshadowed in some ways due to that. Again, you disagree.

How? You are not explaining here. CGI, no matter how good, is rendered irrelevant the moment you stop believing it exists. All of that relies on character. In the case of Benjamin Button, Gollum, King Kong, Davey Jones....this is on the shoulders of the actor.

Again, CGI was used as a device in these cases. Which I approve of. However, for every good use of CGI, we're given many poor ones and times it shouldn't be used. I don't want TCOBB to lead to make-up being used less, cause make-up looks better than anything a computer can do when done right. This is my fear, again.

There is no such thing as visually limiting and incomplete performances when you refer to voice acting...because they are not part of the process. This is like saying digital art is invalid because it doesn't involve physical brush and paint. It is completely pointless in the medium that is being discussed.

I agree that voice acting and acting are different arts. I didn't say it wasn't. I just said voice actors will never be considered for major awards like Oscars.

This has been happening for years now. TCOBB changes none of this. It's already started. It's a natural process to progress towards new technology, even if it abolishes previous methods. If it's better and provides more to the film, then it will win out. Nothing wrong with that.

TCOBB didn't start the conversation, but it changed the conversation. Before, CGI was done for major set pieces or creatures and such that were hard to create any other way. Now, CGI is taking place of more major aspects of film than it previously did. With TCOBB, it has moved to effects make-up used to be used for. This is not like making Gollum or Kong.

Do you think people are complaining that matte paintings, technicolor, and stop-motion are all but abandoned in cinema? Not likely.

Cause those effects look dated today. However, practical things that look fine shouldn't be abandoned for computers. That is when I feel a line is corssed.

This is an improvement. Why would you opt for a different actor if you can convincingly use your current one to portray the same character at a different stage of their life? It goes against logic.

I don't see this as an improvement. Many people got their first opportunities by playing a young _______, and nothing was wrong with this practice before. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

When I actually see proof that acting has declined because of cgi, then I'll start worrying.

I think it is already starting to. You disagree, and that is fine. This is just my personal opinion and fear.

 

[Crook]

Because I don't feel like I'm watching Brad Pitt act. I feel like I'm seeing mo-cap. This is detrimental to his performance for me. Obviously, you don't feel that way, but I do.

Detrimental because it feels/looks fake in technical execution, or because it doesn't remind you of Brad?

CGI has its uses, don't get me wrong. My problem with it is that it is being used as a crutch anymore and not a device. Something is complicated, well we'll just do CGI. It takes imagination out of filmmaking. It may have been used as a device in TCOBB, but this is going to spawn far more that use it as a crutch.

Again, CGI was used as a device in these cases. Which I approve of. However, for every good use of CGI, we're given many poor ones and times it shouldn't be used. I don't want TCOBB to lead to make-up being used less, cause make-up looks better than anything a computer can do when done right. This is my fear, again.

Again, nothing new. There are far more of the "bad" then there are of the "good". Mediocre films, stories, artwork, what-have-you will always outnumber their superior counterparts. You cannot fault the method because of this, as it has proven it's worth.

I agree that voice acting and acting are different arts. I didn't say it wasn't. I just said voice actors will never be considered for major awards like Oscars.

I know, I was just correcting what you described voice acting to be, in comparison to live-action.

TCOBB didn't start the conversation, but it changed the conversation. Before, CGI was done for major set pieces or creatures and such that were hard to create any other way. Now, CGI is taking place of more major aspects of film than it previously did. With TCOBB, it has moved to effects make-up used to be used for. This is not like making Gollum or Kong.

Fincher's process has been lauded because it is quite new and hasn't been utilized to this extent. There is a reason for it. It wasn't possible until now. Where have you seen full-grown, built men, walking around as an old, little, frail man? Or a make-up process that can de-age up to 20 or more years?

Cause those effects look dated today. However, practical things that look fine shouldn't be abandoned for computers. That is when I feel a line is corssed.

Fine is just fine. If there is something better than "fine", then obviously it will be used. The only time a method should not be replaced, is when it is virtually indiscernible from the real-thing.

I don't see this as an improvement. Many people got their first opportunities by playing a young _______, and nothing was wrong with this practice before. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Were matte paintings, technicolor, or stop-motion broken? Were 1950s car models broken? Was the overbearing large cell phone of the 80s broken? No. But there was something better around and thus, they were no longer needed. It's the natural selection of technology. It should come as of no surprise that jobs and processes will be fazed out as a result of it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Detrimental because it feels/looks fake in technical execution, or because it doesn't remind you of Brad?

While there are 1 or 2 moments I felt the CGI was a little off, it was predominately good in the movie. I give it that. I'm not supposed to be reminded it's Brad, so that isn't a bad thing. However, bad CGI takes you out of the movie. I'm just saying, when you can't tell if that was the technology or the actor, I have a hard time considering you for a major award. Not that I felt the character earned Pitt a nom either. The movie should be up for BP and BD, but I don't support Pitt for BA.

Again, nothing new. There are far more of the "bad" then there are of the "good". Mediocre films, stories, artwork, what-have-you will always outnumber their superior counterparts. You cannot fault the method because of this, as it has proven it's worth.

I don't fault the method entriely, but I do think it yields poor imagination and is not used properly.

Fincher's process has been lauded because it is quite new and hasn't been utilized to this extent. There is a reason for it. It wasn't possible until now. Where have you seen full-grown, built men, walking around as an old, little, frail man? Or a make-up process that can de-age up to 20 or more years?

We're about to see it a lot more now...likely will look worse before it looks better too.

Fine is just fine. If there is something better than "fine", then obviously it will be used. The only time a method should not be replaced, is when it is virtually indiscernible from the real-thing.

That's the problem. CGI is used when it is often not the best method. This is my problem with the industry and CGI. It isn't used right in many cases.

Were matte paintings, technicolor, or stop-motion broken? Were 1950s car models broken? Was the overbearing large cell phone of the 80s broken? No. But there was something better around and thus, they were no longer needed. It's the natural selection of technology. It should come as of no surprise that jobs and processes will be fazed out as a result of it.

Things that didn't look real are broken. Cause they don't look real. I have no problem with changes in that case. However, I think CGI is going to start replacing make-up when CGI is not the better method. Thus, fixing something that isn't broken.

 

[Crook]

However, bad CGI takes you out of the movie. I'm just saying, when you can't tell if that was the technology or the actor, I have a hard time considering you for a major award.

If it's a dominant line of thought that pops in through the majority of the movie, then I'd be inclined to agree. However I did not see this to be the case.

I don't fault the method entriely, but I do think it yields poor imagination and is not used properly.

We're about to see it a lot more now...likely will look worse before it looks better too.

That's the problem. CGI is used when it is often not the best method. This is my problem with the industry and CGI. It isn't used right in many cases.

See, you are faulting the method because you are letting the subpar iterations affect how you see it's implementation. If this is the case, then you should also have a big problem with directing, writing, acting, hell...anything that requires skill and labor. I don't think it's a secret that there are TONS of people in every field that take advantage or misuse their position.

Things that didn't look real are broken. Cause they don't look real.
I have no problem with changes in that case.

And that is my point about child actors vs. cgi aging. The latter, when properly used, IS better. How can you get a better younger/older version of Pitt, than Pitt himself? It goes against all logic to prefer the inferior technique.

However, I think CGI is going to start replacing make-up when CGI is not the better method. Thus, fixing something that isn't broken.

I am not arguing against that. Of course I will always favor whichever process yields the best results.

 

[Spider-Fan]

If it's a dominant line of thought that pops in through the majority of the movie, then I'd be inclined to agree. However I did not see this to be the case.

This thought crept into my head, so it is my personal opinion. I don't think I'm alone in this mindset, though.

See, you are faulting the method because you are letting the subpar iterations affect how you see it's implementation. If this is the case, then you should also have a big problem with directing, writing, acting, hell...anything that requires skill and labor. I don't think it's a secret that there are TONS of people in every field that take advantage or misuse their position.

I have a problem with lazy filmmaking. CGI has yielded this in spades, which I don't like. While CGI can be used to enhance something, it has also brought down film quality in other ways. That is my problem with it.

And that is my point about child actors vs. cgi aging. The latter, when properly used, IS better. How can you get a better younger/older version of Pitt, than Pitt himself? It goes against all logic to prefer the inferior technique.

Cause the child actor is natural and real, while Brad Pitt being made a child is unnatural and fake. Hence my preference of the former.

 

[Crook]

This thought crept into my head, so it is my personal opinion. I don't think I'm alone in this mindset, though.

Fair enough.

I have a problem with lazy filmmaking. CGI has yielded this in spades, which I don't like. While CGI can be used to enhance something, it has also brought down film quality in other ways. That is my problem with it.

Great. So lay your critiques on those that use it improperly. Not to those that lay the groundwork which successfully change the game, but have no hand in how others interpret and use that same method. As I understand, you were fairly pleased with TCOBB's CGI, and yet have expressed disdain at the same time because it would yield a new way for people to muck things up. That is what I don't understand. As this applies to practically anything and everything in life.

Cause the child actor is natural and real, while Brad Pitt being made a child is unnatural and fake. Hence my preference of the former.

I do not care about what is physically real. When a person gets shot in the head and blood splurts out, I do not care that is a special effect. I only care that it looks and feels real. Same thing applies here. If Pitt is convincingly a 20 year-old, then I will take that over someone that only barely looks like Pitt, but is actually of that age. I prefer the same actor to play the same character. Ideally, when the technology is right, there will be no use for multiple actors in the same role.

 

[The Sage]

With all of the talk about Blanchett and Pitt, just wanted to mention that Taraj P. Henson did an excellent job playing Benjamin's adopted mother.

 

[french joker]

great article about the CGI (with pics)

 

[The Guard]

With all of the talk about Blanchett and Pitt, just wanted to mention that Taraj P. Henson did an excellent job playing Benjamin's adopted mother.

She did indeed. One of the few times I've actually enjoyed seeing a black actress portray that type of role. I hope that makes sense and doesn't sound terrifically racist. She brought something to the role that few others have. Something beyond the usual approach. Maybe it was how the character was written, having an important story element of her own, but it was fantastic.

 

[The Sage]

She did indeed. One of the few times I've actually enjoyed seeing a black actress portray that type of role. I hope that makes sense and doesn't sound terrifically racist. She brought something to the role that few others have. Something beyond the usual approach. Maybe it was how the character was written, having an important story element of her own, but it was fantastic.

If you're a referring to how some play right into the stereotypes of certain roles, I see what you mean. She avoided it and brought a lot of heart to her character.

 

[tzarinna]

I thought this was wonderful. I could hardly contain myself, drained me of so many emotions.

 

[War Party]

I claim to be such a huge Fincher fan and I've yet to see this movie. I seriously can't wait.

 

[Star]

I'm seeing this tommorow. Has anyone else read the short story? I read it awhile ago. I'm pretty impressed by the ratings people have given this movie on here.

 

[louiebling$]

This film was B-E-A- UTIFUL in every way.. Instant Classic.... Fincher did a phenomenal job and Pitt was

 

[Swordmaster]

Finally was able to catch this. Fantastic movie, easily a 10/10 for me. I kept tearing up during the last half hour. Simply beautiful

 

[nogap87]

Awesome movie. The beginning story with the clock maker made me tear up a bit. 8/10