caffienekitty (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
caffienekitty) wrote2008-09-23 02:52 pm
caffienekitty) wrote2008-09-23 02:52 pm
Entry tags:
Special Effects and Budgets: Heroes vs Supernatural
I watched the Heroes extravaganza season opener last night and had a few thoughts.
Contains thoughts on comparative budget sizes and special effects, no spoilery details.
So, like I said, I watched Heroes. And man, do they have a massive FX budget! They went through as many FX last night as Supernatural does in a year, probably as many human- and computer- hours of CGI as Supernatural's entire run. It was all very shiny and 'ooo-worthy'.
Now, ask me if I remember much about the plot. Or the characters. Or ask me whether I care enough about any of the story or character details or future plot developments to watch the episode more than once, or to make it 'appointment' television.
The answer? Not really.
It's not that I don't like Heroes. I do. I've watched it since almost the start, but have never really gotten "into it" into it. It's on, I watch it, I even tape it most times, or have in the past. It's an evening's diversion. If pressed I could name characters and so forth, roughly outline who they are and what happened and what's been set in motion in the series, but not without deliberate thought.
Implications of plot developments from the night before don't ambush me as I take out the trash the next day. Bolts of insight into characters don't hit me in the middle of work. I am a sucker for super-powers and time travel in fiction, yet still, Heroes is just an hour or two of shiny, exploding TV to me.
The thing with Heroes, and its cast of jillions, and its special effect budget that could fund a small nation, is that they can ostensibly do anything they want to. So they do. They have bells and whistles and whirligigs and flashing lights and it's all pretty and shiny, yeah, but... to me, it's just that. Flash without substance. It distracts me from what's going on, and therefore, to me, detracts from the story.
In juxtaposition we have Supernatural, which has a lower budget by a couple orders of magnitude. Perhaps a lower budget than some homegrown Canadian productions. Effects are sparse and sometimes quite low-tech. This season premiere had some awesome effects, yes, but nowhere near the fireworks factory conflagration that the Heroes premiere was.
Last night was the first time I was almost glad Supernatural has a low budget. With a big budget like Heroes, the question of 'can we do this?' has almost no relevance beyond what the technology can accomplish. They can, so they do.
The question that doesn't seem to get asked when a show can do any FX they want is 'Should we do this?' Does it advance the story, or the audience's perception of a character or situation, or provide some plot-relevant enhancement to a scene? How much do we need to do special effects-wise to create the perception we want the audience to have?
On Heroes last night, it seemed like these questions were pitched straight out the window. But that's Heroes. Big and shiny, like a pink aluminum Christmas tree.
Back to Supernatural. To my mind in a production like Supernatural, "Should we do it?" needs to come before "Can we do it?" in order to make best use of the budget. If a special effect is not necessary or does not advance the story or the viewers' experience or understanding of the situation in some way, it should be omitted to save the budget for the things that are necessary.
The FX on Supernatural are usually small and subtle, directly and immediately relating to the story, plot, or character at hand. When they are bigger and grander, they are usually all the more effective for it. Usually. *pointedly avoids looking at "Red Sky"*
My favourite effect they've ever done, to this day, (although at least one sequence from the Supernatural Season 4 opener is nudging it now) is from Supernatural's first season, the Hookman invisibly trailing the hook along the wall. An effect accomplished with some thread and spackle, if I'm not mistaken.
It's low-tech, understated, subtle and creepy as hell because of it. It puts the focus on the characters and the situation they are in, rather than on how well a computer in California can render graphics. All with thread and spackle.
To me, in terms of Special Effects, whether despite or because of its low budget, Supernatural wins versus Heroes. It accomplishes a lot more with a lot less, and I think it's a more absorbing and involving show because of it.
What do you think?
(NO SPOILERS PLEASE!)
Contains thoughts on comparative budget sizes and special effects, no spoilery details.
So, like I said, I watched Heroes. And man, do they have a massive FX budget! They went through as many FX last night as Supernatural does in a year, probably as many human- and computer- hours of CGI as Supernatural's entire run. It was all very shiny and 'ooo-worthy'.
Now, ask me if I remember much about the plot. Or the characters. Or ask me whether I care enough about any of the story or character details or future plot developments to watch the episode more than once, or to make it 'appointment' television.
The answer? Not really.
It's not that I don't like Heroes. I do. I've watched it since almost the start, but have never really gotten "into it" into it. It's on, I watch it, I even tape it most times, or have in the past. It's an evening's diversion. If pressed I could name characters and so forth, roughly outline who they are and what happened and what's been set in motion in the series, but not without deliberate thought.
Implications of plot developments from the night before don't ambush me as I take out the trash the next day. Bolts of insight into characters don't hit me in the middle of work. I am a sucker for super-powers and time travel in fiction, yet still, Heroes is just an hour or two of shiny, exploding TV to me.
The thing with Heroes, and its cast of jillions, and its special effect budget that could fund a small nation, is that they can ostensibly do anything they want to. So they do. They have bells and whistles and whirligigs and flashing lights and it's all pretty and shiny, yeah, but... to me, it's just that. Flash without substance. It distracts me from what's going on, and therefore, to me, detracts from the story.
In juxtaposition we have Supernatural, which has a lower budget by a couple orders of magnitude. Perhaps a lower budget than some homegrown Canadian productions. Effects are sparse and sometimes quite low-tech. This season premiere had some awesome effects, yes, but nowhere near the fireworks factory conflagration that the Heroes premiere was.
Last night was the first time I was almost glad Supernatural has a low budget. With a big budget like Heroes, the question of 'can we do this?' has almost no relevance beyond what the technology can accomplish. They can, so they do.
The question that doesn't seem to get asked when a show can do any FX they want is 'Should we do this?' Does it advance the story, or the audience's perception of a character or situation, or provide some plot-relevant enhancement to a scene? How much do we need to do special effects-wise to create the perception we want the audience to have?
On Heroes last night, it seemed like these questions were pitched straight out the window. But that's Heroes. Big and shiny, like a pink aluminum Christmas tree.
Back to Supernatural. To my mind in a production like Supernatural, "Should we do it?" needs to come before "Can we do it?" in order to make best use of the budget. If a special effect is not necessary or does not advance the story or the viewers' experience or understanding of the situation in some way, it should be omitted to save the budget for the things that are necessary.
The FX on Supernatural are usually small and subtle, directly and immediately relating to the story, plot, or character at hand. When they are bigger and grander, they are usually all the more effective for it. Usually. *pointedly avoids looking at "Red Sky"*
My favourite effect they've ever done, to this day, (although at least one sequence from the Supernatural Season 4 opener is nudging it now) is from Supernatural's first season, the Hookman invisibly trailing the hook along the wall. An effect accomplished with some thread and spackle, if I'm not mistaken.
It's low-tech, understated, subtle and creepy as hell because of it. It puts the focus on the characters and the situation they are in, rather than on how well a computer in California can render graphics. All with thread and spackle.
To me, in terms of Special Effects, whether despite or because of its low budget, Supernatural wins versus Heroes. It accomplishes a lot more with a lot less, and I think it's a more absorbing and involving show because of it.
What do you think?
(NO SPOILERS PLEASE!)
no subject
The technological goodness of heroes is going to become tomorrows laugh fest at the lame effects of the past, all that really matters is story line. Night Rider is a good example of that. I hope that the storyline of Supernatural will stand the test of time. Unfortunately I can't think of any TV show that doesn't disappoint when looked at thru the rear view mirror.
Wow... I'm in a shitty mood.
Let me think, what old shows can I still stomach watching? Old Star Trek, Original Starwars, The Muppet Show, Stargate... my brain is too paralysed to think of more, but there are some. But it's all personal taste too. I know a lot more people who watch Heroes than who watch Supernatural. We wouldn't be holding our collective breaths near the end of each season if it were otherwise. I'm not saying that Supernatural sucks; I love the show and buy the DVDs. I'm just saying those DVD's might not be the wisest investment I've ever made.
no subject
Exactly! Today's eye candy is next year's rubber-suit monster, and if there's no storyline or character pie under the special effects meringue goes flat, the show won't survive except as a memory. I totally agree about Knight Rider as well, I watched a couple clips of the old show on YouTube when they started reviving the series and holy crap. XD And again, since that show was pretty much a one-trick pony, mostly what's left of it is memory and the studio's attempts to raise the cash cow from the dead and start milking it again. :-P
I hope that the storyline of Supernatural will stand the test of time.
If things play out the way I suspect they will, I think it will have some decent post-series longevity, and be fully capable of surviving its FX getting outdated.
no subject
I'm trying to think of some SPN effects that will get outdated . . . and I know what you're saying . . . but I can't think of any.
I love your example from "Hookman." It's simple, and old fashioned, and will always be the same effect. Might even get used 50 years from now by someone. The effects in the original Star Wars? Still work. (The change in film stock and advent of digital media make some of them look cheesy now, but if presented on the film stock they were intended to be presented on? They still work.) Yoda as a muppet works a bajillion times better for me than Yoda as a CGI. Why? Because the actors can actually interact with him. (And the first time I saw Yoda's lips actually go with his words, I knew immediately something wasn't right.) Same reason Chewie being Peter Mayhew in a costume works better that . . . Jar-Jar as a CGI, for example.
Contrast that with Golem from Lord of the Rings, which was an amazing bit of CGI . . . but then, I think Weta is leaps and bounds ahead of ILM anymore, but that's another discussion for another time. I digress . . .
Plus, the storyline they've chosen for SPN is classic . . . a mix (early on) of folk lore and urban legends that will, I'm guessing, never get outdated, and the cosmic battle of Good vs. Evil . . . on a personal, familial level. I don't know how that compares to Heroes, but I'm thinking that SPN will have a following for a long time to come.
no subject