CG films and mise-en-scene

While the concepts relating to mise-en-scene are universal, they seem to be refuted in some CG feature films --especially props and spacing. One possible reason for this is the time-consuming task of creating props, from modelling them to shading them, and making sure they are compatible with the lighting set-up that the scene will utilise.

However, as time progressed, and CGI became more popular, it seems as though more time has been allocated to creating believable and fun environments as well as impressive character animation.

Look at this shot from Toy Story 1, created in 1995:

There is great attention to detail character animation, but the lighting set-up is basic (but effective), and the background looks bland and uneventful. A great job has been making certain objects look believable however, such as the blanket, which looks soft and cushy, and the plastic which Buzz is made out of.

This is a shot from Toy Story 2:

Compared to what an actual pavement would be like:

Of course, it would be time-consuming and somewhat unnecessary to model and animate a bunch of random people just to make the scene look slightly more believable, but that wouldn't suffice in the world of live-action film.

Compromises were made. As long as the audience could recognise that they were at an airport, then that's what matters. Perhaps I should think about this when creating my piece -- what sacrifices I can make and still tell a story focusing on mise-en-scene.

On the subject of compromise, let's make a comparison between the above scene from Toy Story 2, and a scene from Madagascar:

The scenery in Madagascar is very nice for a CG film. It does what Toy Story 2 didn't; creates an accurate and enjoyable representation of its real-world counter part. However, I have seen Madagascar, and it is boring. The film is no where near enjoyable as Toy Story 2. 

While I want to focus on photorealism and improve my 3d skills, it is not advisable for me to go down this route. The loveliness of this scene can only be appreciated for mere seconds before moving onto the next, but the placidness stays with the audience. The conclusion that I've drawn here is that when it comes to CG films, the focus is on the characters, and what they do.

To demonstrate this point, I must revert to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

For a CG still, this would be ideal. But it has no place in film. A game, maybe. But in film, the audience don't regard how realistic the setting is. The way the set is shown to the audience (the way it is lit, etc) is important, but not the extent of the realism.

The attention to detail is too extreme. It is so extreme that it doesn't allow for the characters to become memorable. Think of Woody or Buzz -- you'll find that you can recall the likeness to a point of 80 - 90% accuracy. Take a look at these two gentlemen. It is likely you want recall much of their appearance this time tomorrow.

For a feature film, I think that less is more when dealing with CG. The opposite of live-action. However, my specialism is photorealism, and I do intend for there to be some animation, so I must find a way to fuse these two elements together successfully. Fortunately, I'm not expected to create a two hour masterpiece, so there will be less room for error, but it will still leave me with much to contemplate.