Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
Where do we draw the line where a film stops being live action and becomes an animated film? What are the criteria for what constitutes an animated film? The next film I am looking at for Animated Film Saturdays, is one that I feel explores the border between live action and animated film, which is Alita: Battle Angel from 2019. Mixing live action an animation is nothing new, including films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Cool World, and then there was rotoscoping animation, which required live action shots or photos that would then be animated over, a great example of that is Ralph Bakshi's Lord Of The Rings, and also Taarna from the animated film Heavy Metal. But then in 2009 James Cameron blurred the lines of animated film and live action to the point that they were indistinguishable, with his film Avatar. I am not talking live action films that take place in CG worlds, or even like the Star Wars prequels where the worlds were greatly CG, and even some of the alien races were CG, but it was still distinctly a live action film, but films like Avatar and Alita go beyond that in a way I just don't know how exactly to explain. In films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Cool World, there was a distinct difference between the cartoon world and the live action human world, and there were situations where those two worlds came together, and in films like the Star Wars prequels it all seemed part of a mostly live action populated world, where even the CG characters had this feel and appearance of being live action. Then along came Avatar, which took that two distinct world element of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and also the blending of CG character with live action character in a realism way of the Star Wars prequels, but then made it so that the human characters instead began to feel more like they are integrated into a realistic animated film rather than the other way around. Alita then is just taking the next step forward from Avatar, which makes sense because it was an idea that also had its roots with James Cameron, who decided that he would abandon it and focus on Avatar. So some people might disagree with me choosing to review Alita: Battle Angel as an animated film, and I welcome their thoughts in the comments.
Alita: Battle Angel was originally a cyberpunk manga series by Japanese mangaka Yukito Kishiro in the early 1990's, and there was also an anime OVA (Original Video Animation, basically a direct to video film or series) version of Alita released in 1993. The series was then brought to the attention of filmmaker James Cameron by his friend Guillermo del Toro, and Cameron fell in love with the idea of turning it into a film, and 20th Century Fox even bought the internet domain names for Battle Angel Alita all the way back in 2000. But in 2000 the technology to truly bring Alita to life just wasn't there yet. Then when the technology was finally there he was torn between bringing Alita to life, or to go ahead with his idea for Avatar, which he finally made the hard choice to go with Avatar, which was a hugely successful film. Sadly that meant that Alita was abandoned, and it wouldn't see a release for another ten years, 19 years after 20th Century Fox had purchased the internet domain names for the film, it would finally come to realization. It wasn't James Cameron however that would finally make this film though, it would be Robert Rodriguez, they guy who brought us films like The Faculty and Planet Terror that would end up directing Alita. Rodriguez was in love with Cameron's idea for Alita, and one day when they were hanging out he asked Cameron what was going on with Alita, and in the conversation it was offered to Rodriguez to direct the film, and Cameron would produce it, if Rodriguez could take their huge script that was written for it, and cut it down to make a movie out of it. Rodriguez came back with an edited copy of the script that kept intact all of the best qualities and key points of the script and created something that captured the tone and energy that they were going for with the original script, and Alita was finally coming to reality.
Alita: Battle Angel tells the story of a Dr Dyson Ido who is a cyborg repairman who finds the intact head, brain, and heart of a very advanced cyborg, which he brings to his lab and gives it a body and awakens her. He gives her the name Alita, but Alita has no recollection of who she was, and the film follows her path of self-discovery. Along the way she finds love with a human boy, and she takes on a fight against the oppressors of the people, and finds out the enemy that she was built to fight, Nova still exists after 300 years, and she fights to accomplish her original mission.
Alita: Battle Angel was directed by Robert Rodriguez with a screenplay by James Cameron and Laeta Kalogridis. The film was produced by James Cameron. The film was based on Battle Angel Alita by Yukito Kishiro. The film was distributed by 20th Century Fox and would end up being Robert Rodriguez's highest grossing film of his career, grossing $405 million in the box office (I did my part in helping this film be successful in the theater by the way, I saw it three times, and I bought the DVD). However high that gross might sound, it runs into the same problem as films like Valerian And The City Of A Thousand Planets from 2017 ran into, which is because of how much the film costs, the break even point is so high that it is hard for the film to actually be profitable. So $405 million sounds like a huge success, but it is debatable if the film actually even broke even. Although the budget was only $150-200 million, making it look like on the surface a huge success, with marketing and other associated costs included it is estimated that the film needed to gross between $350-500 million to break even. So what does that mean? Sadly it means that even though the film was built up to be a franchise, that there is a chance that we may never see a sequel, and that if you want to know what happens with Alita and Nova, you might have to track down the manga and read it.
Alita: Battle Angel stars Rosa Salazar as Alita (CGI), Christoph Waltz as Dr. Dyson Ido (live action), Jennifer Connelly as Dr. Chiren (Dr. Ido's ex-wife who works for Vector) (live action), Mahershala Ali as Vector who serves Nova and has great power (live action), Keean Johnson as Hugo who is Alita's love interest (live action), Lana Condor as Koyomi and Jorge Lendeborg Jr as Tanji who are Hugo and Alita's friends (both live action). Then there are the bad guys with Jackie Earle Haley as Grewishka a huge cyborg who is Nova's personal assassin (CGI), Eiza Gonzalez as Nyssiana who is Grewishka's subordinate (CGI), and Edward Norton as Nova (who is uncredited and plays a cameo and I will be honest I am not sure if he is live action of CGI or a mix of the two). Then there are the hunters who become the enemies of Alita including Ed Skrein as Zapa an arrogant and egotistical hunter with a vendetta against Alita who to me looks a bit like Billy Idol (CGI), Elle LaMont as Screwhead (CGI), and Rick Yune as Master Clive Lee who is bragadocious of his record 207 kills (CGI), but she also befriended a hunter named McTeague (Jeff Fahey) who leads a pack of cyborg dogs (CGI). McTeague likes Alita because of the kindness that she shows to a small dog. The film also features Idara Victor as Nurse Gerhad who is Ido's assistant (live action), and Casper Van Dien as Amok who is responsible for the death of Ido's daughter (named Alita)(CGI). The film has an amazing cast, especially with Rosa Salazar as Alita. I like that many of the characters were not a clear cut good or bad, that there were levels and degrees to the characters, which created a feeling of depth, and a world that isn't rooted in black and white morality. This is especially true in the case of Hugo who is Alita's love interest, who on the surface seems like a good character, but as we dig deeper into his story we see that he is also not a morally good character, and that he is willing to commit terrible acts in his goals to escape from Iron City to the sky city of Zalem. Also there is the character of Dr. Cherin who we get the feeling that she is an evil character, but as we learn more about her we start to see that she isn't quite so simplistic as that. I like that element of this film, not only do these characters have depth, but it is true that in life there isn't always a clear line drawn between good and evil, and that there are so many shades of grey in between, and complexities. So this film has some amazing characters with depth and stories, some we learn, some are only hinted at, and the actors chosen to bring those characters to life, did an amazing job at it.
I want to talk more about the animation, and whether or not this is an animated film. My roommate and I were talking about this, the day that we watched the film together, and they brought up the point that they had a professor in art school that argued that motion capture CGI is not animation but is in fact digital puppetry. They argued that Golem in the Lord Of The Rings is not actually an animated character but a puppet. Which I can see the validity of that, but then I also wonder, would the same be argued for rotoscoping? In films like Ralph Bakshi's Lord Of The Rings, there were large sequences of the film that are acted out in real life, and then frame by frame animators would illustrate cells laid over the live action to create animated action. This of course was in the days of hand drawn animation, but in the days of digital animation, would not motion capture be a high-tech digital version of rotoscoping in a way. Note: I am not an expert on animation, and only have a rudimentary knowledge about how all of this works. From what I understand in motion capture CGI the actor wears a suit with motion capture balls that are then read by the computer to create the base for the movements of the physical actor, then those are basically drawn over with digital animation to create the image that we see upon the screen. Like I have watched some making of videos of how the motion capture has been used for video games like Tony Hawk Pro Skater, and in CGI films, and it to me seems much like a high-tech version of rotoscoping animation where a person does the things, and then it is animated over, but instead of laying a cell over the live action frames, it would be points of light that would show the motion of that live action person on the computer screen and then detail is animated in, either way it is still an act of animators to create the detail and the life. So to the question of is it puppetry or animation, I would say that it is both, and that instead of being a debate over one or the other, both sides are right. So based on my working definition of motion capture CGI animation, I would say that yes characters like Alita and the hunters in this film are in fact animated characters. Also then a significant portion of the main characters are animated in this fashion. The sets of the film complex this more, because in reality, large portions of the sets are actual physical sets, while a large part are also digital sets. I would honestly say that the sets are no more CGI than many science-fiction fantasy films have been since the 1990s. So I can't say that the sets of this film lend to supporting nor negating the argument of whether Alita: Battle Angel is any more or less of an animated film. However just to take a moment, the sets are breathtakingly beautifully done, and really help to create the tone of the world in which this film exists.
I guess the question I want to address is what is an animated film, and what kind of films might you see on this blog in the Animated Films Saturdays posts? Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Cool World, I would review here, because of the creative way that they blend animated worlds and live action worlds, but still maintaining distinct separations of what is and what isn't animated, creating two worlds that coexist. Even though the films are largely live action, it still shows a creative adaptation of the use of animation. Alita and Avatar I would also review here because of how they push the grounds of animation to the point that the lines are blurred and it becomes hard to tell what is and isn't animated, but the the films also stand out as animated films, and the animation isn't just used to add effect to the live action film, but becomes an integral part of the film, so that one can almost wonder if the live action is actually there instead to add effect to the animated film. Star Wars films starting with the prequels however I would not include here, because to me those are films that use animation to add effect to the live action and are not not primarily animated films...again there is a very fine line to draw here, because where an animated film becomes and live action film and vise versa gets to be a point of cutting hairs, like why would I consider Alita and Avatar animated films, but I would consider the Blade Runner 2049 a live action film, comes down to little more than, "because I said so". So if I review a film for an Animated Films Saturdays, and you think to yourself, "Hey, this isn't an animated film", then please let me know why you think so in the comments, but because on some films the lines between what is an isn't animated are so thin, I can only say why I feel that this film is or isn't what I consider to be animated. So I do welcome friendly debate on the topic, I love to learn new ideas and insights, you might persuade me to a new line of thinking, or you might not, that is the cool thing about friendly debate on subjective issues like this. I mean some might argue that anything with any element of animation might fit the qualification of animated films, which means that Peter Jackson's Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings films might qualify, whereas others might have a much more rigid view and could argue that any film with live action elements cease to be animated films. So I would be interested to see where you all stand on this. 
I loved this film, I would say that Alita: Battle Angel is a must see film. This film seamlessly mixes cutting edge CG animation with live action characters and sets, to create a beautifully real world. To me this film is much like watching a live action anime film. The emotions and expressions of the characters faces are absolutely beautifully done. This might be one of the most beautifully done films that I have seen, and also one of my favourite films ever. The story is well written and complex, and it is obvious that the film is barely breaking the surface of the much larger story that exists, and I wholeheartedly hope that they make more films in the series, and bring in more of the characters like Nova who were barely more than hinted at their existence, and their importance. There is so much to build upon and work with, that it would be true tragedy to just let this franchise go. The hard thing is how to make more films in the franchise profitable, and that alone might be the reason that the series might die with the first film, not because of lack of interest by viewers, but just purely the costs of making the films can barely be recouped even if the film is a huge box office success. If you haven't yet seen Alita: Battle Angel, I highly recommend checking it out. If you come across a copy of it, don't pass it up, it is definitely worth having in your film collection. This film has it all, a great emotional story, high paced action, great complex characters, and amazing imagery. If you have seen the film before, I recommend checking it out again, there is so much to see and experience with this amazing film!
Alita: Battle Angel was originally a cyberpunk manga series by Japanese mangaka Yukito Kishiro in the early 1990's, and there was also an anime OVA (Original Video Animation, basically a direct to video film or series) version of Alita released in 1993. The series was then brought to the attention of filmmaker James Cameron by his friend Guillermo del Toro, and Cameron fell in love with the idea of turning it into a film, and 20th Century Fox even bought the internet domain names for Battle Angel Alita all the way back in 2000. But in 2000 the technology to truly bring Alita to life just wasn't there yet. Then when the technology was finally there he was torn between bringing Alita to life, or to go ahead with his idea for Avatar, which he finally made the hard choice to go with Avatar, which was a hugely successful film. Sadly that meant that Alita was abandoned, and it wouldn't see a release for another ten years, 19 years after 20th Century Fox had purchased the internet domain names for the film, it would finally come to realization. It wasn't James Cameron however that would finally make this film though, it would be Robert Rodriguez, they guy who brought us films like The Faculty and Planet Terror that would end up directing Alita. Rodriguez was in love with Cameron's idea for Alita, and one day when they were hanging out he asked Cameron what was going on with Alita, and in the conversation it was offered to Rodriguez to direct the film, and Cameron would produce it, if Rodriguez could take their huge script that was written for it, and cut it down to make a movie out of it. Rodriguez came back with an edited copy of the script that kept intact all of the best qualities and key points of the script and created something that captured the tone and energy that they were going for with the original script, and Alita was finally coming to reality.
Alita: Battle Angel tells the story of a Dr Dyson Ido who is a cyborg repairman who finds the intact head, brain, and heart of a very advanced cyborg, which he brings to his lab and gives it a body and awakens her. He gives her the name Alita, but Alita has no recollection of who she was, and the film follows her path of self-discovery. Along the way she finds love with a human boy, and she takes on a fight against the oppressors of the people, and finds out the enemy that she was built to fight, Nova still exists after 300 years, and she fights to accomplish her original mission.
Alita: Battle Angel was directed by Robert Rodriguez with a screenplay by James Cameron and Laeta Kalogridis. The film was produced by James Cameron. The film was based on Battle Angel Alita by Yukito Kishiro. The film was distributed by 20th Century Fox and would end up being Robert Rodriguez's highest grossing film of his career, grossing $405 million in the box office (I did my part in helping this film be successful in the theater by the way, I saw it three times, and I bought the DVD). However high that gross might sound, it runs into the same problem as films like Valerian And The City Of A Thousand Planets from 2017 ran into, which is because of how much the film costs, the break even point is so high that it is hard for the film to actually be profitable. So $405 million sounds like a huge success, but it is debatable if the film actually even broke even. Although the budget was only $150-200 million, making it look like on the surface a huge success, with marketing and other associated costs included it is estimated that the film needed to gross between $350-500 million to break even. So what does that mean? Sadly it means that even though the film was built up to be a franchise, that there is a chance that we may never see a sequel, and that if you want to know what happens with Alita and Nova, you might have to track down the manga and read it.
Alita: Battle Angel stars Rosa Salazar as Alita (CGI), Christoph Waltz as Dr. Dyson Ido (live action), Jennifer Connelly as Dr. Chiren (Dr. Ido's ex-wife who works for Vector) (live action), Mahershala Ali as Vector who serves Nova and has great power (live action), Keean Johnson as Hugo who is Alita's love interest (live action), Lana Condor as Koyomi and Jorge Lendeborg Jr as Tanji who are Hugo and Alita's friends (both live action). Then there are the bad guys with Jackie Earle Haley as Grewishka a huge cyborg who is Nova's personal assassin (CGI), Eiza Gonzalez as Nyssiana who is Grewishka's subordinate (CGI), and Edward Norton as Nova (who is uncredited and plays a cameo and I will be honest I am not sure if he is live action of CGI or a mix of the two). Then there are the hunters who become the enemies of Alita including Ed Skrein as Zapa an arrogant and egotistical hunter with a vendetta against Alita who to me looks a bit like Billy Idol (CGI), Elle LaMont as Screwhead (CGI), and Rick Yune as Master Clive Lee who is bragadocious of his record 207 kills (CGI), but she also befriended a hunter named McTeague (Jeff Fahey) who leads a pack of cyborg dogs (CGI). McTeague likes Alita because of the kindness that she shows to a small dog. The film also features Idara Victor as Nurse Gerhad who is Ido's assistant (live action), and Casper Van Dien as Amok who is responsible for the death of Ido's daughter (named Alita)(CGI). The film has an amazing cast, especially with Rosa Salazar as Alita. I like that many of the characters were not a clear cut good or bad, that there were levels and degrees to the characters, which created a feeling of depth, and a world that isn't rooted in black and white morality. This is especially true in the case of Hugo who is Alita's love interest, who on the surface seems like a good character, but as we dig deeper into his story we see that he is also not a morally good character, and that he is willing to commit terrible acts in his goals to escape from Iron City to the sky city of Zalem. Also there is the character of Dr. Cherin who we get the feeling that she is an evil character, but as we learn more about her we start to see that she isn't quite so simplistic as that. I like that element of this film, not only do these characters have depth, but it is true that in life there isn't always a clear line drawn between good and evil, and that there are so many shades of grey in between, and complexities. So this film has some amazing characters with depth and stories, some we learn, some are only hinted at, and the actors chosen to bring those characters to life, did an amazing job at it.
I want to talk more about the animation, and whether or not this is an animated film. My roommate and I were talking about this, the day that we watched the film together, and they brought up the point that they had a professor in art school that argued that motion capture CGI is not animation but is in fact digital puppetry. They argued that Golem in the Lord Of The Rings is not actually an animated character but a puppet. Which I can see the validity of that, but then I also wonder, would the same be argued for rotoscoping? In films like Ralph Bakshi's Lord Of The Rings, there were large sequences of the film that are acted out in real life, and then frame by frame animators would illustrate cells laid over the live action to create animated action. This of course was in the days of hand drawn animation, but in the days of digital animation, would not motion capture be a high-tech digital version of rotoscoping in a way. Note: I am not an expert on animation, and only have a rudimentary knowledge about how all of this works. From what I understand in motion capture CGI the actor wears a suit with motion capture balls that are then read by the computer to create the base for the movements of the physical actor, then those are basically drawn over with digital animation to create the image that we see upon the screen. Like I have watched some making of videos of how the motion capture has been used for video games like Tony Hawk Pro Skater, and in CGI films, and it to me seems much like a high-tech version of rotoscoping animation where a person does the things, and then it is animated over, but instead of laying a cell over the live action frames, it would be points of light that would show the motion of that live action person on the computer screen and then detail is animated in, either way it is still an act of animators to create the detail and the life. So to the question of is it puppetry or animation, I would say that it is both, and that instead of being a debate over one or the other, both sides are right. So based on my working definition of motion capture CGI animation, I would say that yes characters like Alita and the hunters in this film are in fact animated characters. Also then a significant portion of the main characters are animated in this fashion. The sets of the film complex this more, because in reality, large portions of the sets are actual physical sets, while a large part are also digital sets. I would honestly say that the sets are no more CGI than many science-fiction fantasy films have been since the 1990s. So I can't say that the sets of this film lend to supporting nor negating the argument of whether Alita: Battle Angel is any more or less of an animated film. However just to take a moment, the sets are breathtakingly beautifully done, and really help to create the tone of the world in which this film exists.
I loved this film, I would say that Alita: Battle Angel is a must see film. This film seamlessly mixes cutting edge CG animation with live action characters and sets, to create a beautifully real world. To me this film is much like watching a live action anime film. The emotions and expressions of the characters faces are absolutely beautifully done. This might be one of the most beautifully done films that I have seen, and also one of my favourite films ever. The story is well written and complex, and it is obvious that the film is barely breaking the surface of the much larger story that exists, and I wholeheartedly hope that they make more films in the series, and bring in more of the characters like Nova who were barely more than hinted at their existence, and their importance. There is so much to build upon and work with, that it would be true tragedy to just let this franchise go. The hard thing is how to make more films in the franchise profitable, and that alone might be the reason that the series might die with the first film, not because of lack of interest by viewers, but just purely the costs of making the films can barely be recouped even if the film is a huge box office success. If you haven't yet seen Alita: Battle Angel, I highly recommend checking it out. If you come across a copy of it, don't pass it up, it is definitely worth having in your film collection. This film has it all, a great emotional story, high paced action, great complex characters, and amazing imagery. If you have seen the film before, I recommend checking it out again, there is so much to see and experience with this amazing film!
Comments
Post a Comment