Real Birds vs. CGI Birds

The Hollywood debate over whether to use real birds or CGI birds is a heated one.

Some people say they can tell the difference between real and CGI birds and some say they can't. Can you tell which of these pictures of birds is real and which is CGI?

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Which one is real? Exhibit A, or Exhibit B?

I asked my two roommates to see what they thought. One of my roommates guessed that the second picture was the real one and my other roommate said that he thought it was a trick question and that both pictures were real.

You might be as surprised as my roommates to find out that it was in fact a trick question, but the trick was that they were both CGI!

CGI birds are very convincing in Hollywood these days, but filmmakers have a history of staying away from CGI, especially CGI birds. One of the most famous examples of movies that used non-CGI birds was Hitchcock's The Birds (1963)

Hitchcock didn't know what he was getting into when he wrote the script for this movie, but with the help of his animal-trainer/friend Ray Berwick, he was able to pull it off. Hitchcock had planned to use machines in place of birds for shots but quickly realized that if he wanted his movie to look realistic he would need to use real birds.

One tactic he used to train his cast was to put them in giant cages the week leading up to filming and literally throw birds at them to get them used to it, meanwhile training the birds to do certain moves to get ready for filming.

Nowadays, we have the ability to use real birds but often use CGI because it looks so good and it's so hard to train a bird. Animated movies have still decided to abstain from using real life, practical birds in their movies. It makes sense from an aesthetic point of view but I can't help but imagine how much money they could save by using real birds at least some of the time.

The Art of Using Birds in Movie Titles

For ages, movie producers have tried to find new and innovative ways to make their movie a blockbuster. One common trend that has been observed most frequently in the past decade has been the use of birds in the titles of movies.

Some of the most successful and highly-acclaimed movies of all time have used birds in their title: Black Swan (2010), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), and Chicken Little (2004) to name a few.

There is speculation over when this trend started but most movie buffs agree that the first big movie that used a bird in its title was Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 thriller, The Birds. After The Birds's gigantic success, many movies followed in its path, but were forced to take circuitous methods of using bird names.

There are many ways you can go about using birds in your title. Some movie makers like to make movies about penguins and be very straightforward with their titles such as Penguins of Madagascar (2014) and March of the Penguins (2005) while others like to take trickier approaches such as Robin Hood (1973), Robin Hood (2010), and Black Hawk Down (2001).

Although these movies took the approach of adding a bird in the title while keeping birds out of the plot, nobody has done as good of a job at subliminally inserting a bird in a movie title than Michael Moore with his widely successful 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine which cleverly inserted the word "owl" into the title.

We might never know if the fact that birds are in the titles of these movies are what made them successful but we can at least say with some certainty that the use of birds didn't hurt the films.

MacGuffin

“The main thing I’ve learned over the years is that the MacGuffin is nothing. I’m convinced of this, but I find it very difficult to prove it to others.” –Alfred Hitchcock

Other wise known as McGuffin or maguffin, a MacGuffin is a plot device that is usually given little or no narrative explanation. It can be in the form of a goal, desired object, or other kind of motivator, and can be either a person, object or place. Sometimes, you might not even notice what the MacGuffin is in a film, but it's always there, and it's the driving force behind the main character's actions in a film.

Alfred Hitchcock is famous for using this term throughout his films.

MacGuffin use in Hitchcock films

Vertigo: Carlotta Valdes' character never appears in the film, and her death isn't important at all to the audience. However, because she is apparently possessing Madeleie Elster, it starts the case for Scottie to investigate and drives the entire film's plot. Some also have noted that the necklace or Scottie's vertigo is also a MacGuffin.

The 39 Steps: Mr. Memory's memorization of plans for an airplane engine. 

Rear Window: the "murder" committed by Lars Thorwald.

Notorious: the uranium ore that is in all the vintage wine bottles.

The Birds: the reason why the birds are attacking everyone.

Psycho: the $40,000 in the envelope. 

His famous method has also inspired other films to use this method in their films. Some examples are:

Pulp Fiction: the briefcase

Avatar: the mineral unobtainium

Mission: Impossible III: the rabbit's foot

Casablanca: the letters of transit

Citizen Kane: the rosebud

Bringing life to the past again

In the spirit of October and Halloween and zombies, I thought I'd make a post about movies that are being re-animated (no pun intended) and why.  Finding Nemo hits theaters again, but this time in 3D; The Lion King and Titanic, both huge successes originally at the box office, came back for round two with an added dimension.  The list continues on, and the future has even more in store (Little Shop of Horrors, The Birds, Dirty Dancing...see the rest here), both in our regular 2D movie experience and in pay-an-extra-four-bucks-for-glasses 3D.  Why not just make something new, though?

The fact of the matter is, even these "classics" are just imitations of other stories that came before, and I'm not entirely sure that such a thing as an "original idea" even exists these days.  It's sad to think of the world of creativity in that way, but really, what are we left with?  Directors, producers, and screenwriters therefore must come up with ways to manipulate the same old song and dance into something that another generation can enjoy, with updated pop culture references, soundtracks, and images.  Plus, with the relatively new frontier of 3D available for exploration, ticket prices rise (in a fair ratio to the increase in cost of making a 3D film, on average about 18% according to the MPAA) to add to the climbing cost of living in today's world.  There has to be something flashy and new to add to the old storyline to attract an audience back to the theater, whether it's in the technology or the talent (you know that you see some movies just for the actors, admit it); otherwise, viewers just won't be pulled back in to see a plot they've watched unfold seven times before in various formats.

I'm not saying that this isn't a decent way to make up for a lack of new ideas; after all, it is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Still, I wouldn't mind seeing filmmakers give a little more effort in the way of creating something at least slightly new, rather than spending more money to jazz up the same shots from the "original."  If you want an upcoming generation to think outside of the box and to try new things, you've got to inspire them through what they see on the big screen, because who doesn't want to be just like a movie star?