Finding a strong definition for machinima isn’t easy. Wikipedia gives us a broad one; it is “the use of real-time computer graphics engines to create a cinematic production.” A definition like this includes many works, but also risks becoming obsolete. Almost all broadcast television graphics are managed in real time. Also, the same Unreal Engine that brought us Fortnite can be used for rendered or real-time cinematics. In fact, there are already large production houses using real-time computer graphics from the Unreal Engine for large commercials. Although Hollywood productions demand the best available quality, we will likely see real-time graphics make their way into blockbuster films. Movies like Black Panther suffered from unfinished scenes that were released before VFX artists were able to complete them. Real-time workflows may provide enough utility to artists that the resulting picture exceeds the quality of slower rendering technology.
To narrow our definition, we may address the source, subject, and assembly of content. We can’t just rule out anything that isn’t produced entirely using computer graphics without excluding Reckoning. Even if we did, Disney’s next Lion King might still fit the definition. Assembly is off limits too. For example, removing the HUD requires artists to use external software in many games. Most modern machinima uses a traditional non-linear editor for assembly and may even include motion graphics, coloring, VFX, or compositing. Plus, there are single take short films and movies. We can’t clearly distinguish the two here either.
What about source filmmaker? Making a Team Fortress video is clearly machinima, but does something made using assets from outside the game count too? Blender recently added EEVEE. Now the most popular free animation software is real-time. Is a GIF for your profile machinima when rendered in real time? How do we distinguish gameplay from machinima?
Clearly, we need to be more nuanced. A film-machinima binary won’t get us anywhere. I’d be inclined to say machinima has to be about games, but that seems arbitrarily exclusive. Come to think of it, we wouldn’t want to include Ready Player One (eew) and most machinima is at least indirectly about games by virtue of being made inside them. A simple bullet list of requirements is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Machinima is too broad to examine with checklists. Some creators address an in game experience like camping. Others take a meandering, philosophical approach to the in-game universe or use machinima as a critical medium. So where are we supposed to start? First, ask if there is an element of performance. Computer rendered cartoons are animation, not machinima… unless they use manual controls or motion capture instead of keyframing. Nevermind. I also think some machinima creators keyframe certain animations and camera movements.
My best answer is to approach this on a case by case basis. “The RATTY C4 Spawn Kill on NEW Themepark” is definitely a gameplay video, but is “Minecraft City - "Moving In" #1 (Minecraft Roleplay)?” It might help to watch the video, but I still don’t think I would know. It seems similar to a lot of the arguments about other murky distinctions like art and design. Context, process, intentions and one hundred million other things are taken into account. All said and done, not everyone even agrees. When I was 12, I sure thought Frank Stella was a hack.
Now that I’ve given my 564 (and counting) cents, it seems like a good time to dismiss the whole debate. I don’t think it matters all that much what we do and don’t call machinima. Sure, there are times when classifying things is relevant, but it shouldn’t be our first instinct. At the very least, it’s all a whole lot easier that way.
Comments