So the guys over at Amalgamated Dynamics made a video a few weeks ago discussing the state of practical effects in the industry and gave some examples of the kinds of things that go on these days.
The example with the cyclops made my blood boil. As did the comments section.
Thoughts?
Thanks for that. I can barely believe what I saw. Just from a financial point of view, why would pay for something twice?
Such a shame the practical creature FX in The Hobbit were replaced in post too (Must have been heartbreaking for the crew). The actors were saying that the practical Goblin creatures were genuinely terrifying to act against.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Oh wow, I had no idea Jackson did that as well. They were creepy too:
Here's the original Azog:
So sad. That actually has the look of a film that would come before the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. I hate what's been happening to the Hobbit movies. As to the general state of pratical effects, that's even worse. So sad...
“Ow! It`s hot in here, the butter in my pocket is melting!”
The excellent documentary Men In Suits made it sound like Hollywood was getting back to doing practical creatures, but CGI is like the Dark Side of the Force sometimes.
Where were you in '77?
Whatever meagre, ephemeral desire I ever may have had to watch The Thing went out the window when I saw that stupid CGI; whatever studio bigwig decided that looked better than the original physical effects is a braindead dumbfuck.
I didn't think it was possible, but my hatred for Hollywood has actually intensified.
Apparently the creature costumes in The Hobbit looked cheap in 48fps according to behind the scenes docs. No idea how true that is.
I have a feeling we'll be seeing more practical effects in the years to come. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a flash in the pan, but CGI does feel like a bit of a fad to me. It's here for good, no doubt about that, but I think it's days as the go to special effect are numbered. If Episode VII uses practical effects as much as they say they will, I believe it could be the turn of the tide.
Prometheus had a lot of good practical effects.
DominicCobb said:
Apparently the creature costumes in The Hobbit looked cheap in 48fps according to behind the scenes docs. No idea how true that is.
3D was also mentioned as the reason all the physical scale model work (That everyone appluaded in LOTR) was scraped too.
If shooting 3D and 48fps makes everything look like a t*rd sandwich, then maybe that was the universe's message to PJ that he should stick to 24fps 2D.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Is anybody else shooting in 48fps currently?
Where were you in '77?
Think I've gotta go with Ryan on this one. Really, if shooting 48fps is gonna make things look cheap and/or rubbish whatever you do, don't use it. I had gathered from the initial tests before filming that people were already divided on the 'look', so why use it at all? And I am seriously asking the question, 'cause i don't know. Was it hubris on the side of Jackson, in an I'm right, you're wrong sort of way? Did the studio insist that it be filmed that way for the 'novelty'? Hmm...
“Ow! It`s hot in here, the butter in my pocket is melting!”
Under that logic all films should be shot in black and white and should be silent,because everything new took a while to get the bugs sorted out.
I really don't get this modern fear of computers and believe that if a computer is used in any way in the making of a movie the film maker is evil and needs to be burned alive in the street. My favorite films are from the 40 and and 70s and I have no problem with computers,they are just a tool. They are not the devil and a movie using CGI doesn't mean that it is a bad movie. At first all model shots looked fake and colour meant using huge bulky cameras that couldn't move easily and the lighting had to be less dynamic. Early colour films looked faker then gblack and white films made at the same time,so I guess any film maker who uses colour is just drunk on his own ego and every film ever shot with colour is garbage.
Computers have done so much good for film making it's not even funny(I mean for one Babylon 5 just could not have been done without them) but so many people seem to view them as a tool of the devil that needs to be destroyed. let me tell you something as someone who has seen CGI done in person,it takes just as much work and skill to make a good CGi effect,the hardworking people who make them are not demons from the pit of hell and this idea that every movie made without computers is perfect and every movie made with them is worthless is just fear. I guess it's human nature to hate and fear everything new and to attack anyone who tries to do anything new so i can't complain since there is no changing that. Reason and logic have nothing to do with human nature.
Oh and I think the Hobbit films are the best looking 3D films out there because they don't have the lighting problems and they are some of the few never to give me a headache. It does work it just takes a new set of skills.
Oh and one big reason they went with CGI was so the actors could take the masks off because those masks that looked so good also didn't allowed the actors to see and they got so hot that they would pass out after ten or fifteen minutes. So after several actors were hurt and they fell days behind shooting Jackson choose to use CGI and mo cap some of the actors so they could take the heads off because of health and safety concerns,but don't let that stop your personal crusade against the devil that is Peter Jackson. Clearly he should have sacrificed the lives of hundreds of actors if it meant keeping the evil computers away from the movie because the only reason to ever use a computer is if you hate movies and want to ruin them for all time. Jackson is clearly part of an evil plot to ruin movies with his Devil boxes and needs to be burned alive in the town square for using computers in his movies.
I mean clearly that is the only way to stop this devil's work since people who hate CGI don't have the option of choosing not to watch movies with CGI in them. Clearly the only option is to personally attack anyone who uses CGI in a movie since free will doesn't exist and you have to watch every movie that gets released.
Okay, nobody is on a crusade against Peter Jackson here. We're not all plugged into every aspect of the Hobbit's production.
And speaking as someone with a little costuming experience, if the masks were causing the actors breathing difficulties and safety issues, then they were poorly designed. I'll bet this didn't happen on the LOTR films.
And if you don't understand why some of us have issues with CGI that does convince the eye it's a living breathing creature, you've missed one reason this site even exists.
Where were you in '77?
Oh I understand but if you are going to throw people under the bus for using computers then you should first have to get rid of all computers in your own life first. How come you don't use telegrams,don't you know some people find them more personal then internet posts?
How come you are allowed to use computers to get your work done but other people are not?
Oh and you do know some of the new special effects techniques used in the original trilogy displaced old techniques that had been used for decades before the 70s right? One of those was computer control of cameras so that passes over models could be duplicated and done faster. The fact is all the great film makers used the most advanced techniques they had at the time and this techno fear response is just a base human reaction to anything new. If we were back in the 1880s you all would be calling for light bulbs to be banned.
I don't know about you but I didn't join this site because I hate CGI and the people who worked in the field and if I knew that was required then i would not have joined. I know people who work in the field and they are not lazy or trying to destroy film making,they work hard to produce good work and most of the time in a modern film I can't tell what is CGI and what is real so I would say they do a good job.
Also CGI has freed film makers from a lot of bonds,now even low budget productions can have decent looking special effects. Back in the day a movie like Star Trek the Motion picture nearly killed the franchise because the number of effects shots made it cost an insane amount of money,these days you can do a movie on it's scale for a fraction of the cost when you adjust for inflation. For instance a move like District 9 that couldn't get the backing of a major studio was still able to be made because it could be brought in for around $30. In the old days a movie with a script like that would not have been made without the backing of a studio because no one else would have the money for the special effects. Now that isn't much of a problem any more. Heck now a days internet videos that are worked on by one guy like Linkara have special effects that are on par with the original Star Trek 40 years ago and given that that show was one of the most expensive on Tv at the time it aired I would say that is pretty amazing and it is a good thing.
The fact is CGI and computers have down us all a ton of good and there are a lot of hard working people who work in the field who don't get much respect and in some cases are treated like the scum of the earth just because they are working on something new and I don't like that. I think people should get credit for doing hard work. Even if you don't like the 48 fps isn't there something to be said for the fact that Jackson didn't just sit around and cash and easy paycheck by doing the exact same thing he did on The lord of the rings? Shouldn't he get some credit for having the guts to try something new even if it doesn't work out. I think to truly move forward you have to dare to be stupid,in other works you have to be willing to look like a fool if things don't work out and not let that stop you from trying new things. I would rather see a film where someone tries and fails to do something new then see one where they just do the same old safe thing.
I don't have problem with CGI even in the specials editions. my only problem is that the originals are not around any more. If Lucas would release them the same way the original effects were preserved on Star trek i would have no problem what so ever with the SEs. I have no problem with CGI in any form or the people who work on it. This website has never been about hatred of CGI for me,it has been about preserving the original cuts of the films on home video. If the original cuts had CG that was later replaced with model shots I would still be upset as a film fan.
Sorry I just don't have a deep seated hatred of CGI and I don't think using it makes anyone a bad film maker.
Oh and the Lord of the Rings used a lot of CGi,in fact is was seeing a demo of CGI tech that had two armies fighting that convinced Jackson that the time had come to make The Lord of the Rings into films. Oh and most of the goblins in the close shots were real actors it's just the heads that were added in post. Jackson didn't turn his back anything he just moved with the times the way every film maker always has.
Okay, I'm confused. Was that in reply to my post? 'Cause i was asking a genuine question. I honestly don't know why the decision was reached to shoot the Hobbit in that way. Also, I didn't really think that anyone was saying that cgi is 'The Devil'. I was under the impression we all thought it was a tool. You know, like lighting, models and make up. You use it when you have to. Babylon 5, in fact, is an excellent example of this. As are most movies that David Fincher makes. The Hobbit movies are a prestige product, yet in their home versions looks cheap and nasty. This is not the only film i can point to this year that is like that. Step forward... well, step forward this years summer season. And any horror film released over the past five years. It's easy to pick specifically on a film like the Hobbit, when we all expected so much from it, but that's distracting from the fact that most Hollywood 'Prestige' pictures just look a bit cheap compared to a few years ago. CGI is not the problem. Apparently, if you watch the video, the studios are the problem, specifically the lead times that they are currently giving to these productions that are hampering the effects artists and not allowing them to deliver the quality that they want to deliver. Nobody cares about the medium used. Only that it looks good.
JEDIT I was replying to two posts up.
“Ow! It`s hot in here, the butter in my pocket is melting!”
I don't know about you but I think all special effects look somewhat fake,even guys in suits I know they are not real monsters so drawing a line with CGI don't make sense to me when something like The Birds with it's back projection that looked silly is considered a classic and I love The Birds,but no means of making special effects is going to be perfect and in the end it comes down to what works best for the time and money that you have.
You are right about lead times CGI artists work insane hours to get projects done on time and don't get nearly enough credit for all the hard work they do.
Oh and my reply was to the whole thread and it's "CGI is evil and always looks bad and every film maker who uses it is a bad person" tone and not to you.
So, you don't think people who bust their ass to make a practical creature work on the set, (and without harming the actors) only to find out it's all been replaced by CGI when they sit down to see the movie, might have a legitimate axe to grind?
Where were you in '77?
There's an entire feature on the Extended Edition about the rush to get all these goblin masks made, getting them approved at the last second, then after two days of filming having most of the actors not wear them. IIRC, the masks were sent to Weta and scanned to be used to make the CG heads. I don't remember if it showed the mask makers' reaction to this decision.SilverWook said:
So, you don't think people who bust their ass to make a practical creature work on the set, (and without harming the actors) only to find out it's all been replaced by CGI when they sit down to see the movie, might have a legitimate axe to grind?
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
SilverWook said:
So, you don't think people who bust their ass to make a practical creature work on the set, (and without harming the actors) only to find out it's all been replaced by CGI when they sit down to see the movie, might have a legitimate axe to grind?
When you work in film you know that your work could end up on the cutting room floor,and that goes for every one. From an actor getting his scenes cut(Clerk Gregg has even joked about the fact that before he played Agent Coulson that he was the guy who's scenes were always cut from the movie to get it down to a decent run time),a composer who writes a piece of music for a scene but then the director finds in editing that the scene plays better without a score,or a special effects person who goes to the trouble of making a mask that seems to work fine in the shop but once it is out in the studio causes trouble and needs to be replaced. If you can't live with that idea then you are in the wrong business.
Oh and as has been pointed out the masks were not just trashed they were scanned,so they were used in the movie just not in the exact way people thought they would be. That is the thing about Jackson he always seems to use a practical effect as the basis for the CGI effects wither it's taining a make up person to use a computer to pain the skin on Golum,mo capping actors to get the best balance between man in suit and CGi for creatures that would take too much time and money to do with out a computer,or scanning a mask and putting it on the actors' heads digitally,and that is why I have a hard time picking out the CGI from the practical effects in his movies. The fact is on any movie you have limited time and money so it comes down to finding what works in that time and when you come down to it computers and CGi are a big help there and movies like The Lord of the Rings just couldn't be done on time or budget without them.
Computers are a tool we all use and there is nothing wrong with using them in film making.
DrCrowStarWars, are you high? What's with these tirades? They seem rather unprovoked. I think everyone here would agree CGI is a highly useful tool and none of us are against it being used in films today. We're just sad that so many practical effects are being replaced by digital ones for no reason, and because those new effects look like something out of a video game while the practical effects are clearly things shot on camera with the actors, which makes them look more real.
I don't think either looks real. I can see where the mask joins the actor's face on a mask so that looks just as fake as any effect and there are always tells when you are looking at a model so I really don't think it is worth getting upset about. That is all I am saying. All special effect will always look fake if you know what to look for and I don't like second guessing people like directors when I don't have all the facts. There are so many factors that come into play when deciding if you are going to use a practical effect or a CGI one in a modern film so in this case I don't think we have enough facts to judge what should have been used where since we don't have a budget or production time breakdown or the contracts for every one involved in the making of the film.
I really don't think practical effects get scrapped for no reason and if a director did spend money on them and just scrap them because he wanted a fake CGi effect for no reason(forcing the studio to pay twice for the same effect)I really don't think that director would work in Hollywood again.
I agree that there are times when practical effects look better(Just look at Farscape)but some times using practical effects is not practical and I am not going to hold it against the director or anyone else if they had to switch effects techniques to get the film made on time or on budget. i really don't think CGI is being used in most cases just to use CGI. It's being used because it's the best way to get things down for the time and money involved.
Now in a perfect word they would be able to spend ten years on the production of any film and the budget would be unlimited but this isn't a perfect world and the fact is that while directors may be artists the art they are making is a product to be sold so they have to answer to the money men who fund it and they have contracts they have to full fill and release dates to hit and budgets to stick to. That's just the nature of the beast when working with big budget films you don't fund yourself and I have nothing against a director using CGI to get his or her job done.
That is all I am saying.
I think practical effects sit better because everything in each shot is everything that is there. cg needs to be put in after and justed to make it fit. The lighting of it doesnt look right to me. Sometimes when a thing cant be bilt then it works or like in small areas when its not everywhere then that as we'll too.
Okay, so here's what i took from the video linked.
1. Directors are asking practical effects artists to come into a project early, because they are trying to achieve a certain look. The entire production is then designed around this look, the effects are created, lit, filmed, and then someone in the studio is insisting that certain effects then get replaced by a digital creation to achieve completely the opposite look and it makes things look disjointed. The studio themselves are insisting the effect gets paid for twice.
2. When the practical effects guys are called in, they're only being given a three month lead time, when they really need AT LEAST six months. Doctor Who gets a three month pre-production, and it's a t.v. show, and arguably a lot more disposible than a Hollywood movie. Don't get me wrong, i love Doctor Who, but it's a sad day when it looks just as good, if not better than, The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
It does look like practical effects are deliberately being supressed. Obviously the video is biased, but since it's Woodruff and Gillis and they've worked in the industry for as long as I've been alive, I'm gonna give it some credence.
JEDIT Also, I'm gonna say, having looked at some behind the scenes articles and videos, The Hobbit is a really bad example. Yeah, some of us may prefer the physical stuff, but it would seem that Pete just wanted it to look the way it does. In fact, if he had his way he'd replace all the Orcs in the Rings trilogy with CGI, so be thankful THAT hasn't happened.
“Ow! It`s hot in here, the butter in my pocket is melting!”
I shot some 8mm monster films, and monster films on my old C-VHS camcorder. The monster's in question looked pretty bad-ass.
Now, they look ridiculous on the camera in my cell phone.
I totally can see how a costume that would be amazing in a normal movie might not look right in 48 fps IMAX 3-D mega HD death-vision.
I personally have a preference for practical effects, but always reject the notion that CGI is cheaper, lazier, faster, or somehow requires less artistry or craftsmanship.