Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money
I actually agreed with much of what that article was saying too, but I didn't particularly like the style in which it was written though, sensationalized click bait. And as you mentioned, for some reason the world keeps on buying tickets to remakes and sequels with big effects in them. So the producers and directors keep making those films. BUT! It reads like you are placing to be placing the blame more on the artist. We are constantly asked to do things which we know very well will not look right. We try to make suggestions on how or why it doesn't look right and we work with the director/client to make it look the best we can within the parameters of the project. There are sooo many reasons why a shot turns out the way it does, in my experience you give the director what they want. And if the director wants a helicopter to fall from a 10 story dome and explode on screen while a 2 story T-Rex runs to dodge and miss it, all in 5 seconds... then that is what they get! Physics be damned! Now go watch 'Ex Machina' and see that 'responsible use of technology' you mentioned. Steven On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Matt Lind wrote: > I find CG movies very boring, and largely do not watch them. > > I see most of the same problems as quoted in the article and agree 100%. > The problem I see is artists don't understand physics and despite doing > very realistic shading, the illusion is lost the moment anything > movesand poorly. Once credibility is destroyed it becomes very tough > to sit through the movie and accept it for what it tries to be. Many > artists get caught up in poses or moments, or just don't have the > educational background at all. One thing I've noticed is most CG artists > didn't participate in sports activity growing up. As a result, they don't > have a strong grasp of physics or bodily motion. That may also contribute > to the problem. > > Another thing that has irritated me since the 1990s is how all creatures > move with essentially the same personality regardless of size or shape. > They act more like cartoonish humans than the animals/creatures they're > supposed to portray. In real life small animals tend to have twitchy > motions, always on alert, and react quickly while larger animals move very > slow and only move when necessary for efficiency. Jurassic world, I > haven't seen the movie, but I've seen enough of the clips to prove the > point. usually when a creature appears on screen, it'll do some hokey > motion to announce, "hey look at me, I'm a velociraptor and I've come to > eat you!". Chomp, chomp, swish, swish. The velociraptors have single > dimension focus on the human they are going to eat, and when multiple > appear on screen, only one tends to act at a time taking turns while the > others do really stupid idle movements. Very unconvincing. The larger sea > creatures jumping out of the water have movements that tend to mirror those > of a small to midsize fish instead of a whale or other large mammal. This > is poor execution, not budget. Same problem exists in video games and > other media. In fact, its probably worse in games. > > I can go on, but the problem is everybody is trying to tell stories > through FX rather than having the FX support the story. So much emphasis > is put on the 'look' that it fails to consider the more important element - > motion. That same problem existed in other forms of animation prior to the > rise of CG. Look grabs your attention, but motion establishes credibility. > > We see so much of this today because it's what sells. Hollywood is all > about the money. When the day arrives independent movies get enough budget > to do their own CG, you might see more responsible use of the > technology.maybe. > > > Form follows function. Most of today's movies have form, but they don't > function. > > > Matt > > >
RE: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money
Another thing: Someone here said, it's our job to make the impossible possible. I think that's a problem. Directors want something on the screen, that is absolutely impossible in real life. The audience sees in on the screen and say "hey that looks fake. Damn CG!" As Matt pointed out, in a still it doesn't look faked at all with the hyperrealistic shading it has. Even it had believable motion and weight, it would still look "faked" just because it wouldn't be possible in real life. Take the original star wars movies as an example. Of course everything in these movies isn't possible in real life but it could be. It was believable. I think that's because the animatronics they built, had the restrictions of real (physical) life. I would like to see less CG creatures, less over the top destruction of buildings, flying aircraft carriers and such. Fortunatly there are exceptions today, like District9 or Chappie. vfx movies that looks believable to me. sven -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt Lind Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:00 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money I find CG movies very boring, and largely do not watch them. I see most of the same problems as quoted in the article and agree 100%. The problem I see is artists don't understand physics and despite doing very realistic shading, the illusion is lost the moment anything movesand poorly. Once credibility is destroyed it becomes very tough to sit through the movie and accept it for what it tries to be. Many artists get caught up in poses or moments, or just don't have the educational background at all. One thing I've noticed is most CG artists didn't participate in sports activity growing up. As a result, they don't have a strong grasp of physics or bodily motion. That may also contribute to the problem. Another thing that has irritated me since the 1990s is how all creatures move with essentially the same personality regardless of size or shape. They act more like cartoonish humans than the animals/creatures they're supposed to portray. In real life small animals tend to have twitchy motions, always on alert, and react quickly while larger animals move very slow and only move when necessary for efficiency. Jurassic world, I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen enough of the clips to prove the point. usually when a creature appears on screen, it'll do some hokey motion to announce, "hey look at me, I'm a velociraptor and I've come to eat you!". Chomp, chomp, swish, swish. The velociraptors have single dimension focus on the human they are going to eat, and when multiple appear on screen, only one tends to act at a time taking turns while the others do really stupid idle movements. Very unconvincing. The larger sea creatures jumping out of the water have movements that tend to mirror those of a small to midsize fish instead of a whale or other large mammal. This is poor execution, not budget. Same problem exists in video games and other media. In fact, its probably worse in games. I can go on, but the problem is everybody is trying to tell stories through FX rather than having the FX support the story. So much emphasis is put on the 'look' that it fails to consider the more important element - motion. That same problem existed in other forms of animation prior to the rise of CG. Look grabs your attention, but motion establishes credibility. We see so much of this today because it's what sells. Hollywood is all about the money. When the day arrives independent movies get enough budget to do their own CG, you might see more responsible use of the technology.maybe. Form follows function. Most of today's movies have form, but they don't function. Matt Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:15:10 +0200 From: Tim Leydecker Subject: Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money over story? I think it is a good thing to get an educated critique and honest feedback, even if it is going to be biased. I?d actually hope to see more critics point out that a good story, regardless of it?s tonality goes a long way in creating an experience and just because it?s meant to entertain doesn?t mean one can dumb it down and ignore the need to first of all get the basics of telling a compelling story to an audience right. Growing up with 80s/90s sci-fi and action movies, Star Wars, Aliens, Jurrassic Park, Men in Black, Blade, Terminator, True Lies, Indiana Jones, The Thing, Rambo, Universal Soldier, Timecop, 48hrs, Beverly Hills Cop, Escape from New York, etc, etc. did have an effect on me, too. I?m loving it. It took me a few years to also appreciate that there?s this or that odd, old Woody Allen movie and pick it up myself and another few years to find out that both directions can have a common factor, the dedication to their craft. It?s a lot
Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money over story?
Thank you Math, what an in-depth review ;) Thank you Tim, certainly movies you mention are the main reason why many came into VFX in the first place. I just posted this OT thread, because in the end, it doesn´t matter how "bad critics / sensitive ones who can´t let go of old cinema or just new critics with "fan service" mentality" can´t deal with what the movie does in numbers. In the end this is all about a bussiness. I read an article "Hollywod doesn´t make movies for grown ups, just kids" that may be true, but you know...there´s all kinds of categories where they can find resources for a good timeline/storyline (drama, romance, etc..). VFX cinema pays big time for studios, they know it, yet they let critics throw stones at the industry? That´s where the original thoughts emerged for this post. Cheers. On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Tim Leydecker wrote: > I think it is a good thing to get an educated critique and honest > feedback, even if it is going to be biased. > > I´d actually hope to see more critics point out that a good story, > regardless of it´s tonality goes a long way > in creating an experience and just because it´s meant to entertain doesn´t > mean one can dumb it down > and ignore the need to first of all get the basics of telling a compelling > story to an audience right. > > Growing up with 80s/90s sci-fi and action movies, Star Wars, Aliens, > Jurrassic Park, Men in Black, > Blade, Terminator, True Lies, Indiana Jones, The Thing, Rambo, Universal > Soldier, Timecop, 48hrs, > Beverly Hills Cop, Escape from New York, etc, etc. did have an effect on > me, too. I´m loving it. > > It took me a few years to also appreciate that there´s this or that odd, > old Woody Allen movie and pick it up myself > and another few years to find out that both directions can have a common > factor, the dedication to their craft. > > It´s a lot easier to spend millions and waste all the people involved than > spending one dollar wisely. > > The ever growing trend of trivialising the actual craft required in doing > something properly just shows... > > > Cheers, > > tim > > > P.S: As a personal pick, here´s a documentary that has great practial > effects, an Inception style corridor scene, > absolutely gorgeous wires work, wonderful art direction and a cast and > crew that got it right. If you don´t believe me, > believe imdb. Also note, the Rotten Tomatoes Rating vs. the IMDB Rating. > > What we do in the Shadows http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3416742/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 25.07.2015 um 01:37 schrieb Mathieu Leclaire: > > Oh boy... are you sure you want to open that can of worms? > > There is this "lets blame the CGI for ruining my experience" trend going > on right now and as a technical artist working so hard on these movies, I > must admit, it's hard not to get offended. But let's face it, most people > love to complain. They thrive on finding reasons to complain about, and > with social medias all over the place, there are easy ways of verbalizing > our feelings without fully digesting our emotions or thoroughly researching > all the information to help us make an informed statement. > > The human brain tends to generalize a lot of information so we can > easily fit our ideas into neat little boxes in our head and label them. > Also, our survival instincts encourages us to agree with the masses so we > can more easily fit in. I have surprised myself many times in changing my > opinion on a movie because I heard/read a lot of negative critics about it. > I started noticing things that initially didn't bother me. All these > critics changed the way I reflected back on that experience. > > I say this because people got conditioned to point the finger at CGI as > the first reason why these movies are not as good as they had hoped. > Everyone else is saying it, so it must be true. > > I'm not sure where it started, but obviously there's been plenty of bad > CG in the past to create this trend. It's usually due to producers who make > bad calls that lead to bad CG. Since you can pretty much do what you want > in CG, bad calls stand out so much more. It's even more frustrating when > most people can't even notice what we've done when we do our job well. As > long as there are bad calls from the clients, I think we are doomed to > always get blamed for bad effect shots. It's like actors. We've seen a lot > of terrible acting from really great actors that where simply misused. Good > for you if you can find good clients, but most of us don't always have that > luxury to chose who we work with. > > Also, our job is to make the impossible look possible. People want to > see new things they haven't seen before, but when you show them something > they haven't seen yet, they have no point of reference to compare it too, > so it tends to looks fake. It's the nature of our job and why we work so > hard to figure out a way to make it look believable. > > This might sound silly, but people
Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money
I find CG movies very boring, and largely do not watch them. I see most of the same problems as quoted in the article and agree 100%. The problem I see is artists don't understand physics and despite doing very realistic shading, the illusion is lost the moment anything movesand poorly. Once credibility is destroyed it becomes very tough to sit through the movie and accept it for what it tries to be. Many artists get caught up in poses or moments, or just don't have the educational background at all. One thing I've noticed is most CG artists didn't participate in sports activity growing up. As a result, they don't have a strong grasp of physics or bodily motion. That may also contribute to the problem. Another thing that has irritated me since the 1990s is how all creatures move with essentially the same personality regardless of size or shape. They act more like cartoonish humans than the animals/creatures they're supposed to portray. In real life small animals tend to have twitchy motions, always on alert, and react quickly while larger animals move very slow and only move when necessary for efficiency. Jurassic world, I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen enough of the clips to prove the point. usually when a creature appears on screen, it'll do some hokey motion to announce, "hey look at me, I'm a velociraptor and I've come to eat you!". Chomp, chomp, swish, swish. The velociraptors have single dimension focus on the human they are going to eat, and when multiple appear on screen, only one tends to act at a time taking turns while the others do really stupid idle movements. Very unconvincing. The larger sea creatures jumping out of the water have movements that tend to mirror those of a small to midsize fish instead of a whale or other large mammal. This is poor execution, not budget. Same problem exists in video games and other media. In fact, its probably worse in games. I can go on, but the problem is everybody is trying to tell stories through FX rather than having the FX support the story. So much emphasis is put on the 'look' that it fails to consider the more important element - motion. That same problem existed in other forms of animation prior to the rise of CG. Look grabs your attention, but motion establishes credibility. We see so much of this today because it's what sells. Hollywood is all about the money. When the day arrives independent movies get enough budget to do their own CG, you might see more responsible use of the technology.maybe. Form follows function. Most of today's movies have form, but they don't function. Matt Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:15:10 +0200 From: Tim Leydecker Subject: Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money over story? I think it is a good thing to get an educated critique and honest feedback, even if it is going to be biased. I?d actually hope to see more critics point out that a good story, regardless of it?s tonality goes a long way in creating an experience and just because it?s meant to entertain doesn?t mean one can dumb it down and ignore the need to first of all get the basics of telling a compelling story to an audience right. Growing up with 80s/90s sci-fi and action movies, Star Wars, Aliens, Jurrassic Park, Men in Black, Blade, Terminator, True Lies, Indiana Jones, The Thing, Rambo, Universal Soldier, Timecop, 48hrs, Beverly Hills Cop, Escape from New York, etc, etc. did have an effect on me, too. I?m loving it. It took me a few years to also appreciate that there?s this or that odd, old Woody Allen movie and pick it up myself and another few years to find out that both directions can have a common factor, the dedication to their craft. It?s a lot easier to spend millions and waste all the people involved than spending one dollar wisely. The ever growing trend of trivialising the actual craft required in doing something properly just shows... Cheers, tim P.S: As a personal pick, here?s a documentary that has great practial effects, an Inception style corridor scene, absolutely gorgeous wires work, wonderful art direction and a cast and crew that got it right. If you don?t believe me, believe imdb. Also note, the Rotten Tomatoes Rating vs. the IMDB Rating. What we do in the Shadows http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3416742/
Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money over story?
I think it is a good thing to get an educated critique and honest feedback, even if it is going to be biased. I´d actually hope to see more critics point out that a good story, regardless of it´s tonality goes a long way in creating an experience and just because it´s meant to entertain doesn´t mean one can dumb it down and ignore the need to first of all get the basics of telling a compelling story to an audience right. Growing up with 80s/90s sci-fi and action movies, Star Wars, Aliens, Jurrassic Park, Men in Black, Blade, Terminator, True Lies, Indiana Jones, The Thing, Rambo, Universal Soldier, Timecop, 48hrs, Beverly Hills Cop, Escape from New York, etc, etc. did have an effect on me, too. I´m loving it. It took me a few years to also appreciate that there´s this or that odd, old Woody Allen movie and pick it up myself and another few years to find out that both directions can have a common factor, the dedication to their craft. It´s a lot easier to spend millions and waste all the people involved than spending one dollar wisely. The ever growing trend of trivialising the actual craft required in doing something properly just shows... Cheers, tim P.S: As a personal pick, here´s a documentary that has great practial effects, an Inception style corridor scene, absolutely gorgeous wires work, wonderful art direction and a cast and crew that got it right. If you don´t believe me, believe imdb. Also note, the Rotten Tomatoes Rating vs. the IMDB Rating. What we do in the Shadows http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3416742/ Am 25.07.2015 um 01:37 schrieb Mathieu Leclaire: Oh boy... are you sure you want to open that can of worms? There is this "lets blame the CGI for ruining my experience" trend going on right now and as a technical artist working so hard on these movies, I must admit, it's hard not to get offended. But let's face it, most people love to complain. They thrive on finding reasons to complain about, and with social medias all over the place, there are easy ways of verbalizing our feelings without fully digesting our emotions or thoroughly researching all the information to help us make an informed statement. The human brain tends to generalize a lot of information so we can easily fit our ideas into neat little boxes in our head and label them. Also, our survival instincts encourages us to agree with the masses so we can more easily fit in. I have surprised myself many times in changing my opinion on a movie because I heard/read a lot of negative critics about it. I started noticing things that initially didn't bother me. All these critics changed the way I reflected back on that experience. I say this because people got conditioned to point the finger at CGI as the first reason why these movies are not as good as they had hoped. Everyone else is saying it, so it must be true. I'm not sure where it started, but obviously there's been plenty of bad CG in the past to create this trend. It's usually due to producers who make bad calls that lead to bad CG. Since you can pretty much do what you want in CG, bad calls stand out so much more. It's even more frustrating when most people can't even notice what we've done when we do our job well. As long as there are bad calls from the clients, I think we are doomed to always get blamed for bad effect shots. It's like actors. We've seen a lot of terrible acting from really great actors that where simply misused. Good for you if you can find good clients, but most of us don't always have that luxury to chose who we work with. Also, our job is to make the impossible look possible. People want to see new things they haven't seen before, but when you show them something they haven't seen yet, they have no point of reference to compare it too, so it tends to looks fake. It's the nature of our job and why we work so hard to figure out a way to make it look believable. This might sound silly, but people who complain a lot are just people who want to help. They just don't know how to say it in a constructive helpful way. They believe old techniques are better then newer CGI based ones (and some times they are absolutely right). They hope that by complaining enough times, producers will take notice and revise the way they do things. Problem is, a lot of producers know as little as these people do and might force an approach that ain't quite the best way of doing such work. I still believe that in the end, it comes down to who you are working for and how collaborative and flexible they are. Sadly, some of these decisions are made way before we are even involved. All we can do is give it our best effort, hope for the best, and ignore all the noise that comes with it. Sorry for the long post. This has been on my mind for a while and it feels good to write it down. I guess it's the same reason these people write these type of articles and posts too. -Math --
