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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Lind Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:00 PM To: [email protected] 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 moves....and 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 <[email protected]> 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/
