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 <[email protected]> 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 > 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 > > >
