SFX - debate over old school vs. new school
POSTED BY: reginaroadie
UPDATED: Thursday, November 22, 2007 13:53
VIEWED: 3622
PAGE 2 of 4
Quote:
I'm as yet unconvinced by the motion capture process. If you're going to match actors' faces exactly then why not just have the actors? I'm unsure of the purpose. It's a little like a painter spending a great deal of time on painting a picture that looks like a photograph...? What's the point?
The point is that you can get an actor like Ray Winstone (whose old and paunchy) or Anthony Hopkins (whose just old) or Brendan Gleeson (another heavyset dude) or Crispin Glover (who according to Zemekis has no concept of continuity) to play larger than life characters and have the audience actually buy them in that roles. It would be hard to buy Ray Winstone as this buff, formidable warrior and legend if he keeps having to suck in his gut, or that George McFly is this legendary monster of human history.
And to tie in to the "paintings that looks like a photo", I think it comes down to artists just wanting to capture real life artistically. I mean, if you were to look at a stunning work of art that looks realistic, and then realize that it's a photo and not a painting, I think you'd be more impressed with the notion that what looks so real is in fact an artist's rendering. I think motion capture is an aspiration of sorts to that notion. That you can create a world that looks realistic to ours, and that you can throw a monster or a dragon into this world, and make it look like they're truly inhabiting the same space, as opposed to a real life person reacting to an obviously CG creation.
I dunno. I just liked BEOWULF not only for it's technology and artistry, but I also liked it for it's story and meaning behind it.
People don't give a lot of credit to Zemekis, I find. Even though he's as FX heavy as Spielberg and Jackson and Lucas, he's had a more consistent track record. People remember and love his movies just as much over plot and character as they do with the FX sequences. And BEOWULF is no exception.
**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."
Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I understand they messed the Beowulf story up in this movie. I just purchased another movie called Beowulf and Grendel on DVD and they dort of messed up the story by taking liberties, but they countered those liberties by placing a bard in the group of friends who came along with Beowulf, and that bard painted the story back to its real meaning.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:
I guess so that it is more "seamless" than mixing human actors with CGI creatures and backdrops.
Well thats actually a very fair point. But then you are effectively making a different sort of film, one that does not require the actor and his/her human image.
Quote:
Plus, you can have actors walking round in the nuddy without worrying about the camera catching an accidental glimpse of nipple (or worse). I don't think Angelina Jolie would have agreed to have her, er, "attributes" surgically removed for her art...
But then if you do that - it surely is no longer the actor. Thereby raising the point of what is the purpose of having the actor at all? If it is for reference then surely any individual would do.
?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But then if you do that - it surely is no longer the actor. Thereby raising the point of what is the purpose of having the actor at all? If it is for reference then surely any individual would do.
You could use the same argument for puppeteers. There's a difference between a normal average joe doing sock puppets and Craig Schwartz from BEING JOHN MALKOVICH who can bring a marionette to life and imbibe emotion into it.
With the cast of BEOWULF, I think it's a lot more than just reference. It would be for actual weight and talent. For all that motion capture can do, it can't replicate the way an actor interprets a character. On Crispin Glover's imdb page, it says that his acting style is influenced by people afflicted with Down's Syndrome. He even made a movie that was entirely populated by actors that have that same disease. And if you keep that in mind when you see Grendel on screen, it adds a whole other dimension to the character in that you're not just seeing a monster, but a truly pitiful creature. A walking abortion to whom death is a release.
In a way, motion capture is sort of digital puppetteering or make-up. The characters may exist in a computer, but the actors behind the "masks" is what brings it to life. Just as Gollum wouldn't be Gollum without Andy Serkis and Mr. Hand wouldn't be as creepy if Richard O'Brian wasn't playing him, Grendel wouldn't be what he was in the movie without Crispin. And while a mixing board may have enhanced it, it still couldn't create the same terrifying roar of grief that Angelina Jolie gives.
I can go until I'm blue in the face about the virtues of motion capture.
**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."
Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
Quote:
The point is that you can get an actor like Ray Winstone (whose old and paunchy) or Anthony Hopkins (whose just old) or Brendan Gleeson (another heavyset dude) or Crispin Glover (who according to Zemekis has no concept of continuity) to play larger than life characters and have the audience actually buy them in that roles.
But then that image on screen is no longer Ray Winstone, or Crispin Glover etc. Or at least no more than say Eddie Murphy is Eddie Murphy while playing the voice of the Donkey in Shrek. At some stage you are significantly altering an actors image to the extent it is no longer them, or at least no longer a representation of them as an image.
Quote:
It would be hard to buy Ray Winstone as this buff, formidable warrior and legend if he keeps having to suck in his gut
Exactly so therefore the hiring of Ray Winstone as that charcater is inappropriate isn't it? Hire some actor who physically does fit the part.
Quote:
And to tie in to the "paintings that looks like a photo", I think it comes down to artists just wanting to capture real life artistically. I mean, if you were to look at a stunning work of art that looks realistic, and then realize that it's a photo and not a painting, I think you'd be more impressed with the notion that what looks so real is in fact an artist's rendering.
For me no. At a time when painting a realistic looking picture was informative, prior to photography, then yes I may have done. But to continue painting realistic style pictures when photography can do that, would seem an indulgence by the artist. A vagrant display of ability without much imagination. Style over content. Now in defence of Beowulf. At present it is a one of a kind. So it stands proud maybe for that fact alone. However if it results in a trend I wonder how sustainable the notion will be...
Quote:
I think motion capture is an aspiration of sorts to that notion. That you can create a world that looks realistic to ours, and that you can throw a monster or a dragon into this world, and make it look like they're truly inhabiting the same space, as opposed to a real life person reacting to an obviously CG creation.
Do you think it requires that level of realism though? I'm only asking because I'm just not convinced as yet. I'm not opposed to it exactly, I'm trying to understand the purpose from a creative point of view, and whether the marvel lies in the technology or just a great story. I'm inclined to think it is the story, as every great book demands nothing more from the reader than to read and let the imagination do the rest.
Quote:
I dunno. I just liked BEOWULF not only for it's technology and artistry, but I also liked it for it's story and meaning behind it.
People don't give a lot of credit to Zemekis, I find. Even though he's as FX heavy as Spielberg and Jackson and Lucas, he's had a more consistent track record. People remember and love his movies just as much over plot and character as they do with the FX sequences. And BEOWULF is no exception.
Actually I'm a great fan of Zemeckis (except Forrest Gump) and I'm one of the few peolpe I know who loved Castaway, Zemeckis does always challenge the use of technology, and uses it to do interesting things. Much as has lead to this fine debate :D I don't always understand why he does what he does on occasions, but then ultimately I suppose I don't have to.... It's just I'm flawed like that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
Quote:
I can go until I'm blue in the face about the virtues of motion capture.
Ha! Go for it. My best friend is a 3d animator and has worked and overseen many a motion capture job. We talk about this over weekends and skype sessions :D all the time. Of course we've never reached any kind of meaningful conclusion but tis fun. As this is :D
Oh and I love the pupeteer reference. Very true. I dig that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks. I brought up puppetteering and make-up, because I think those are example of what I think motion capture is, which is basically performance enhancements (of the legal kind, that is). They are tools that are used to enhance an actor's performance. If Boris Karloff didn't have all that make-up on him, then he wouldn't be a very convincing Frankenstein, would he? And although Lon Chaney is the Man of a Thousand Faces, he still needs help getting the other 999 of them to work.
You asked the question of "If Ray Winstone didn't meet the physical requirements of the character, then why couldn't they hire someone that did meet them?" Because you're typical 30/40 something bodybuilding actor probably wouldn't have been able to deliver a nuanced and emotional performance. You compare the cast of BEOWULF (Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Brendan Gleeson, John Malkovich, Crispin Glover, Robin Wright Penn, Alison Lohman, Angelina Jolie) to the cast of 300 (Gerard Butler, Lena Hedley, David Wenham, the guy that played Paulo on LOST), you automatically respond more to the former cast because they're all heavy hitters, as opposed to the cast of 300, where the best guy was the guy that played the Friar in VAN HELSING.
So yes, you have all these great actors. But put them in front of a camera and have them act it out in real life, most likely it would not work. But with motion capture, their bodies and facial features could be changed so that they actually fit the character and properly inhabit the world that they are in.
Any other motion capture issues you'd like to debate?
Just to change the subject slightly. One movie from the 30's that blows my mind in terms of FX is the original THE INVISIBLE MAN with Claude Raines. Invisible fx are done regularly now, so we kinda take them for granted. But to be able to do it convincingly in the 30's, when AFX in general were still primitive, it blows my mind.
And I'm with the guy that said model work brings great results. When I see BRAZIL and it's dream sequences, I do feel like you're flying through the clouds or the monolithic buildings.
**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."
Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is not directly related to special effects but as a hopeful future movie maker one tip I would like ot share with the other future movie makers is while you are having your actors practice their scenes just before shooting have them all say all of their lines while whispering. This will teach them who are new or have stage acting experience to not over act their parts and it will make your special effects more meaningful. I cannot remember which movie making book I read that from, but that is my current frame of mind for you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
About 15 years ago Terminator II was the first movie of it's budget, and you could see all of that money on the screen, the FX flawless I thought.
Now, Beowulf was everything that FX should not be. Worse than the cartoon of Heavy Metal.
The Last Mimzy was the most recent good fX I've seen.
I thought that the FX in Sin City were excellent, even though some of the work was abrupt enough to take you out of it briefly - but that was the director's intent. But it all meshed very well.
I saw no problems with the FX in Braveheart, something like 12 years ago.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And it holds up perfectly, I think.
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
About 15 years ago Terminator II was the first movie of it's budget, and you could see all of that money on the screen, the FX flawless I thought.
All the FX in the first Superman are still great, too.
Old time Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME