SFX - debate over old school vs. new school
POSTED BY: reginaroadie
UPDATED: Thursday, November 22, 2007 13:53
VIEWED: 3622
PAGE 1 of 4
Hey All
Here's another "favorites thread" that I hope leads to some interesting discussions.
What do you guys think about SFX in terms of whether they distract you and take you out of the story, or if they actually help serve the story and make it all the more powerful.
I think that SFX is one of those "eternal debate" things because we can all cite examples of one of four things. Crap old school FX (where the monster is so obviously a guy in a rubber suit), great old school FX (where even decades later you still wonder how they did it), crap new school FX (where it's so obviously a CGI image that it takes you out of it) and great new school FX (where you actually believe what you're seeing is real and when you're told that it's all CG, you're blown away).
And there are times where old school beats new school and new beats old. Like when it comes to transformations, I kinda prefer the old school way more. Even though morphing has made it easier to do, you don't necessarily buy it. Like in VAN HELSING when anyone transforms into a werewolf, it's so obvious that it's all CG that you can't really buy you. You're completely unfazed. But when you see the transformation in say AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON or THE THING, where it's all rubber and latex and hidden tricks, your jaw hits the ground and you're terrified. When you see them writing in agony and their clothes and skin ripping apart and their facial features transforming, you feel their pain.
But when it comes to actual monsters or aliens that are already who they are, I'm starting to lean toward the whole motion capture process that Zemekis is refining with BEOWULF. Even though it's still a cartoon, it's getting way better in terms of enhancing an actors performance. Now, it excites me that Crispin Glover is Grendel. That's a bit of casting news that always excites me when a notoriously bizarre actor that doesn't get much work gets to play one of the most famous monsters in human culture in a way that re-introduces him to a society that's almost forgotten about him. But I think I'll be able to buy him as Grendel as a photorealistic CG creation, rather than George McFly in a rubber suit.
Also, I'm a big fan of CG when it comes to not so obvious FX. Like adding buildings in the background to make a California beach or the Universal backlot look like India like they did in HEROES. Or even that when Hiro teleports to New York City for the first time, that even that moment was CGed and that they never did go to New York to film on location. It helps you believe that these globe-trotting series are actually going around the world, rather than just another LA suburb or the Unviersal backlot.
So what are some FX, both old school and new that either makes you think "oh, that's an FX shot" or "holy shit, that looks so real"?
Actually, FIREFLY has one of my favorites of the latter. In "Ariel", when Simon is moving the holographic scan of River's brain with his hands. I don't know whether it works because of Sean's performance as Simon discovered the full ramifications of what the Academy did to her, or that the animator was an exceptional stickler to detail, but I actually in the moment and believed it.
**************************************************
"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 recently brought in a film to show the rest of my directing class: The Dark Crystal. It was made in 1982. No computers, bo CGI, no digital effects. Just puppets, costumes, marionettes, and rudimentary animatronics.
Yet it has better special effects than many movies made today.
The trouble with "the Digital Age" of effects is that every effect ends up being a digital effect (when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail). Even when it doesn't need to be.
That's one of the problems with the Star Wars prequels; Lucas uses CGI for everything. Yoda's digital model can move every muscle in its face simultaneously, pulling off overwrought facial expressions that Jim Carrey can only dream of.
Yet look at Thor, on Stargate SG-1. He can open and close his mouth, nod (sort-of), and almost blink. Yet he manages to show more personality in one episode than Yoda manages in the entire prequel trilogy.
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another 80's classic that I think still holds up today in terms of actors interacting with fx is WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? Nowadays when you have actors react to basically nothing, or at the very least a tennis ball on a stick, there are a few times where it comes off a phony, since their eye lines aren't matching and the delivery is a bit weak. You may site the SW prequels for that, but I consider it an accomplishment that they were able to pull that off to begin with.
But with ROGER RABBIT, since they were the first to be doing that, they were insanely cautious about getting everything right down to the last detail. And because of that, I still think Bob Hoskins is an incredible actor in that he was able to pull off reacting to nothing. Like when Jessica grabs his tie and pulls him up to her, that's a jaw dropping moment because you can't see anything that would tip it off that it was all fake.
In regards to the "hammer effect", I think it's more of a movie problem, as opposed to a TV problem. Because TV has, and always will be, a cheap medium. Everything is gotime to get it on the air, so there isn't time or money for giant FX. So if they had a ton of money, then maybe a lot of shows would be more spectacle filled than character and plot driven. Tim Kring said that he's glad that they don't have enough money for FX, because it makes them focus on character and plot more than action and spectacle. The original "fight at Kirby Plaza" was supposed to be more bigger, with cars and trucks being thrown at each other and all that, but because they didn't have a lot of money, they ended up with what they had. While some people may consider that a cop-out, I actually liked it because it led to the great moment when Nathan flew in and saved Manhattan by pulling Peter out in time. It was more IRON GIANT, than X-MEN: THE LAST STAND.
Didn't hurt that they paid it off in "Four Months Ago" in a moment that was as emotional as it was fx heavy.
**************************************************
"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
Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I recently brought in a film to show the rest of my directing class: The Dark Crystal. It was made in 1982. No computers, bo CGI, no digital effects. Just puppets, costumes, marionettes, and rudimentary animatronics.
Interestingly Jim Henson used that same movie as a discussion of old school versus new school, except that he was talking about his fancy $50,000 puppet and the emotional impact it had versus the original puppet for Kermit the Frog which cost under $35. (Oh and Yoda was a puppet in The Phantom Menace)
I think CGI is valid - people here are comparing the very best of old school use against some mediocre bits of modern movies. I saw Harry Potter 3 in IMAX and the Hippogryff was simply flawless.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Matrix 2 and 3 bored the s**t outta me- if I want cartoons, I'll watch Superman: Doomsday.
OTOH, the CG in Heroes is right on the money- understated and quick- they don't dwell on them, and it works.
Still, models are my thing; give me old school Enterprise over CG Enterprise any day. And while Serenity looked AMAZING, just think what texture a few model shots might have added.
Zathura got it right, mixing models and CG...I like using ALL the tools at hand!
Old and new Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am very interested in this field since I want to make my own movies soon. I just built a new computer a few months ago wit 6 gigs of ram and about .9 a terabyte of hard drive space and plan on purchasing a Panasonic digital movie camera soon so I can make my movies digitally and skip the film expenses. I am thinking of attending Burlington College in Vermont which is an unaccredited school but they do have a movie making major there and are somewhat local for me. My target as far as effects go is to use old school as a rule, but I won't shy away from new techniques or poor man versions of new techniques if I can. I received a book written by Bruce Campbell “If Chins Could Kill,” and in it he talks about how he and the Ramis Brothers made their own films as children and then went on to making “Evil Dead,” and he explains the low budget ways they got amazing effects. To any other people who wish to read about making low budget movies I highly recommend “If Chins Could Kill.”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally I'm more old school for effects.
The original King Kong had far more gravitas for me based on it's primitve stop motion effects than the remake, which suffered from far too much CGI, and falling terribly into that 'demo' software trap of a spinning 360 degree pan! What is it with CGI and directors wanting a 360 degree, and sometimes more, rotation of the environment. Pirates of the Caribbean 3. A dreadful swirl of action and nonsensical visuals. It's terrible! I'll settle for Burt Lancaster genuinely somersaulting over soldiers in the The Crimson Pirate. Far more class and far more finesse.
Right now I cannot think of a better rendered creature CGI or otherwise than Ray Harryhausen's; skeleton attack on Jason and his Argonauts. That is just mind blowing. The actors basically had to pretend to be fighting skeleton's and then later Ray had to animate them in. He had to match the movements, match the lighting, work out the timing of the animation, and work out the camera alignment. It's so impressive.
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?
It all seems like its heading towards animating actors who have long since passed, and having them appear in modern films. So Humphrey Bogart reprises his role of Rick Blaine for some directors follow up to: CASABLANCA, or Errol Flynn and Johnny Depp team up for the all out pirate adventure: Treasure Island. No thanks.
It has it's place of course, and at the hands of a capable director such as Spielberg, it can be used to further the story (Jurassic Park) rather than glaze over the lack of one (Van Helsing).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Agreed. Still, it's GREAT for backgrounds and buildings...and Wolvoreen's claws!
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
It has it's place of course, and at the hands of a capable director such as Spielberg, it can be used to further the story (Jurassic Park) rather than glaze over the lack of one (Van Helsing).
Blade Runner and Star Trek: TMP will never be topped by CGI, though...
Using the REAL light as magic Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
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?
I guess so that it is more "seamless" than mixing human actors with CGI creatures and backdrops. 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...
A more interesting way of doing that, I thought, was "A Scanner Darkly" which was live action "rotoscoped" to look like animation - but then the whole film was about mind-altering drugs and uncertainty about reality. I don't think the "scramble suit" effect would have worked with live action.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the new effects can be just as convincing as the old school, just like they were in Serenity as long as the movie makers remember to stick to the story telling fundementals. I think that maybe some of these producers who do allow of these effects which pull the viewers away from the movies aren't so much doing them for artistic reasons but are probably being given some discounts if they allow these fx studios to show what they can do, and to a producer receiving money back is an art. I think.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME