OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

SFX - debate over old school vs. new school

POSTED BY: REGINAROADIE
UPDATED: Thursday, November 22, 2007 03:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2415
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 16, 2007 7:44 AM

REGINAROADIE


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 4:40 PM

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.

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 5:08 PM

REGINAROADIE


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:20 AM

SIMONWHO


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:02 AM

CHRISISALL


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:18 AM

RALLEM


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:58 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:11 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

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).

Agreed. Still, it's GREAT for backgrounds and buildings...and Wolvoreen's claws!

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:35 PM

IMNOTHERE


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:04 PM

RALLEM


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:24 PM

REGINAROADIE


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:50 PM

RALLEM


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:09 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:40 PM

REGINAROADIE


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:41 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:45 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:20 PM

REGINAROADIE


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:32 PM

RALLEM


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:00 PM

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.

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:08 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

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.


And it holds up perfectly, I think.

All the FX in the first Superman are still great, too.

Old time Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:05 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Originally posted by reginaroadie:
Quote:

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.

That's maybe where Zemeckis is coming from with Beowulf

Quote:

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.

Well that's up for debate. There may well be a bodybuilding actor out there that could deliver were they given the chance. Fact is those actors are established and aside from being accomplished too, they are a huge draw at the box office and that's a factor in a film being given the green light. And I still say it's questionable, if the actors are altered significantly that it is indeed still them up there on the screen. If you are drawing in the crowds wih big named actors you want to know it is them you are seeing and not some cgi immitation. Motion captured exquisitely or not.

Quote:

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.


I actually think Gerard Butler was fantastic in that film. It's very easy to slate the muscle type actors. I actually think they are always given a very raw deal. Being physical as an actor aint easy, they're very rarely given the roles to show off they're abilities. Now without sounding trite, I have to say I've never been able to take Anthony Hopikins seriously after his dreadful performance in Legends of the Fall, (which I must start to put down in my top 10 of worst films)

But you know enhancements may be fine in having your Hoffman's doing physical things they can no longer do due to old age, but really there is something great about casting the right person for the right role. Imagine if motion capture were around in the eighties and you'd have Al Pacino play the part of The Terminator. Thereby eliminating Arnie in the role. That would be just plain wrong. CGI or not. Arnie was the Terminator, and his physical build was what help 'create' that entity on screen, and that organic connection is what rounds off a character.

Quote:

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?



:D I had this thought last night. There is also the possibility of people who cannot act, (take a bow Miss Hilton) being given the 'treatment' in post production. Animators may be called upon to make a particularly wooden actor appear, well less wooden, thereby allowing a greater number of 'eye candy' to take the major roles and seemingly appear to able to act. Just a thought.

Quote:

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.


Ah yes. Indeed. That is a genuine classic and as you say an amazing achievement given the era it was made. Been a while since I saw that one. Might have to dig that out again.

Quote:

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.


Yup. Those are brilliantly done in Brazil! Always had a softspot for that flick.

Ok must dash. Sorry if this one seemed sketchy, I'm doing this on the fly as I have one eye on something to do with work. So apologies.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Imagine CGing Chris Reeve in Superman The Movie so that he looks all comic book muscle-y...or CGing Brandon Routh so that he appears just like Chris Reeve in Superman Returns...the possibilities are endless (for losing the organic connection to our characters).
In X-3 they CGed Xavier and Magneato to lose twenty years (with mixed results), and they made Juggernaut super-muscled (too solid and unmoving, but it worked for that particular character)- this was just the tip of the CG iceberg. I for one am getting tired of the idea that they can do 'anything' with it. It's just a tool; when the tool BECOMES the movie, the movie becomes a ride, not a character-driven story (see: Sky Captain).

Integrated Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:33 AM

REGINAROADIE


Quote:

There is also the possibility of people who cannot act, (take a bow Miss Hilton) being given the 'treatment' in post production. Animators may be called upon to make a particularly wooden actor appear, well less wooden, thereby allowing a greater number of 'eye candy' to take the major roles and seemingly appear to able to act. Just a thought.


Maybe. But again, it goes back to the whole thing of the actor behind the role. You could have Frank and Ollie of Disney's Nine Old Men brought in to spiff up Paris Hilton's performance. It still wouldn't change the fact that she has less talent and chemistry than a block of wood and that it's a literally dead performance.

Ray Winstone gave this really great interview where he talks about the benefits of motion capture over at Dark Horizons.

Quote:

At 50, Ray Winstone has discovered the fountain of youth, cinematically speaking. In the CGI technologically advanced Beowulf, the British actor takes on a role over two decades his junior. On paper, the Nordic Viking warrior has little in common with the much shorter older actor, so he does concede surprise that director Bob Zemeckis even cast him, "because he's a six-foot-six, 20-year-old warrior, I'm 50 years of age, and I'm five foot ten."

So the actor adds, reflectively, that this new technology "kind of changes the game a little bit, because sometimes it's about the way you look, rather than the way you perform, so it's quite flattering, because it's about performance." The actor, who was hired on the strength of his voice, happily admits that "it does open doors for other things, as there are parts that you might have bypassed because you're too old."...

Yet Winstone has now embraced the technology that has afforded him the unique opportunity to play characters younger than himself. "Things like Henry the Fifth. You know, he's a young man, but by the time you're 50, you know how to play him. I wasn't clever enough when I was supposed to be his age to play that, and I'd like to think I was now. So this opens the doors for everyone and I think it ups the stakes."



Just that last bit about Henry the Fifth to me reinforces the argument that you can now hire an actor who spiritually is perfect but who physically isn't. Now in the case of Arnie playing the Terminator, yes it is a bit of iconic casting that should never be touched. And with the exception of Marlon Brando in SUPERMAN RETURNS (which was more of a case of Singer using stuff that Donner had planned for SUPERMAN II but was scrapped), I don't like the idea of dead actors being brought back to life digitally.

But in the case of getting an older actor to effectively play a more youthful character and imbibe it with the gravitas of a more experienced individual, I say go for it. Now when a thirty something actor plays a high school student, you'd actually buy 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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:39 AM

CHRISISALL


So, can you buy an actress being CGed to look more like Marylin Monroe in a movie about her? What if they tweak the voice a bit too? What if they composite bits digitally lifted from one of her movies? What if they don't even use the actress at all, except as a stand-in?

You see where I'm going with this....

Slippery slope Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:44 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Chrisiall wrote:
Quote:

I for one am getting tired of the idea that they can do 'anything' with it. It's just a tool; when the tool BECOMES the movie, the movie becomes a ride, not a character-driven story (see: Sky Captain).


Very good example. That film looked great, but lacked ANY kind of soul!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:53 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Originally posted by reginaroadie:

Quote:

Just that last bit about Henry the Fifth to me reinforces the argument that you can now hire an actor who spiritually is perfect but who physically isn't. Now in the case of Arnie playing the Terminator, yes it is a bit of iconic casting that should never be touched. And with the exception of Marlon Brando in SUPERMAN RETURNS (which was more of a case of Singer using stuff that Donner had planned for SUPERMAN II but was scrapped), I don't like the idea of dead actors being brought back to life digitally.


Well yeah, it's great for Winstone of course, but I'm not sure its great for the story. That role should be played by a younger actor as should Romeo and Juliet. Or else you end up with a very dispassionate performance. Having an experienced actor works to a point but with certain roles that lack of knowing is what makes the role. I think the actors need that connection to a character. That is what makes great performances. That invisible link between actor and part. It's essential. Easy to overlook but I think ultimately it is what seperates good acting from great acting.

Similarly you can't have the entire cast of Macbeth being played by the stars of Saved by the Bell... Well actually you can but y'know it'd be lame....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:50 AM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

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.




Of course, back in the real world you have to sell films, and Stars Sell Films (or maybe they just convince marketing departments to promote the films - but the effect is the same). The same holds true for (non- motion capture) animations - I'm sure that there is plenty of voice talent around that is as good as (e.g.) Cameron Diaz in Shrek, but they're not called Cameron Diaz...

Maybe, in time, more star "motion capture artists" will appear to join Andy "Gollum" Serkis?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:55 PM

REGINAROADIE


I think it's already happening. You got Andy Serkis, but you also have Doug Jones whose probably more associated with the Silver Surfer than Laurence Fishburne. Not to mention all the monster's he plays in Guierremo (sp?) Del Toro's movies.

And I'm sure with BEOWULF that Crispin Glover will be known just as much for Grendel and his fucked up personality as he is with George McFly.

**************************************************
"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:06 PM

CYBERSNARK


CGI could also be used to add a few inches to Sean Maher's height, making him a perfect Superman. . .

Or for the much-dreamed of live-action Gargoyles movie; to get Keith David, Marina Sirtis, Jeff Bennett and others to be able to hang onto pre-established roles that don't necessarily look like them in makeup/costume (to say nothing of heavyset John Rhys Davies playing athletic action-villain Macbeth).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:01 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by reginaroadie:


And I'm sure with BEOWULF that Crispin Glover will be known just as much for Grendel and his fucked up personality as he is with George McFly.


Hold the phone- didn't Crispin SUE Zemeckis for using footage of him in Back To The Future 2???



I guess all was forgiven, eh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:53 AM

REGINAROADIE


He sued Spielberg, NOT Zemekis. And he won as well, which lead to some new guidelines and regulations in the SAG.

That's not to say there wasn't any tension between the two. The main reason that Glover wasn't asked back for the sequels and was killed off in the second movie was because Glover was making outrageous demands in terms of star power. Basically, he wanted to be as prominent as Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd. Kinda the same reason Tommy Chong wasn't brought back for the MATRIX sequels. He pissed them off behind the scenes so much, they just said "Screw it."

Plus, even on the set of the first movie, Glover ticked off Zemekis on a technical level. Zemekis said that as an actor he had no concept of continuity between shots. Like they'd do an angle of him acting one way, and then do the reverse angle and Glover would be acting in a completely different way.

But I guess after about 20 years, they've managed to bury the hatchet, and since it's all digital, continuity wouldn't matter anymore. So I consider it a miracle of casting that an actor notorious for being unworkable (how he agreed to be in two CHARLIE'S ANGELS movies I will never know), ends up as Grendel in a $100 plus million dollar adaptation of BEOWULF.

**************************************************
"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin
Sat, March 23, 2024 18:09 - 7 posts
Video Games to movie and tv series and other Cartoon / video game adaptions
Thu, March 7, 2024 14:26 - 42 posts
Favourite martial arts film of all time-
Wed, March 6, 2024 15:02 - 54 posts
PLANETES
Tue, March 5, 2024 14:22 - 51 posts
Shogun, non scifi series
Tue, March 5, 2024 13:20 - 4 posts
What Good Sci-Fi am I missing?
Mon, March 4, 2024 14:10 - 53 posts
Binge-worthy?
Mon, February 12, 2024 11:35 - 126 posts
Are There New TV Shows This Fall You Must See?
Sat, December 30, 2023 18:29 - 95 posts
The Expanse
Wed, December 20, 2023 18:06 - 27 posts
What Films Do You Want To See In 2023?
Thu, November 30, 2023 20:31 - 36 posts
Finding realistic sci-fi disappointing
Thu, October 5, 2023 12:04 - 42 posts
Worst Sci-Fi Ever.
Wed, October 4, 2023 17:51 - 158 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL