How much of modern feature films are real?

S

SteveFX

I just got home from watching GI Joe and ever since having a desire to start making my own films, ive wondered on films like GI Joe, and Transformers or films that have cities blowing up etc, I know cities dont really blow up in reality, and there isnt really these giant transformers that can cause mass destruction. I was curious how much of a film like these are real and how much is computerized. If most of it is done on the computer, how is it done? Meaning what programs do they use to generate all these things like making a city blow up or watching the Eiffel tower crumble into ashes. I know with programs like After Effects you can take an image in a movie and play with it, but can a program like this really make such a huge event look so real? Even if it took months after months of detailing? Im sure there is many people on the job working to perfect the realism but what all is involved in doing this?

Thanks in advance.

- Some newbie
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
This is kind of a broad subject but I'll answer from what I've seen. There are actually a lot of different techniques for different things and also depends on what you mean by "real"? For exploding citys and even doing landscapes a lot of miniatures are used and sometimes they are enhanced by CGI. Other times it can be completely done in the computer but they are using more expensive programs like MAYA or Massive. A lot depends on what your director and SPFX guy wants or likes to use. Christopher Nolan doesn't like using CGI so he does whatever it takes to try to stay away from that as much as he can. Michael Bay tends to use a little bit more computer work and so does George Lucas who shot Episode III in all sound stages and all on green screen. Peter Jackson likes to use several combinations of everything but has a soft spot for Miniatures. Really i would just find the movie you want to check and do some research. Do you have any movie specifically you were wondering about?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Many films come with "making of" extras when they are released on DVD. Just pick up a bunch, watch the film, watch the extras, and then watch the film with the commentaries. Then you can come back with some idea of what questions to ask.

Even seemingly simple films like "Enchanted" (hey, I've got a seven-year-old daughter, and it is a good movie) involve an amazing amount of both subtle and overt CGI work. I love Will Smith talking about acting to a laser dot in front of a green screen in the extras of "Men In Black". The Harry Potter DVDs are loaded with extras (kids, remember?).

One of my favorite films is "Forrest Gump". The making of extras and the commentaries are actually quite instructive.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lol you're not going to get many friends here if you say you like Michael Bay.

It's all done in programs such as 3Ds Max, Maya, Zbrush among others. If you want to work in this area I suggest that you take a course on it. You can do short courses lasting only a few weeks to get a basic grounding. But to work in the industry you'd most likely need a degree in an area of 3D. At the end of the day though it all comes down to artistic skill.

Personally I think CGI is killing creativity in films. The attitude of a lot of directors seems to be: don't worry about it now we can do it all in CG later. I dispair at films like Transformers and GI Joe. They have so much CG that they might as well give up the pretences and be made CG animated films.

I feel sad that days of physical effects seem to be numbered. The original star wars films had so much more character with their model effects. I don't think we shouldn't use computers, but I do think we should end the CG over-kill.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is some good information. Thank you all for the replys. Ill start looking into the DVD documentaries for detailed information on how its done in each film.

Also noticing what Brooksy said about miniatures. I was curious how that works as well. With the model made, how do they include the characters in the miniature? I do remember looking at "the making" of Lord of the Rings when they used miniatures for Minas Tirith.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not a big fan of CGI especially when it can be replicated. Real fire looks like real fire. CGI fire and smoke always looks fake. You may disagree but I still like the real thing anyway. Why, you ask, if you can't tell? It has to do with making the actual film and working with real things, not imaginary things. Oh, and I hate when they add the fake winter breath. I'd rather see it missing than that fake CGI stuff, that is more obvious to me, it takes you out of the flick.

Try to pull it off for real unless it is impossible ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
indietalk said:
I hate when they add the fake winter breath. I'd rather see it missing than that fake CGI stuff... it takes you out of the flick.
Try to pull it off for real unless it is impossible ;)
Click to expand...
Just read my signature:

Filmmaking is the art of the invisible;
If anyone notices your work you haven't done you job right.

No one EVER notices the audio - unless it sucks or is not there.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There's a great Canadian dramatic film by Atom Egoyan called "The Sweet Hereafter" from about ten years or so ago. Awesome film...see it.
It involves the crashing of a school bus down a hill and onto a frozen pond, which then breaks through the ice. This event is depicted as it would happen...there is no car crash porno. It merely happens as you would see it happen as a bystander, and you're suddenly engulfed with emotion. I was amazed at how simply it was shot and edited. And after listening to the commentary on the DVD, I was surprised to learn there was a wee bit of CGI utilized...Egoyan said everything except the bus going through the ice was real...real bus and the real hill and the real pond, but there was no way to get the bus going through the ice without animating it. You'd never know it was animation, either...subtle and ONLY utilized because there was no way to do it for real.

So to second Alcove and Indie, CGI has its place. But it's probably a much smaller place than is currently in fashion! Even the crowd scenes in that huge epic Gladiator were done with CGI...and looked like fake crowds. How hard could a crowd have been to do for real?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
indietalk said:
I'm not a big fan of CGI especially when it can be replicated. Real fire looks like real fire. CGI fire and smoke always looks fake. You may disagree but I still like the real thing anyway. Why, you ask, if you can't tell? It has to do with making the actual film and working with real things, not imaginary things. Oh, and I hate when they add the fake winter breath. I'd rather see it missing than that fake CGI stuff, that is more obvious to me, it takes you out of the flick.

Try to pull it off for real unless it is impossible ;)
Click to expand...

Do you think the art of using real things is being lost in favor of CGI?

It certainly seems like that's the case in horror films with make-up and creature effects.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
barnaclelapse said:
Do you think the art of using real things is being lost in favor of CGI?

It certainly seems like that's the case in horror films with make-up and creature effects.
Click to expand...

I sure hope there's an audience for the old-fashioned "actors in makeup", cuz I just used that method on my recent feature. My experience with modern, young audiences is they really don't give a crap about a good story, just the spectacle.

Typical exchange with modern moviegoer:

Him: I just saw the XYZ movie. It was awesome!

Me: I saw it too. It was incredibly stupid. What story there was was completely predictable; I've seen it in a hundred other movies. The characters were two-dimensional. The dialogue was trite. I was bored out of my skull.

Him: But the effects were awesome! I'm totally going again!

Me: (thought balloon) Why do I bother?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top