VFX on Hunger Games
- Thread starter brianluce
- Start date
No-one replied to my rant on the movie review thread.
I felt the same exact way.
I thought the fire in the woods was convincing and great. I thought the costume flame was just as you say...
I still can't get over the fact that it seemed like the DP was allergic to wide angle lenses...
I felt the same exact way.
I thought the fire in the woods was convincing and great. I thought the costume flame was just as you say...
I still can't get over the fact that it seemed like the DP was allergic to wide angle lenses...
Yeah, I thought the film was powerful and the lead gal and most (not all) of the cast rocked, but the photography was nothing special and neither were the action sequences. And come to think of it, those digital dogs weren't that well done and were not scary. Odd. These are the things that big budgets can usually do right, in fact, it's often the ONLY thing big budget movies do right. But not this time.
EDIT:
I read your critique in the other thread. I agree. I also noticed the focus issues. It made me feel good though that the big boys blow as many shots as I do. Ditto for cornucopia -- every shot of it was a wtf moment that I'd shrug off. Funny how you described it
In terms of what a person normally expects from big budget, for the most part I was good with the futuristic stuff and set designs. It felt fresh.
And just to repeat, I found the movie 100% captivating and a great parable of our times, but the weak spots were in the most unlikely places. VFX? Come on dudes. I've seen better from 12 yearolds on Youtube.
Just read an article that the sequel is going to have a different look and feel. Tropical setting, more polished it sounds like. Slated release date is Nov 2013. I'm there.
Last edited:
I noticed the out of focus stuff, but I kinda liked it. I thought it was more style than mistake. That said, I do think the shakey-cam at the beginning was a little excessive. The dogs completely missed the point of the dogs in the book, as well as looking like forgettable CGI. That said, I liked the game control computer system.
The next two (or I guess three since they're following the "two films for the last book" trend) should look very different, if they follow the books as well as the first. Which is to say, not perfect, but pretty close.
The next two (or I guess three since they're following the "two films for the last book" trend) should look very different, if they follow the books as well as the first. Which is to say, not perfect, but pretty close.
Only complaint I had were the CU's they had for the fight scenes. Back that damn camera up!
I really enjoyed the movie. Effects, cinematography and all.
About the fire, anything that doesn't work in real life, that we know doesn't work in real life or in Earth physics is hard to sell in VFX. The fire in the forest looked good, because we've all seen wood burn and footage of forest fires. People don't burn like a propane stove, especially while moving and gently lifting your arms, etc. It's hard for the brain to accept. Even then, I didn't' feel bad about it. I was so drawn in that I really didn't notice or care. It was supposed to be fake anyway.
As far as the tight shots, I didn't notice in a bad way. I thought it fit the subject matter well. The violence was more personal and wrenching like it was intended. The author is pretty vocal against violence as a form of entertainment, so considering that and considering it was kids killing kids, I thought it was handled great.
Finally, some really subtle stuf I did like considering cinematography (and sound design) were how well the camera style changed to fit the emotion. For example, backstage before her first interview the camera was steady and smooth. Then, as her time came and she stepped out on stage, the camera work slowly became closer, more shaky as the sound became muddled, the echo of applause drowning everything else out. It really made you as nervous as she was at the time. Same with some of the fight scenes, when you had a chance to breath it was easy, then when all hell broke loose it kept the tension right.
I wasn't a fan going in. In fact, I was a little nervous from all the comparions to twilight and how excited every teenage girl in America was to see it. I'm sold now though. Great story, I don't think I breathed the last hour or so.
About the fire, anything that doesn't work in real life, that we know doesn't work in real life or in Earth physics is hard to sell in VFX. The fire in the forest looked good, because we've all seen wood burn and footage of forest fires. People don't burn like a propane stove, especially while moving and gently lifting your arms, etc. It's hard for the brain to accept. Even then, I didn't' feel bad about it. I was so drawn in that I really didn't notice or care. It was supposed to be fake anyway.
As far as the tight shots, I didn't notice in a bad way. I thought it fit the subject matter well. The violence was more personal and wrenching like it was intended. The author is pretty vocal against violence as a form of entertainment, so considering that and considering it was kids killing kids, I thought it was handled great.
Finally, some really subtle stuf I did like considering cinematography (and sound design) were how well the camera style changed to fit the emotion. For example, backstage before her first interview the camera was steady and smooth. Then, as her time came and she stepped out on stage, the camera work slowly became closer, more shaky as the sound became muddled, the echo of applause drowning everything else out. It really made you as nervous as she was at the time. Same with some of the fight scenes, when you had a chance to breath it was easy, then when all hell broke loose it kept the tension right.
I wasn't a fan going in. In fact, I was a little nervous from all the comparions to twilight and how excited every teenage girl in America was to see it. I'm sold now though. Great story, I don't think I breathed the last hour or so.
I just read the book. Looking forward to seeing it in the theater.
I don't agree. People absolutely burn in real life. Put gasoline on someone and strike a match. They burn. And as i recall, didn't Lenny Kravitz say the suit would catch fire but not hurt you? I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be real fire. It's just a minor thing, it's just they built it up and I was anticipating something really awesome.
About the focus, you must be right, I cannot accept that filmmakers at that level would blow it so many times.
I like what you said about how they muddled the sound at strategic points. Very effective.
Suggestion for anyone who has yet to see the movie or plans on seeing it for a second time. Check out your fellow audience members during key scenes -- their faces will tell you why people love movies.
I personally thought they could have done so much more with some of those scenes - the countdown, some scenes SCREAMED drop to silence, etc. etc. etc.
even the voice futz they chose seemed a bit cliche,
but hey - not my project. The movie definitely communicated to people, made money, that's what matters in the end, eh?
Perhaps that focus puller is laughing all the way to the bank. "Fooled em again!!!!!"
even the voice futz they chose seemed a bit cliche,
but hey - not my project. The movie definitely communicated to people, made money, that's what matters in the end, eh?
Perhaps that focus puller is laughing all the way to the bank. "Fooled em again!!!!!"
The out of focus stuff is definitely not a mistake.
There is a conscious effort, in the scenes in District 12, to make the shooting style much earthier than it is once they're in the Capitol. It's obvious imagery but I reckon they pulled it off.
As for the tight, out of focus action scenes- that was a pretty intelligent way of keeping it 12a (or PG-13) without having to actually tone down the violence. So rather than seeing nothing or seeing something softer than an actual kill, you feel like you've seen it all when really it's just a blur of movement. I haven't read the book and that first scene in the arena really shocked me.
There is a conscious effort, in the scenes in District 12, to make the shooting style much earthier than it is once they're in the Capitol. It's obvious imagery but I reckon they pulled it off.
As for the tight, out of focus action scenes- that was a pretty intelligent way of keeping it 12a (or PG-13) without having to actually tone down the violence. So rather than seeing nothing or seeing something softer than an actual kill, you feel like you've seen it all when really it's just a blur of movement. I haven't read the book and that first scene in the arena really shocked me.
Great film overall, acting was great, story was interesting and felt like it had a lot of underlying depth. But yea the VFX for me were a bit unbalanced in quality, which made the shots that were lower quality than others stand out a fair bit. The fire I thought was ok and do agree it wasn't realistic (AE ish if you will) but for me it was passable and I just got on with enjoying it. But the sequence with the dogs was pretty poor, it was all over the place. Swear I saw a shot just after the big Jump where the dog is chasing that guy and they clearly could get a track properly so the dog looks like its floating in the air as the camera is shaking. Where as other dog shots were pretty perfect! Any way none of this spoiled it too much as i just took the VFX for what VFX should be taken for and that's serving the story
Last edited: