What's real anymore?
- Thread starter ussinners
- Start date
Dang, I found that informative and inspiring!
Most of those techniques are well within the reach of indie filmmakers.
If you story has a woman standing on a tiny pinnacle a thousand feet in the air, then set extension is the ONLY practical answer for indie filmmakers.
Any thing that allows internal vision to be come reality is a positive to me..
Most of those techniques are well within the reach of indie filmmakers.
If you story has a woman standing on a tiny pinnacle a thousand feet in the air, then set extension is the ONLY practical answer for indie filmmakers.
Any thing that allows internal vision to be come reality is a positive to me..
And people say they've never seen someone do a realistic greenscreen/key. They just never knew they had seen one!
That's so cool.
That's so cool.
The new Sherlock Holmes was just a terrible film, in general; any green-screening was incidental to its real problems.
This is awesome , Really useful technique... could use stock footage to place your character anywhere really
, Really useful technique... could use stock footage to place your character anywhere really
Yep, "good ones". I never knew it was green screen.
If I can tell it's green screen I'm done. The "suspension of disbelief" is over for me. I might as well turn off the TV or walk out of the theatre because they have lost me for good. The time will come where I find a good use for it in a movie, but hasn't happened yet.
New films?
I wonder if people felt cheated when they discovered Kong was
just a puppet. I wonder if people felt cheated when they learned
that the burning of Atlanta in "Gone with the Wind" was just
the Kong set. I wonder if people felt cheated when they discovered
the Millennium Falcon was only a model and Bespin was just a
painting.
What we as filmmakers DO is cheat the audience. We have
been manipulating backgrounds and sets with paintings for a hundred
years.
Any special effect and help a story (The Empire Strikes Back). And any
special effect can work against the story (The Phantom Menace).
Any tool can be used correctly or incorrectly. ~~ My High School Shop Teacher
... as he pointed at you each in turn with his one good finger.
And then there's Emily:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4
No, she's not real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgLFt5wfP4
No, she's not real.
Here mouth doesn't look right, but she looks a hell of lot better than this guy did:
BUT, back then it was done to enhance the story. The story wasn't written around the bg or the effect. Nowadays that's all there is.
Look at the difference between The Empire Strikes Back and the newer Phantom Menace. The special effects of The Empire Strikes Back look primitive compared to the Phantom. Yet, why is Empire a CLASSIC, and Phantom considered by most to suck? Story.
The Millennium Falcon was not a focal point of the movie. It was just there, it was a space ship. It was a hurdle the studio had to overcome to help create the atmosphere for the story. I'd be willing to bet when Phantom was being written and thought out, it was more of "We can do this with this program, so lets add ..."
Just because you can do certain things, doesn't mean you should.
C grade horror movies from the 40s and 50s are better then most movies coming out today. That's pathetic. But, even in those awful acted flicks lies a semi decent story.
I don't think the point of these effects is to make things look good or to enhance the storytelling.
It's simply a matter of cost and practicality.
If using techniques like this keep shows like Ugly Betty (of which I am not actually a fan, but imagine if you imagine I was) on the air then I've got no problem. Budgeting for TV shows is a constant struggle, even at the top end. Take a great show like Rome, for example. Everyone loved it but after two seasons there was no chance of a third, not because the ratings weren't high but simply because the production costs were astronomical. Do I wish that they'd used more techniques like this, rather than building enormous sets in Italy? Absolutely.
It's simply a matter of cost and practicality.
If using techniques like this keep shows like Ugly Betty (of which I am not actually a fan, but imagine if you imagine I was) on the air then I've got no problem. Budgeting for TV shows is a constant struggle, even at the top end. Take a great show like Rome, for example. Everyone loved it but after two seasons there was no chance of a third, not because the ratings weren't high but simply because the production costs were astronomical. Do I wish that they'd used more techniques like this, rather than building enormous sets in Italy? Absolutely.
Agreed! These days story takes a back seat to eye candy. There are some exceptions, like the original THE MATRIX movie. That had a textured story that was layered to attack the mind and senses on many levels.
I like Larry Kasanoff's Beowolf better than that CGI nightmare remake that came out a few years ago. There's something about live action CGI still cannot touch.
That was a really cool video. Thanks for posting it! In my personal opinion concerning locations, this specific technology should be used when the production is on a tight budget. If you're George Lucas and you can afford real locations, use real locations. Inception used real locations and it easily feels/looks better than CGI. I can't really explain why.
This particular video is (to the best of my knowledge) TV shows. But, this is the technology that films are using left and right. The minds are wrapped so tightly around this crap, that the stories lack. If anyone believes that this is the era of great movie-making they're sadly mistaken. But, why isn't it? The technology is absolutely incredible. Give Hitchcock, DeMille or Capra this technology and see what kind of films would be made.
There's a movie that's 100% split screen. I can't remember the title, but the stars are pretty famous. It sucked bad. Awful, terrible flick. But, I watched the special features where someone talked about the amount of digital effects it took to create this piece of shit (90 or 200. It was a large number). One example was the light on an elevator when they pushed the button. Literally, that was a special effect. I have an elevator scene in Us Sinners. When it came time to push the button, she pushed the button and the light lit up.
It's garbage like this that's ruining movies. The advent of making music easy to record without having any ability to play an instrument has destroyed the music industry. This geekdom of computer technology is taking down the movie industry.
Above everything else, I'm a movie lover. It's a sad sad state the industry is in right now.
Kind of like the shots in the clip you posted. Most of the greenscreen is being used to extend streets and sets; "atmosphere for the story."
Yep. Lucas intended for all 6 episodes to be as silly as the recent ones. He is quoted as saying that he could only complete 40% of his vision for STAR WARS (THE NEW HOPE). When he released the Special Editions, he added a bunch of stupid CGI shots - Greedo firing first, Jabba talking to Han, Jawas falling off of gigantic beasts in the streets of Mos Eisley, etc, etc. Thank goodness, he didn't digitize Chewbacca like he did to Yoda and Jar Jar!
Lucas was limited to mostly practical effects, proving your following point:
Back then, there was very little budget for anything but the story. The other difference is that today's output of content (good or bad) is 1000 fold or more. Back then, you had movies, radio or theater. Today, you have hundreds of channels and people able to make Youtube videos with their readily available Iphones. You have to sift through a lot of muck to find true talent. The talent is still there, but there's more muck.
You mentioned Hitchcock - he's one of my favorites.
Not entirely. The technology is simply a tool. The video you posted to reminds me of the mattes they used to pull off, such as inserting a palace into the existing shot (R2 and 3PO approaching Jabba's or Indiana Jones approaching the palace in TEMPLE OF DOOM). How about those Albert Whitlock glass matte paintings for EARTHQUAKE or THE THING (saucer shot), or Obi Wan Kenobi standing on the ledge in the Death Star core? It's the same thing - matting. Whether done with computer or physical matte, it is still the same process that has been around for decades.
I used mattes to hide the fact that we shot EXILE in my backyard:
There was no way BLM was letting me build that 24' hallway on location! Does using a matte make me a bad person? No, it's just a tool. I put my effort into the movie's plot. Though that didn't seem to be what distributors cared about, so you may be right about the attitude of the industry. They preferred snazzy effects, instead. Have you watched it, yet? I traded you US SINNERS for it.
I'm guessing you didn't like INCEPTION or AVATAR?
Last edited: