Discotheque
Banned
That was the dumb part. It would have been acceptable if it was just the digital version, but when they do flashbacks with that goofy looking face I was just laughing in the theater.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Filming techniques/methods that still baffle you because they are still used
- Thread starter Boss Doggie
- Start date
- Status
That was the dumb part. It would have been acceptable if it was just the digital version, but when they do flashbacks with that goofy looking face I was just laughing in the theater.
Houston3000
Member
As someone with a major in 3D Art and Animation, CLU was absolutely amazing looking. Unfortunately it didn't look good enough for what they were trying to accomplish. I don't really knock them for trying but they shouldn't have done the real-life flashbacks with the CG model, definitely would of been more accepting if it was only in cyberspace.
The human face is by far the hardest thing to fool people into believing. We're subconsciously familiar with every tiny little detail, specifically regarding muscle movement. I mean, we stare at people's faces practically every single day when we talk to them or even when we're just watching TV or seeing a movie... it's natural.
The human face is by far the hardest thing to fool people into believing. We're subconsciously familiar with every tiny little detail, specifically regarding muscle movement. I mean, we stare at people's faces practically every single day when we talk to them or even when we're just watching TV or seeing a movie... it's natural.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Nah, several in the VFX industry were panning it for other reasons, such as lighting. But it's stuff that the layman wouldn't necessarily spot.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Liman did shaky cam right in Identity. The quick edits are AWFUL in the Bourne sequels. You can't fully see characters interact with each other. The over the shoulder cam trick and hiding half the other actor's face is awful, too.
Look at the train scene in the beginning of Identity. Bourne is walking, confused, trying to figure what his next move is. All of this is done in one shot. You get to see what Bourne is feeling. Now watch the ending of Supremacy where Bourne gets off the train in Russia. So many quick edits of Bourne walking and then moving his way to the phone book.
Look at the train scene in the beginning of Identity. Bourne is walking, confused, trying to figure what his next move is. All of this is done in one shot. You get to see what Bourne is feeling. Now watch the ending of Supremacy where Bourne gets off the train in Russia. So many quick edits of Bourne walking and then moving his way to the phone book.
Yes, you and me can't say that for sure. But this isn't magic, it's technology. There's always something very tangibly wrong with the CG if it doesn't look real. I'm sure someone with a ton of experience in the field can tell pretty easily. At first glance I'd say it's a) the eyes, b) the gooeyness of the skin and c) the generally "over-animated" face: people's facial expressions and all the little muscle movements are typically more erratic, jerky and abrupt and don't transition as unnaturally and smoothly as seen here.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Pretty much covers it. Eyes were the main thing everyone noticed in the office right away when the first trailers hit. Lighting was next, which is a large factor of the look of the skin you're mentioning. Animation was the biggest issue though once they saw him speak.
There's a couple more items, but they're more on the minor/nitpicky side in comparison.
Fallout-NL
Member
The point is that it isn't the technique that is at fault, but the people employing them poorly. If one example works, then the technique obviously isn't broken. But I'll indulge you anyway:
True.
As for Children of Men though, that wasn't so much shaky-cam, but more of a handheld, documentary style.
...
But perhaps you can argue it's the same technique, just less extreme.
It's called depth of field and is superb when done properly.
Now I'd really like to see a version of CLU done right
Mr. B Natural
Member
I don't like any visual "trickery" or "artistic decision" that is there just to be there.
"Shaky cam" I can accept if the movie calls for it. Transformers, on the other hand, has no call for it.
Grain? Ok, why? If the answer is "just because" then you lost me.
It's the same critique any artistic decision is made. Why is this character in your novel? If the answer is "just because" then you're an awful author. Why did you paint that tree purple? Because it "looks cool?" Why is this CGI? What is this unnecessary action scene with random cgi monster even doing here? etc etc etc.
THEN, if it passes that test, you can go into critiquing the skill level/visual appeal of pulling the effect or decision off. But merit comes first. And I always find it odd that merit is the last thing most people consider.
"Shaky cam" I can accept if the movie calls for it. Transformers, on the other hand, has no call for it.
Grain? Ok, why? If the answer is "just because" then you lost me.
It's the same critique any artistic decision is made. Why is this character in your novel? If the answer is "just because" then you're an awful author. Why did you paint that tree purple? Because it "looks cool?" Why is this CGI? What is this unnecessary action scene with random cgi monster even doing here? etc etc etc.
THEN, if it passes that test, you can go into critiquing the skill level/visual appeal of pulling the effect or decision off. But merit comes first. And I always find it odd that merit is the last thing most people consider.
Anton Sugar
Member
People really complaining about shallow depths of field? Have we come to this? Shallow DOF isn't some new technique.
It's only annoying if its overused and doesn't contribute to the look/idea/whatever that the film is going for. Just like most other techniques.
It's only annoying if its overused and doesn't contribute to the look/idea/whatever that the film is going for. Just like most other techniques.
I bet there will be like 2 theaters in America that support it.
That's a very binary point of view. You can't apply this sort of faux academic black-and-white thinking to most art and entertainment; either it has merit or it doesn't, I will be the judge of that!
You're getting too caught up trying to find "meaning" in every decision in the artistic process. That's a pointless and ultimately pretty fruitless endeavor. Much of what comes together to form any piece of art exists, well, just because. Or, if you want, "because it works".
Yes, why is that tree purple indeed? Maybe because it "looks cool". Do you need a more sophisticated reason? Why does P. T. Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love start with a seemingly unrelated spectacular car crash? Because Anderson once heard some porn director say that every movie should start with a bang, and that made sense to him. Is that enough "merit" for you?
An author/director/artist might very well start out trying to convey a deeper message or with the intention of creating a piece about specific themes. But if you think he needs some sort of justification for every decision he makes along the way, you're probably on the wrong track.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Don't be silly. If Cameron can get enough theaters to convert to 3D before he's made it popular, you don't think that when he tells them he's got the sequel coming they'll convert in a heartbeat? Most digital projectors just require a firmware upgrade for it anyway.
Warm Machine
Member
This thread makes me rage.
Lens flare is used to great effect in Blade Runner, Alien, and The Thing. It creates a layer ethreal otherworldlyness. Without it those films would not have such a visual impact.
Some people would argue that because we have cameras capable of near infinite depth of field nothing should ever be out of focus as well. It is a pathetic argument.
Lens flare is used to great effect in Blade Runner, Alien, and The Thing. It creates a layer ethreal otherworldlyness. Without it those films would not have such a visual impact.
Some people would argue that because we have cameras capable of near infinite depth of field nothing should ever be out of focus as well. It is a pathetic argument.
Warm Machine
Member
What slow motion are you talking about?
radios shipping overview
Member
Damn, this thread was over at 24fps.
And then somebody brought up shallow depth of field.
And then somebody brought up shallow depth of field.
Never realized so many pet peeves exist for films. Though I disagree with a lot of what's being thrown around.
Mine include zooming, intro credits, and melodramatic music.
Zooms work okay in comedic moments; see Scott Pilgrim and most Tarantino films. But when a film is dead serious, or an epic, it totally draws me out. It's artificial and ugly.
As for intro credits; they serve no purpose. There's absolutely zero need to remind us it stars so and so, and is directed by such and such. This is especially true for atmospheric films. I think it's in fact counterproductive to "set up" atmosphere from the top. Let your film guide us through the motions naturally.
The music one I have to specify. There's this romantic attraction with most asian films and classical Baroque-era music. It mostly works for genre films, because it's so in your face; see Battle Royale. But as much as I love, say I Saw the Devil, the one segment that bugs me the most on repeat viewings is the one early on, upon finding the body of the fiancee. It's a potentially dramatic/dark scene but instead it's not taken seriously; the music used is bombastic and annoying
Mine include zooming, intro credits, and melodramatic music.
Zooms work okay in comedic moments; see Scott Pilgrim and most Tarantino films. But when a film is dead serious, or an epic, it totally draws me out. It's artificial and ugly.
As for intro credits; they serve no purpose. There's absolutely zero need to remind us it stars so and so, and is directed by such and such. This is especially true for atmospheric films. I think it's in fact counterproductive to "set up" atmosphere from the top. Let your film guide us through the motions naturally.
The music one I have to specify. There's this romantic attraction with most asian films and classical Baroque-era music. It mostly works for genre films, because it's so in your face; see Battle Royale. But as much as I love, say I Saw the Devil, the one segment that bugs me the most on repeat viewings is the one early on, upon finding the body of the fiancee. It's a potentially dramatic/dark scene but instead it's not taken seriously; the music used is bombastic and annoying
Sure, it's an exception but Casino Royale's title sequence is just freaking amazing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWEPGNjDi1M
But also generally are the Bond titles a very nice way of getting you into "James Bond mood."
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
No way, mang. I think they can serve as a good way to prime you for the mood of the film. Catch Me If You Can had excellent opening titles, as did Tintin. The opening of Scott Pilgrim acts as a good mood primer.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Yet effective when done properly.
Warm Machine
Member
The film Se7en uses opening credits perfectly to unsettle the audience and describe the mindset and motivation of the killer.
That type of slow motion, editorialy, is meant to be used to simulate a longer or extended interval of time. Regular slow motion is used to extend a single moment of time. I understand why people sometimes don't like it. I never had a problem with it in Gladiator but I don't like Peter Jackson's use of it in King Kong.
I thought people were complaining about the shutter angle effect like in Saving Private Ryan and the Zombie shots in 28 Days Later which is really normal motion without the motion blur.
Anton Sugar
Member
Really depends on the context and usage. It's difficult to say that a certain technique just can't be used for a certain genre/motif.
Yeah, I prefer Scott's use of it vs Jackson's. Felt inappropriate/gaudy the few times it was used in LOTR.
That was really horrible. I wish I could find the scene where Adrien Brody types in slow motion S-K-U-L-L Island. That was one of these "what were they thinking?!" moments
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Man, Leone knew how to shoot a fucking movie.
Based upon many of the responses in this thread, I am surprised people haven't complained about directors still shooting in scope aspect ratio since most TVs are 1.78 and how much black bars annoy them.
While I agree 120Hz projection for 3D will be common place when A2 hits, I don't think it's a similar situation to him pushing for 3D. There is a monetary drive for that for the cinemas, I don't imagine there will be a premium for 60fps 3D above the standard 3D prices.
As it's not a huge technical difference in terms of projection technology, I don't think it's going to matter, but I don't think Cameron's forceful nature will be what makes it happen.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
He did a presentation to exhibitors a few months ago to convince them. And one of the big things he said was that it is of minimal financial strain to upgrade to the higher frame rate. Basically they have all the equipment they need, they just need to upgrade the firmware and they will be set.
MrCunningham
Member
The second movie had some of the most offensive uses of camera panning and shaky cam shots I have ever seen. It was like the camera would not sit still for longer than two seconds. Each and every scene it was always in motion, and it was one of the most disorienting and headache inducing films I have ever seen. The third movies wasn't as bad in this regard, but it was still terrible.
Unless you are using this for comical effect, it's best to stay away from this one. Though I still get a kick out of older films that would use this effect to speed up car chases.
Yeah, this statement couldn't be any truer.
MidnightCowboy
Member
It's so beautiful.
On topic, I'm not a fan of quick editing at all. I know it's impractical sometimes, but the longer a shot is, the better in my opinion.
Lucky Forward
Member
FWIW, I believe that in his commentary or "making of" extras for Gladiator, Ridley Scott said that by the end of filming the barbarian battle he was losing his light for the day, but he absolutely had to finish the sequence then and there (restaging it another day would have been impossible). That's why he went with the the slow exposure speed, because of the low light. I've never been a fan of shakey-cam, but it doesn't bother me so much in this scene because I think it depicts the disorientation and exhaustion everyone felt by the end of the battle. But maybe that's because I'm such a Scott/Gladiator fan.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked