3 ms·

If you didn't read this post, you would have had no idea the painting was CGI. Calling it lazy is probably as justified as if your boss called you lazy for usin

by ssully 5y ago

If you didn't read this post, you would have had no idea the painting was CGI. Calling it lazy is probably as justified as if your boss called you lazy for using a third party library like Python Requests instead of writing your own http library. The fact is there is more CGI in modern films then you know. There are a million videos like this, but this [1] video on CGI in David Fincher films is really worth a watch to get a small understanding on how modern CGI is used in films in ways you might not have noticed or thought about. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChWIFi8fOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChWIFi8fOY

fvdessen 5y ago
We don’t consciously notice it. But it may make the film worse because we subconsciously notice something wrong, or because the actors don’t act as well without the real props and setting to help them.
- ssully 5y ago
  Well I consciously notice that Knives Out is a pretty good movie, so I think the conversation of what we subconsciously notice or not in this case is pretty silly.
- infinitezest 5y ago
  This isn't an especially compelling theory without some data to back it up. Not to mention some less nebulous criteria for good or bad films.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > This isn't an especially compelling theory without some data to back it up. It's not difficult to reason how a real painting could plausibly incite a more realistic performance out of actors than a green screen. This trope of asking for "data to back it up" for the most obvious things is tiring. This is an internet message board, not a top tier scientific journal. You can ask for evidence if you want, but do you really need to do that in this case?
    - handoflixue 5y ago
      > You can ask for evidence if you want, but do you really need to do that in this case? I mean, the job is called "acting" and I'd think someone is a pretty bad actor if they can't pretend it's a real painting instead of a fake. They're already pretending to be an entirely different person, in an entirely different setting, dealing with a reality that often has extremely different rules than ours. So, yeah, it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to insist that they can handle stunt doubles, fake props, and painted backgrounds... but a single green screen painting is just too much for them to handle.
      - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        > So, yeah, it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to insist that they can handle stunt doubles, fake props, and painted backgrounds... but a single green screen painting is just too much for them to handle. Nobody said that the problem is a single green screen painting. Since you read the OP, you know that the OP laid an argument against the prevalence of CGI, specifically how overt use of CGI leads to movies feeling less realistic. This single green screen painting is merely one small thing contributing to the overall problem. But now we're asking for scientific studies to conclusively prove at p<0.05 that having a single green screen painting on set reduces actor performance? If you genuinely want that level of proof, why are you reading anything on the internet at all? Nothing you read should be convincing to you of opinions you don't already hold.

by ssully 5y ago

fvdessen 5y ago

We don’t consciously notice it. But it may make the film worse because we subconsciously notice something wrong, or because the actors don’t act as well without the real props and setting to help them.

ssully 5y ago
Well I consciously notice that Knives Out is a pretty good movie, so I think the conversation of what we subconsciously notice or not in this case is pretty silly.
infinitezest 5y ago
This isn't an especially compelling theory without some data to back it up. Not to mention some less nebulous criteria for good or bad films.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  > This isn't an especially compelling theory without some data to back it up. It's not difficult to reason how a real painting could plausibly incite a more realistic performance out of actors than a green screen. This trope of asking for "data to back it up" for the most obvious things is tiring. This is an internet message board, not a top tier scientific journal. You can ask for evidence if you want, but do you really need to do that in this case?
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    > You can ask for evidence if you want, but do you really need to do that in this case? I mean, the job is called "acting" and I'd think someone is a pretty bad actor if they can't pretend it's a real painting instead of a fake. They're already pretending to be an entirely different person, in an entirely different setting, dealing with a reality that often has extremely different rules than ours. So, yeah, it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to insist that they can handle stunt doubles, fake props, and painted backgrounds... but a single green screen painting is just too much for them to handle.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      > So, yeah, it seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to insist that they can handle stunt doubles, fake props, and painted backgrounds... but a single green screen painting is just too much for them to handle. Nobody said that the problem is a single green screen painting. Since you read the OP, you know that the OP laid an argument against the prevalence of CGI, specifically how overt use of CGI leads to movies feeling less realistic. This single green screen painting is merely one small thing contributing to the overall problem. But now we're asking for scientific studies to conclusively prove at p<0.05 that having a single green screen painting on set reduces actor performance? If you genuinely want that level of proof, why are you reading anything on the internet at all? Nothing you read should be convincing to you of opinions you don't already hold.