6 ms·

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. It's amazing how many novel techniques went into the film. I haven't seen it yet, but looking forward to it. One of my favorit

by imiric 4y ago

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. It's amazing how many novel techniques went into the film. I haven't seen it yet, but looking forward to it. One of my favorite TV shows as a kid was Movie Magic. Back in the 90s, most effects were practical, rather than CG, and it was interesting to learn about the various techniques used to achieve the results. From matte paintings, foley sounds and miniature sets, to animatronics and pyrotechnics. There were entire industries dedicated to this, which were replaced—practically overnight—by computers. While there was a rough patch of awful CGI in the 90s and 00s, and the tech has certainly come a long way since then, even today, a discerning viewer can still tell CGI apart from live action. I feel like we lost some of that "magic" in the process. Consider the animatronics used in Jurassic Park[1] and Free Willy 2[2]. They might be crude, stiff and surely very laborious and expensive to build, but the result on screen was much more impressive than today's state of the art CGI. Maybe we've been saturated and take VFX for granted today, but it's a shame that some of these practical effects didn't continue to improve, and are rarely used in modern films. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Fv3tQm_Os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Fv3tQm_Os [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdzksxe4rio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdzksxe4rio

echelon 4y ago
The amount of work that went into those orcas is insane. I appreciate all the work and dedication of those folks, but it feels like such a waste. Especially when the final film wasn't very good. The craft is admirable, but it was never scalable or equitable. Very few projects could benefit from this kind of budget and vision. The coming AI revolution will make this vastly cheaper than even CG, and it'll give more people a hand at storytelling. Without requiring fifty engineers a full year of their talents.
iancmceachern 4y ago
Check out the YouTube channel Corridor Crew, I also liked movie magic and I think you'll like their content
- imiric 4y ago
  Thanks! I've seen some of their videos over the years, but hadn't subscribed yet.
kortilla 4y ago
Yeah, it’s too bad the story was so terrible. It’s a shame when there is a mismatch with the effort that went into the tech vs the writing.
- celeritascelery 4y ago
  I quite liked the story. Maybe a little long. Most people I know liked it too.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    A good 1/3 of the runtime was James Cameron going "look what our tech can do". And I actually didn't mind, the CGI was gorgeous.
- cyborgx7 4y ago
  I don't understand this criticism. The story was amazing.
  - n1b0m 4y ago
    What smurfs in space 2 bro? You must be joking cuz, the dialogue and story are atrocious.
    - cyborgx7 4y ago
      Yes they are blue and in space. You sound like a very shallow person. It's a story about spirituality and nature and community and family that explicitly advocates for eco-terrorism against the American government. But none of that matters because they are blue, lol. People aren't blue. How silly.
      - gattilorenz 4y ago
        > It's a story about spirituality and nature and community and family It’s a _clichéd_ story about all those aspects. “We are a family” or a variation thereof is the most repeated sentence in the movie. The evil guys are evil, 100%, no nuance. My humble opinion is that the movie is visually stunning but too predictable, but I’m not a fan of most movie where “things go boom” or “fighting to death” is a substantial component of the plot… so there’s that.
dagmx 4y ago
You mention Jurassic Park, but the fact is that movie wasn’t doable with animatronics alone. The most memorable shots in that film are CG. I also contest your assertion that the results are more impressive than todays CGI. That’s some rose tinted nostalgia, but there’s no way to replicate some of the advanced motion and realism like the latest Planet of the Apes or Avatar with animatronics. The range of motion required is just not safe to do or cost effective. Safety is a big one. Having an animatronic T-Rex chase a car at speed in the rain is not physically safe to execute in the same space as your main actors. The requirements are at odds. To work in rain requires materials that are hard to move, to move fast requires lighter materials and heavier motors. All of that is a giant weight hurtling at your talent. Use of lighter materials also makes them less durable or more expensive. Furthermore, most animatronics and practical effects in film today are replaced. As much as people sell the allure of “this film is done practically”, the majority of it gets replaced with CG in post. The new star wars films tried that angle with BB-8 and Top Gun Maverick claimed the same, but they practical elements people laud were CG in the final film.
- amelius 4y ago
  But at least the actors have something to work with, rather than having to imagine it. This makes a huge difference.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Nearly everything on a movie set is wildly fake. Imagination is required even for conventional acting. The whole job is "telling the truth under untruthful circumstances". It can require a different toolset when it's just you and a blue screen, but in many ways it's the same craft that every actor develops anyway.
    - amelius 4y ago
      I don't see how that changes the point. Actors are still helped by not having a blue screen, and thus make a better performance.
dylan604 4y ago
The Hunt For Red October never got wet. The underwater scenes were miniatures with smoke floating to give the appearance of water. Listening to the stories of the people working on these types of models and the details they put in is so much different than someone at a computer with a 3D app.
- AlbertoGP 4y ago
  Indeed: “Making of "The Hunt for Red October" - Behind the Scenes” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_epfA20dOY&t=21m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_epfA20dOY&t=21m55s “HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER miniature effects part 1” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Npc6GsUeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Npc6GsUeQ “HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER miniature effects (part 2)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGu8qcI7r-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGu8qcI7r-I
worrycue 4y ago
> even today, a discerning viewer can still tell CGI apart from live action You can tell BAD CGI apart from live action. https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24 https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24
- imiric 4y ago
  I don't disagree with the conclusion in that video. But my criticism is precisely when filmmakers rely solely on CGI for every aspect in a scene. When used in moderation, and to _augment_ practical effects, as in the original Jurassic Park, or All Quiet on the Western Front, then it can increase, rather than break, immersion. Eventually, we'll reach a point when CGI truly becomes indistinguishable from reality, but even then I'd argue that using it for all aspects in a scene would undermine what makes the art of cinema "magic". After all, would it really be filmmaking, or animation, at that point?
  - dagmx 4y ago
    I’m sorry but I vehemently disagree with the premise of your points. I think you’re still assuming that practicals could do it all and somehow CG is solely at fault for things you don’t like. 1. The practical effects on Jurassic Park weren’t simply augmented by CGI. The hero sequences had the main set pieces as CGI. Please tell me how you’d do the T-Rex chasing the jeep with practicals? Or something like gollum fighting with Frodo ? Or Davie Jones in Pirates? In fact, when Jurassic Park came out: the CG elements were the hero’s in the news. This retconning of saying the practicals were the stars is rewriting history to fit a personal subjective narrative. It almost put Phil Tippet out of a job, if Dennis Muren wasn’t a great friend. The news cycles and hype at the time were around all the CG sequences and how it wowed audiences. 2. It’s ridiculous to say animation isn’t a form of film making. It’s possibly the most pure form of film making. You craft every single detail, and make every single choice along the way. this kind of puritanical thinking of saying animation isn’t film making isn’t constructive. Are you seriously going to say that Toy Story isn’t film making? Or The Lion King? The little Mermaid?
    - imiric 4y ago
SergeAx 4y ago
Of course we did. This is why otherwise ordinary "Top Gun 2" was so massively successfull: lots of live action and practical effects. I think we will lose it at all eventually. Today's audience is not making a big difference between movies and computer games, so the current disgrace of Marvel comic movies is just okay for them (old_man_yells_at_cloud.gif)
barrysteve 4y ago
It's a different "magic" in recent films for sure. The images are visually pleasing, and have a kind of muscular, wet-and-glimmering look. The old concept of animating physical objects to make them look like they're inhabited by a spirit and behave/bleed like real animals has been absorbed into motion capture and animation rigs. We also used to love seeing people grow into new behaviours like luke in star wars. He was awkward and unsure of how he should act, and he grew into his new role as a jedi. Another example was Alan in Jurassic Park guiding people through the park by behaving in a manner that wouldn't get everyone eaten. But it's common for people to understand how to behave in action films and real life. The demand to see people learn a new set of behaviours, isn't such a strong pull to watch movies lately. I struggle to imagine what a new-and-improved look for animated bones and lifelike animatronics would be? An engineer could make them stronger, better, faster and move more smoothly, but the higher experience people could want.. I don't know what it could be.

by imiric 4y ago

echelon 4y ago

The amount of work that went into those orcas is insane. I appreciate all the work and dedication of those folks, but it feels like such a waste. Especially when the final film wasn't very good. The craft is admirable, but it was never scalable or equitable. Very few projects could benefit from this kind of budget and vision. The coming AI revolution will make this vastly cheaper than even CG, and it'll give more people a hand at storytelling. Without requiring fifty engineers a full year of their talents.

iancmceachern 4y ago

Check out the YouTube channel Corridor Crew, I also liked movie magic and I think you'll like their content

imiric 4y ago
Thanks! I've seen some of their videos over the years, but hadn't subscribed yet.

kortilla 4y ago

Yeah, it’s too bad the story was so terrible. It’s a shame when there is a mismatch with the effort that went into the tech vs the writing.

celeritascelery 4y ago
I quite liked the story. Maybe a little long. Most people I know liked it too.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  A good 1/3 of the runtime was James Cameron going "look what our tech can do". And I actually didn't mind, the CGI was gorgeous.
cyborgx7 4y ago
I don't understand this criticism. The story was amazing.
- n1b0m 4y ago
  What smurfs in space 2 bro? You must be joking cuz, the dialogue and story are atrocious.
  - cyborgx7 4y ago
    Yes they are blue and in space. You sound like a very shallow person. It's a story about spirituality and nature and community and family that explicitly advocates for eco-terrorism against the American government. But none of that matters because they are blue, lol. People aren't blue. How silly.
    - gattilorenz 4y ago
      > It's a story about spirituality and nature and community and family It’s a _clichéd_ story about all those aspects. “We are a family” or a variation thereof is the most repeated sentence in the movie. The evil guys are evil, 100%, no nuance. My humble opinion is that the movie is visually stunning but too predictable, but I’m not a fan of most movie where “things go boom” or “fighting to death” is a substantial component of the plot… so there’s that.

dagmx 4y ago

You mention Jurassic Park, but the fact is that movie wasn’t doable with animatronics alone. The most memorable shots in that film are CG. I also contest your assertion that the results are more impressive than todays CGI. That’s some rose tinted nostalgia, but there’s no way to replicate some of the advanced motion and realism like the latest Planet of the Apes or Avatar with animatronics. The range of motion required is just not safe to do or cost effective. Safety is a big one. Having an animatronic T-Rex chase a car at speed in the rain is not physically safe to execute in the same space as your main actors. The requirements are at odds. To work in rain requires materials that are hard to move, to move fast requires lighter materials and heavier motors. All of that is a giant weight hurtling at your talent. Use of lighter materials also makes them less durable or more expensive. Furthermore, most animatronics and practical effects in film today are replaced. As much as people sell the allure of “this film is done practically”, the majority of it gets replaced with CG in post. The new star wars films tried that angle with BB-8 and Top Gun Maverick claimed the same, but they practical elements people laud were CG in the final film.

amelius 4y ago
But at least the actors have something to work with, rather than having to imagine it. This makes a huge difference.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Nearly everything on a movie set is wildly fake. Imagination is required even for conventional acting. The whole job is "telling the truth under untruthful circumstances". It can require a different toolset when it's just you and a blue screen, but in many ways it's the same craft that every actor develops anyway.
  - amelius 4y ago
    I don't see how that changes the point. Actors are still helped by not having a blue screen, and thus make a better performance.

dylan604 4y ago

The Hunt For Red October never got wet. The underwater scenes were miniatures with smoke floating to give the appearance of water. Listening to the stories of the people working on these types of models and the details they put in is so much different than someone at a computer with a 3D app.

AlbertoGP 4y ago
Indeed: “Making of "The Hunt for Red October" - Behind the Scenes” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_epfA20dOY&t=21m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_epfA20dOY&t=21m55s “HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER miniature effects part 1” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Npc6GsUeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Npc6GsUeQ “HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER miniature effects (part 2)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGu8qcI7r-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGu8qcI7r-I

worrycue 4y ago

> even today, a discerning viewer can still tell CGI apart from live action You can tell BAD CGI apart from live action. https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24 https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24

imiric 4y ago
I don't disagree with the conclusion in that video. But my criticism is precisely when filmmakers rely solely on CGI for every aspect in a scene. When used in moderation, and to _augment_ practical effects, as in the original Jurassic Park, or All Quiet on the Western Front, then it can increase, rather than break, immersion. Eventually, we'll reach a point when CGI truly becomes indistinguishable from reality, but even then I'd argue that using it for all aspects in a scene would undermine what makes the art of cinema "magic". After all, would it really be filmmaking, or animation, at that point?
- dagmx 4y ago
  I’m sorry but I vehemently disagree with the premise of your points. I think you’re still assuming that practicals could do it all and somehow CG is solely at fault for things you don’t like. 1. The practical effects on Jurassic Park weren’t simply augmented by CGI. The hero sequences had the main set pieces as CGI. Please tell me how you’d do the T-Rex chasing the jeep with practicals? Or something like gollum fighting with Frodo ? Or Davie Jones in Pirates? In fact, when Jurassic Park came out: the CG elements were the hero’s in the news. This retconning of saying the practicals were the stars is rewriting history to fit a personal subjective narrative. It almost put Phil Tippet out of a job, if Dennis Muren wasn’t a great friend. The news cycles and hype at the time were around all the CG sequences and how it wowed audiences. 2. It’s ridiculous to say animation isn’t a form of film making. It’s possibly the most pure form of film making. You craft every single detail, and make every single choice along the way. this kind of puritanical thinking of saying animation isn’t film making isn’t constructive. Are you seriously going to say that Toy Story isn’t film making? Or The Lion King? The little Mermaid?
  - imiric 4y ago

SergeAx 4y ago

Of course we did. This is why otherwise ordinary "Top Gun 2" was so massively successfull: lots of live action and practical effects. I think we will lose it at all eventually. Today's audience is not making a big difference between movies and computer games, so the current disgrace of Marvel comic movies is just okay for them (old_man_yells_at_cloud.gif)

barrysteve 4y ago

It's a different "magic" in recent films for sure. The images are visually pleasing, and have a kind of muscular, wet-and-glimmering look. The old concept of animating physical objects to make them look like they're inhabited by a spirit and behave/bleed like real animals has been absorbed into motion capture and animation rigs. We also used to love seeing people grow into new behaviours like luke in star wars. He was awkward and unsure of how he should act, and he grew into his new role as a jedi. Another example was Alan in Jurassic Park guiding people through the park by behaving in a manner that wouldn't get everyone eaten. But it's common for people to understand how to behave in action films and real life. The demand to see people learn a new set of behaviours, isn't such a strong pull to watch movies lately. I struggle to imagine what a new-and-improved look for animated bones and lifelike animatronics would be? An engineer could make them stronger, better, faster and move more smoothly, but the higher experience people could want.. I don't know what it could be.