4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      They're not helped, but they're not hurt. They're used to delivering lines to empty space, even in conventional work. It's all of voice acting. Many performances are re-dubbed latter in a studio, where they have better control over the sound. Two-hander scenes are often done without both scene partners present; a stand-in is used for the over-the-shoulder shots, and their lines delivered by a production assistant off camera. The point is that actors are used to imagining things. Ian McKellen didn't need an animatronic Balrog; he had no trouble delivering his lines to a tennis ball (which told him where his eyeline should point). It's all in a day's work for an actor. It does put requirements on the director to visualize the scene for the actor. You can see that fail in Phantom Menace, where very talented actors deliver terrible performances not because of the blue screen but because they were given no direction. The director's job is always to convey what the actor needs to give the performance they want, and that can be nothing more than words.
      - amelius 4y ago
        > They're not helped, but they're not hurt. Sorry, despite your nice exposition I still don't believe it. If you really think a blue screen doesn't negatively impact acting performance then it would require some kind of scientific experiment to convince me.
        jfengel 4y ago
        I'm not sure it's the kind of thing that really admits scientific evidence. By the metric of "dollars earned" or "jobs hired" actors of every different school of acting get jobs, and I doubt it makes a measurable difference at the box office. It's an art so the techniques that work are the ones the artist chooses. I'm sure there are some who are happier with an animatronic and others who would just as soon scream at a production assistant on a ladder.
        dagmx 4y ago
        By the same token, do you have scientific evidence that they’re helped by not having a blue screen? One person is clearly talking from experience of working with actors here (if you’re unaware of the person you’re replying to)
  - hyperthesis 4y ago
    Villeneuve (Dune director) is amazed at the performances Cameron gets out of his actors with a green screen. One thing he does is "sense memories": he took the cast hiking in maui, to concentrate on and memorize the smells and textures of the jungle - to re-experience when shooting. James Cameron & Denis Villeneuve on 'Avatar', 'Dune', and Pioneering CGI | Directors on Directors https://youtube.com/watch?v=RgZQK7cfx_0?t=14m30s https://youtube.com/watch?v=RgZQK7cfx_0?t=14m30s
    - jfengel 4y ago
      Sense memory is one useful tool in the director's toolbox. Some actors don't like it, because what you're seeing is their memory rather than the character's memory. They feel that it creates inauthentic performances. I know that may sound silly, but a lot of acting technique sounds silly until you realize that they're trying to not just rely on their own habits. That's what leads to actors being accused of "playing themselves in every movie". (It also leads to directors abusing that privilege, getting "real" emotions in highly negative situations. Like the way Shelley Duval was reportedly terrorized by Stanley Kubrik while shooting The Shining.) The director has to assemble the team that they want, who will respond to the toolkit that they're using. In the end it doesn't matter what it takes, as long as you get the shot you want in the can. (And complying with ethics, a thing that has too often been ignored.) I'll sometimes even use the worst tool a director has, feeding actors line readings, though only when they ask and nothing else has worked.
- dagmx 4y ago
  That can be handled in many other ways, including having people in suits as standins. Often, that’s better than animatronics because they can move faster and react to the actors better. What is shot on stage doesn’t have to be what’s used in the film, and it’s a common mistake that people who are critical of CGI make.
imiric 4y ago
> The most memorable shots in that film are CG. I know it used CGI in some shots, but I disagree that these were the most memorable. Close-ups of the T-Rex, the creeping raptors in the kitchen, the sick Triceratops, the expanding neck frill of the Dilophosaurus, etc. These were the most tense and impressive shots IMO, and all were practical (even though they were historically innacurate). CGI was used mostly for wide shots that needed to show movement, which wasn't practical or sometimes even possible with animatronics. > 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. I don't disagree that nostalgia is a big part of it, and the fact that back then these were truly ground-breaking shots we hadn't seen before. Each film did things slightly differently, and VFX weren't as accessible as today. Still, there's something raw and, well, real about an actual physical entity that actors interact with. The lighting and physical properties are always correct, and assuming the makeup and robotics are state of the art, it really can trick our brains into believing these are real objects much more than CGI could. For example, take the sick Triceratops scene[1], and compare it to 2015's Jurassic World[2]. Sure, the CGI versions are more life-like, but they look completely fake. The lighting and shading is off, the interactions with the real world is limited and unrealistic, etc. In contrast, the scene from 1993 still looks impressive today, even though the movement is limited, and it arguably looks a bit stiff. State of the art CGI today is much better, though[3], but still slightly off in a few places. This can possibly be blamed on "bad" CGI, but I'd argue most usage in movies falls into this category. Even the creatures in this new Avatar, while incredibly detailed and life-like, look artificial, and like they don't belong in the world around them (which is, ironically, also CG). It looks like an animated, instead of a traditionally shot, film. Which doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable, it's just a different experience. For me, it crucially lacks the awe-inspiring moments that films with practical effects often have. I realize that most of these shots couldn't be possible with practical effects anyway, but I appreciate when directors make an effort in using mostly practical effects, instead of defaulting to doing everything with CGI. As another example, consider All Quiet on The Western Front[4]. According to the VFX lead: > The overall VFX mantra was to allow the footage from principal photography to serve as the primary material for compositing, as opposed to creating CG elements in VFX to augment the scenes. “I believe that adds to the visceral, immersive quality of the film,” Frank Petzold explains. “So in other words when, say, there was an explosion scene, we did not entirely rely on CG models.” Rather, the team used photographic elements as the primary foundation, implementing CG simulations to augment principal photography. The effect was naturalistic, and the integration aimed to be seamless. I think this is the right approach to take, and the film is much more immersive and enjoyable because of it. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYm7xeg27Rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYm7xeg27Rw [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CJL7rKJI18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CJL7rKJI18 [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le0iiWwdeeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le0iiWwdeeE [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8EYbVxtCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8EYbVxtCY [5]: https://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-vfx/ https://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/all-quiet-on-the-western-...

by dagmx 4y ago

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.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    They're not helped, but they're not hurt. They're used to delivering lines to empty space, even in conventional work. It's all of voice acting. Many performances are re-dubbed latter in a studio, where they have better control over the sound. Two-hander scenes are often done without both scene partners present; a stand-in is used for the over-the-shoulder shots, and their lines delivered by a production assistant off camera. The point is that actors are used to imagining things. Ian McKellen didn't need an animatronic Balrog; he had no trouble delivering his lines to a tennis ball (which told him where his eyeline should point). It's all in a day's work for an actor. It does put requirements on the director to visualize the scene for the actor. You can see that fail in Phantom Menace, where very talented actors deliver terrible performances not because of the blue screen but because they were given no direction. The director's job is always to convey what the actor needs to give the performance they want, and that can be nothing more than words.
    - amelius 4y ago
      > They're not helped, but they're not hurt. Sorry, despite your nice exposition I still don't believe it. If you really think a blue screen doesn't negatively impact acting performance then it would require some kind of scientific experiment to convince me.
      - jfengel 4y ago
        I'm not sure it's the kind of thing that really admits scientific evidence. By the metric of "dollars earned" or "jobs hired" actors of every different school of acting get jobs, and I doubt it makes a measurable difference at the box office. It's an art so the techniques that work are the ones the artist chooses. I'm sure there are some who are happier with an animatronic and others who would just as soon scream at a production assistant on a ladder.
      - dagmx 4y ago
        By the same token, do you have scientific evidence that they’re helped by not having a blue screen? One person is clearly talking from experience of working with actors here (if you’re unaware of the person you’re replying to)
- hyperthesis 4y ago
  Villeneuve (Dune director) is amazed at the performances Cameron gets out of his actors with a green screen. One thing he does is "sense memories": he took the cast hiking in maui, to concentrate on and memorize the smells and textures of the jungle - to re-experience when shooting. James Cameron & Denis Villeneuve on 'Avatar', 'Dune', and Pioneering CGI | Directors on Directors https://youtube.com/watch?v=RgZQK7cfx_0?t=14m30s https://youtube.com/watch?v=RgZQK7cfx_0?t=14m30s
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Sense memory is one useful tool in the director's toolbox. Some actors don't like it, because what you're seeing is their memory rather than the character's memory. They feel that it creates inauthentic performances. I know that may sound silly, but a lot of acting technique sounds silly until you realize that they're trying to not just rely on their own habits. That's what leads to actors being accused of "playing themselves in every movie". (It also leads to directors abusing that privilege, getting "real" emotions in highly negative situations. Like the way Shelley Duval was reportedly terrorized by Stanley Kubrik while shooting The Shining.) The director has to assemble the team that they want, who will respond to the toolkit that they're using. In the end it doesn't matter what it takes, as long as you get the shot you want in the can. (And complying with ethics, a thing that has too often been ignored.) I'll sometimes even use the worst tool a director has, feeding actors line readings, though only when they ask and nothing else has worked.
dagmx 4y ago
That can be handled in many other ways, including having people in suits as standins. Often, that’s better than animatronics because they can move faster and react to the actors better. What is shot on stage doesn’t have to be what’s used in the film, and it’s a common mistake that people who are critical of CGI make.

imiric 4y ago

> The most memorable shots in that film are CG. I know it used CGI in some shots, but I disagree that these were the most memorable. Close-ups of the T-Rex, the creeping raptors in the kitchen, the sick Triceratops, the expanding neck frill of the Dilophosaurus, etc. These were the most tense and impressive shots IMO, and all were practical (even though they were historically innacurate). CGI was used mostly for wide shots that needed to show movement, which wasn't practical or sometimes even possible with animatronics. > 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. I don't disagree that nostalgia is a big part of it, and the fact that back then these were truly ground-breaking shots we hadn't seen before. Each film did things slightly differently, and VFX weren't as accessible as today. Still, there's something raw and, well, real about an actual physical entity that actors interact with. The lighting and physical properties are always correct, and assuming the makeup and robotics are state of the art, it really can trick our brains into believing these are real objects much more than CGI could. For example, take the sick Triceratops scene[1], and compare it to 2015's Jurassic World[2]. Sure, the CGI versions are more life-like, but they look completely fake. The lighting and shading is off, the interactions with the real world is limited and unrealistic, etc. In contrast, the scene from 1993 still looks impressive today, even though the movement is limited, and it arguably looks a bit stiff. State of the art CGI today is much better, though[3], but still slightly off in a few places. This can possibly be blamed on "bad" CGI, but I'd argue most usage in movies falls into this category. Even the creatures in this new Avatar, while incredibly detailed and life-like, look artificial, and like they don't belong in the world around them (which is, ironically, also CG). It looks like an animated, instead of a traditionally shot, film. Which doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable, it's just a different experience. For me, it crucially lacks the awe-inspiring moments that films with practical effects often have. I realize that most of these shots couldn't be possible with practical effects anyway, but I appreciate when directors make an effort in using mostly practical effects, instead of defaulting to doing everything with CGI. As another example, consider All Quiet on The Western Front[4]. According to the VFX lead: > The overall VFX mantra was to allow the footage from principal photography to serve as the primary material for compositing, as opposed to creating CG elements in VFX to augment the scenes. “I believe that adds to the visceral, immersive quality of the film,” Frank Petzold explains. “So in other words when, say, there was an explosion scene, we did not entirely rely on CG models.” Rather, the team used photographic elements as the primary foundation, implementing CG simulations to augment principal photography. The effect was naturalistic, and the integration aimed to be seamless. I think this is the right approach to take, and the film is much more immersive and enjoyable because of it. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYm7xeg27Rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYm7xeg27Rw [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CJL7rKJI18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CJL7rKJI18 [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le0iiWwdeeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le0iiWwdeeE [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8EYbVxtCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8EYbVxtCY [5]: https://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-vfx/ https://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/all-quiet-on-the-western-...