|
Seun (m)
|
Supposing your film is an action/adventure/science fiction/horror film, which requires:
- Vehicles you can't obtain on your budget such as helicopters, space ships, fighter jets, submarines, missiles, ships, et cetera. Should you use scale models of these vehicles and move them with wires or stop motion techniques? Should you buy simple look-alike models or functional models that actually fly and move? Or should you just create them on your computer (CGI) and combine with your live-action footage?
- Interesting non-human creatures such as spiders, insect-like aliens, giant beatles. Do you create them using photorealistic 3D modeling, expensive animatronic models that can be controlled like puppets in real time, or static but photorealistic models controlled using stop motion photography (like the original King Kong)?
In general,should you use the computer for everything or is there a use for scale models and other old-school methods of creating special effects? What's ideal for those of us who don't have millions of dollars to spend on our action/adventure films?
|
|
|
|
|
|
combrazor (m)
|
employing CG on that level (apart from probably looking incredibly cheesy) costs a fortune in of itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jemit (m)
|
i personally would prefer to use CGI to create scenes and characters in my movies if need be. there may also be need for scale models and old-fashion traditional special effects depending on the effect needed.
simulating a helicopter crashing into the mm2 airport may be better using cgi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
combrazor (m)
|
simulating a helicopter crashing into the mm2 airport may be better using cgi. it'll probably end up looking incredibly fake and cheesy, though. people have got to stop acting like CGI is a magic bullet that solves all problems. maybe it could be in the future, but really . . . for now, the technology just is not on that level. |
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
@comrazor, I agree CGI is not a magic bullet but people have pulled it off successfully several times. In most cases they employ a lot of diversionary tactics to divert your total attention from the computer generated sequence. I can assure you that some of the shots you believe are the handiwork of stunt men are simply flawless live action/cgi integration. It becomes 'cheezy' when there is no diversion (speed/action/fast paced camera switch etc) or when there's a long establishing focus on the CGI elements. I observed you find CGI absolutely repulsive and have refused to acknowledge it has its uses (especially when applied in the right sense). I know people go overboard with Cgi (which I find despicable) but nevertheless, it is something you cannot rule out entirely, no matter your personal taste.
In my own case I will combine both; Use miniatures where they are most appropriate and Cg where it is most appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
combrazor (m)
|
oh, i know CGI has been used effectively quite a lot . . . but in most of those cases, it is used (as you said) in combination with real elements, as well as distractions to keep the eye from lingering too long upon.
however, unless i misunderstood, the vibe i got from Seun's original post was the idea of using CGI to create vehicles, monsters, locations--basically to create the entire world, a la 300.
while that approach may have worked for 300, Sin City and Sky Captain, you'll notice that all of those movies were either based on or paid homage to comic books, and as such they benefited from having a slightly unreal, cartoonish, exaggerated reality.
if you're making such a film, then i guess it could work for you. but if you're doing something that involves even a semblance of realism, i think it's going to be a cheesefest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
oh, i know CGI has been used effectively quite a lot . . . but in most of those cases, it is used (as you said) in combination with real elements, as well as distractions to keep the eye from lingering too long upon. At least we agree on this one.  while that approach may have worked for 300, Sin City and Sky Captain, you'll notice that all of those movies were either based on or paid homage to comic books, and as such they benefited from having a slightly unreal, cartoonish, exaggerated reality.
if you're making such a film, then i guess it could work for you. but if you're doing something that involves even a semblance of realism, i think it's going to be a cheesefest.
That's exactly what I was driving at when I mentioned using CGI reasonably. Either you employ integration (CGI/live) with distractions or all out Cgi world with exaggerated reality (300, Sky Cap, Sin City, Preacher . . . etc)). Anything else will do little to prevent your eyes from lingering too long or from passing crude judgment. I guess we're saying the same thing in different tones.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Seun (m)
|
however, unless i misunderstood, the vibe i got from Seun's original post was the idea of using CGI to create vehicles, monsters, locations--basically to create the entire world, a la 300. You misunderstood. I mentioned props, vehicles and monsters. The one about locations is the green screen topic, and not this one. I have a book titled " how to create killer action movies on the cheap", written by a guy who does special effects for big Hollywood movies. I created this thread because i found the effects created with miniatures and puppets far more convincing than those created with consumer CGI. I agree with what grafikdon said. When you linger too long on a computer generated image, you begin to see the flaws. For some reason, I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of delving into the CGI world. |
|
|
|
|
|
combrazor (m)
|
oh ok . . . my bad, then.
anyway, for the record, i prefer miniatures and puppets to CGI myself.
but of course, 9 times out of 10, i will ALWAYS choose a concrete object being physically placed in front of the camera over disembodied phantom pixels.
that's why i love Michel Gondry so much . . . because of his disdain for digital effects and his invention in creating optical effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
combrazor (m)
|
whoa, whoa, whoa!
grafikdon, did you just say "Preacher"?
have they started shooting that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
Hahahaha!!!! It was an underground rumour but there has to be some truth to that. It will get the Sin City/ Sky Captain treatment, so I heard. Preacher is . . . I am not sure how to describe it. . . totally unconventional and mind blowing.  It was a unique experiment that really paid off. I devoured everything like hot moi moi and akamu. . . I can't wait for more live action evidence to surface. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
combrazor (m)
|
if they really ARE going to shoot it like Sin City, i think i might throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Preacher is NOT supposed to have that look. (Garth Ennis is actually standing by and allowing this?)
furthermore, i think that kind of look works in short bursts (i actually got tired of watching Sin City in the theater) but for an ongoing HBO series? every episode's going to look like that?
i can see them using that style for some of the Saint of Killers' scenes, and maybe the scenes in Heaven. but the WHOLE THING?
*sigh* to be honest, i guess i would expect that from the man who directed Ghost Rider!
|
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
Well, I have no idea the style they want to adopt but I have no doubt they will do a good job. Preacher is not something they can afford to mess with, perhaps they'd be able to get away with any ugly stunt (style) considering that majority of the audience wouldn't know anything about the real Preacher. . . Whatever they do, I hope they don't screw up 'cause I will take it personal. I am waiting for a Spawn movie.  the first one. . . well, It didn't do it for me, I enjoyed the MTV animated series more (too bad they axed it). That's got to be one of the best animated shows out there (IMHO). I didn't mean to take the thread down to Jerusalem, just couldn't resist. |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
