Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This isn't about filmmakers who shoot on real sets/locations and then use green screen sparingly to enhance their practical effects. I'm writing about those movies shot entirely on green screen or the new process used for the Mandolarian where the CGI is projected onto the walls of the set in real time.

I read a story about George Lucas visiting Scorsese on the set of Gangs of New York, where they had recreated the 5 Points of New York on a gigantic back lot in Italy. George said "You know we can do this on computers now?" and I can only imagine Scorsese's look of utter disappointment in his old friend.

Live-action movie making are about creating real tangible worlds and seeing the actors interact with stuff that actually exists. Whether that's an old western town recreated in Once upon a time in the West, or Kurt Russell walking around the post-apocalyptic Escape from New York, or the car chase in the French Connection where Gene Hackman is swerving through real traffic etc.. Seeing Ewan Mcgregor obviously wander around a blue room looking at non existent creatures in the Star Wars Prequels is the anti-thesis of movie making.

Jackie Chan doing real stunts will always be more interesting than a CGI model doing the exact same thing because there's no imminence of danger. It's the reason why Buster Keaton running across the top of a moving train is jaw dropping to watch 100 years later or watching a Werner Herzog movie filmed in the Amazon Jungle is insanely captivating. There's a verisimilitude that can't be recreated on a computer or a sterile looking soundstage.

Not only that but if there are amazing real stunts in a new movie, no one believes them to be real thus diminishing the work of actual stuntmen.

The movies from the late 60s to late 80s were the last golden age. Maybe there'll be a resurgence of proper filmmaking soon. Rant Over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,588 Posts
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I attribute it more to the directors misusing the CGI opposed to the CGI itself.

Way to many directors use CGI as a crutch (i.e. J.J. Abrams), a distraction from poor film making (i.e. Rian Johnson), or simply out of laziness (i.e. and unfortunately George Lucas)

(I didn't mean to use just Star Wars directors, but it is what it is, and if it helps all three of those apply to Jodie Shitaker & Chris Chinballs in Nurse Who :ROFLMAO: )

If you want good CGI look to the like of Guillermo Del Toro, Jim Henson Studios, anyone clever enough to know that CGI should be used to enhance practical effects or when no other option is available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,462 Posts
As soon as I saw the topic I thought about that George Lucas/Scorsese quote I heard almost 20 years ago.

There are directors like David Fincher who use it for more of a practical purpose ie: CGI blood so they don't have to burst 100 blood packets and have people change outfits/cars 15 times for different takes. In reference to your Escape from New York example: they used a legit burnt out section of a town that had been destroyed in a fire. You aren't finding too many of those in 2020. For something like that, it would be a lot more practical to use CGI than to build entire sets like that.

It works for the Marvel movies, but it also gets old and mundane when you've seen 25 minutes of straight green screen stuff. I recently caught one of the Fast and Furious movies ( I think 6). And it was so littered with CGI car chases/jumps/explosions that after about 10 minutes in a row I just started laughing and lost interest. Seeing Vin Diesel jump a 50 yard hole in a highway was about all I could take.

But a large portion of people prefer mind blowing visuals as opposed to a gritty realistic story. Unfortunately, I think the overuse of CGI is just a sign of the times and peoples ever limiting attention spans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I saw those John Wick movies and they had some pretty cool fight choreography, but wouldn't it have been even more impressive if they had fired blanks and used blood squibs instead of adding that stuff in post-production?

Like you guys mentioned, it's convenient and stuff but I don't know.

The green screen sets replacing real set design is the worst aspect of modern movies I think. Seeing those enormous Ken Adam sets in the '60s Bond movies still look awesome. Then in a modern fight scene, there'll be two guys fighting on top of a cliff where you can see miles into the distance but you can tell they are fighting in a small green room and then composited into the frame. The contrast between the wide open space and the limited movement of the actors is jarring AF. It's like those old Resident evil games where the background was pre-rendered but the models were done in real time.
 

·
My mom thinks I'm cool.
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
It's cheaper, unlike practical effects artists computer animators an non-union so they can be overworked and underpaid by the studios then in the case of Cats thrown publicly under the bus at their convenience when a movie doesn't work out (a sickening display at the Oscars). The animators who worked tirelessly to "fix Sonic" in time apparently went under but at least some childhoods made it out in one piece. The supposedly left wing Hollywood is all talk and breathes hypocrisy.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top