3D used too much in films?
Alright, so im about to head to work and thought id post this up before i go to see how other digital artists feel about it. I was talking with a buddy of mine(who has no 3d knowledge/eye) about how Hollywood seems to overuse 3d where (i feel) it shouldn't in movies. Disclaimer: i know i should(and do) want 3d to be used as much as possible in movies as it means job$, but consider this. Most movies nowadays get huge budgets, like $80m+, they hire tons of 3d artists, vfx peeps, etc, to make the environments, explosions(yes not real anymore 
) in addition to any other work needed in the film. After all this work and money spent, many of these films are for the most part (as a film<generalizing>) not very good(cud it be the story/directing?). Now consider this, moving back in time to the 60's to late 90's. These films used elaborate props for both characters and scenes, giving these movies a very tangible feel. Some movies that instantly come to mind are 2010, Alien and Aliens, Total Recall and The Thing. Alien and Aliens were made for around $11-$18m had almost no cg, these two actually had me up all night in fear as a kid(because the creature/s were tangible and "real"). So whats your take on this, anybody here have similar thoughts on this subject?(or am i just smokin crack?:poly122:)
) in addition to any other work needed in the film. After all this work and money spent, many of these films are for the most part (as a film<generalizing>) not very good(cud it be the story/directing?). Now consider this, moving back in time to the 60's to late 90's. These films used elaborate props for both characters and scenes, giving these movies a very tangible feel. Some movies that instantly come to mind are 2010, Alien and Aliens, Total Recall and The Thing. Alien and Aliens were made for around $11-$18m had almost no cg, these two actually had me up all night in fear as a kid(because the creature/s were tangible and "real"). So whats your take on this, anybody here have similar thoughts on this subject?(or am i just smokin crack?:poly122:)
Replies
The advantage of animatronics or pyrotechnics is they are really there and it's easy to interact with, rather than a green screen and a tennis ball on a stick, I mean if everyone did a James Cameron then fine, but most of the time it's just bad directing not too much cg.
Also, personally, I don't care. CGI, just like Rubber suits, Dud bullets and Lights are another means to an end, as long as I care what the actor does, everything else doesn't matter.
Another thing that CG allows you to do is put a camera absolutely anywhere and perform moves that are not achievable with a real camera. Floaty, sweeping shots that pull back further and further into the air feel really 'computery' to me and break the sense of immersion.
So yeah, I wish that film makers would use CG more cleverly and rely on physical sets and in-camera effects whenever possible. I don't think that's going to happen though!
Without a solid narrative or interesting characters you create a theme park ride. Which is essentially what some films have become. Nothing wrong with that per se. It is just a different way of making films.
I was about to use David Fincher as an example as well. There are so many "serious" movies that use CG for so many different things and you can't even tell.
I love the use of CG in Game of Thrones, unobtrusive and subtle.
By the way, when you posted 3D in your title I was thinking about actual 3D, the one you need glasses, instead of CGI.
"it's not special effects if it's used in every frame".
Nearly everything uses cg these days, you just aren't able to tell.
Was that the reel with the Madmen scenes? That was fascinating.
Edit: Actually it was this I was thinking about:
[ame="
Don't know where Mad Men came from.
In The Fountain for example pretty much no 3d was used, rather they used macro photography and compositing at a cost of about $140,000 (versus the millions it was expected to cost). Not only was it cheaper to do the effects this way, but, in my opinion, the effects themselves aged much better than they would have if they were done as cg six years ago.
Damn. Until I watched that video I thought I liked that kind of VFX use better. Now I just feel deceived and lied to.
It depends on the movie for me. Transformers makes me want to puke, Avengers was middling and Prometheus I thought the monsters and sets were cool. Generally though, subtle is better. I don't like when obviously fake things take centre stage.
Yeah I don't really understand this thread.
Speaking as someone who works with animatronics for a living as well as a long time fan of monster movies and practical effects and makeup work, I always enjoy seeing films take advantage such things. On the other hand, I know exactly how much time and money goes into making a decent animatronic creature and can understand pretty well why CG has become the go-to effects technique for better or sometimes worse. You've gotta do what works best for your project within the budget that you have to work with, and the majority of the time it's going to make more sense to use to go to the "dark side" as the fabricators and mechatronics guys at work call it.
Best case scenario is what Weta are doing with the likes of Tolkiens work - use digital effects where necessary. but practical stuff wherever it gives a better effect.
[ame="
I didnt know it was more expensive to go the animatronic route. I just learned something new:D!!
Making a good movie isn't as easy as that.
Thus we get a ton of movies with tons of effects that aren't especially good.
But again, it's not too many effects, it's not enough movie.
The original total recall was pretty much the 80's version of a movie full of effects today, it used special effects just about everywhere just for the sake of having effects :P
Many of the fancy stuff people seem to respect more were smoke and mirrors back then too. The explosions weren't as big of a scale as they appear to be, they use mirrors and other things to trick the audience and so on. Did people complain about the effects themselves back then? No, because they were used to it. VFX is something relatively new and many people think that if they can remotely tell that it's an effect, they immediately come to the conclusion that it's either overused or that it's really badly made. It's not just us 3d artists, it's can be anyone. Hell, many people blame every bad thing about a movie on the effects sometimes just because they need a scapegoat.
If something can be made cheaper or more effective by using cg, then why not? I admit there are some exceptions to this but generally it's just a means to an end. If everything else is crap, like the script and actors, then the vfx will look bad along with the rest.
As for the new total recall: I don't agree that less would have been more. They are showing the whole world and you can achieve that kind of scale much better with the use of today's CG. The large cities look much more alive and it's more effective for the audience. I love the animatronic creatures from the good old days, but that along with stop-motion generally looks more fake compared to CG.
This!
The parts where they do show some cgi it looks great and adds something to the scene.
Remember the scene in Aliens where they welded the doors shut and set up motion sensor turrets? Today, that shot would almost certainly have a big establishing shot showing thousands of CG Aliens scaling the tunnel and you would see them getting shot. Back then they only had 4 aliens to work with, so instead you just hear the guns going off, the alien screeches, the pings of the motion trackers, and see the actors tense reactions.
I think by not showing the Aliens in that scene it builds a lot of extra tension. In contrast - AvP does slow-mo bullet time effects with face-huggers, even cheapening the jump scare of a facehugger.
Aliens was blamed for upping the alien-count just for the sake of numbers when one was enough for the first alien movie, it probably wouldn't feature thousands of aliens today as the colony only had around 150 humans in it, that's besides the point though :P
The scene was great not because it didn't use effects everywhere (even though it did feature aliens exploding by turret-fire) It was great because it was a great scene.
I had not seen the new trailer until now and I can tell you that the only thing ruining it for me is that it's really just Total Recall all over again. If I watched that trailer and didn't know it was called or even inspired by the original I would be so much more excited.
Also seriously how much do 1980s - 90s trailer spoil scenes from their movies?
On the note of overdone cg, I usually have little issue with it, but now I'm starting to see how it can get so messy. When watching the Avengers I was loving every little computer-generated minute of it until the big battle at the end with the aliens, simply because the aliens were so obtusely detailed that I couldn't really tell what's going on.
Also as somebody mentioned, we get some unrealistic by amazing camera moves by using CG it's a pity that we still can't seem to get a steady shot, I'm so sick of "shaky cam."
Now this is a case of poor direction rather than anything being wrong with the CG effect themselves, but I think that's probably the real issue in most of these cases given that now-a-days you don't often run into genuinely poor quality CG in films, or at least those with a Hollywood budget.
EDIT: And Snaacum mentions another issue that's appeared recently - ludicrous amounts of hard to read detail "because we can". See Transformers for the worst culprit. One wonders what the Transformers movie would have looked like if it was made 15 or so years earlier.
the film industry is getting alot of freedom and needs to grow into it. I think thats why TV is doing a more seamless job.. same tools lower budgets.
The first movie showed thousands of eggs, so multiple numbers were already established. Their motivation for going back (or at least getting Ripley to) was to wipe them out with the Marines. Seems like the logical place to go if you're going to expand where the first one left off.
Anyway, my point wasn't really about Aliens but more that if Cameron directed it with today's technology, it'd probably match the visual flair of Avatar more closely than it does. That isn't to say it'd necessarily be a bad movie, but I think it would have a lot higher potential to at least have some scenes that seem a little "Starship Trooper-ish." Like Avatar does. I just don't see him writing the script the same way knowing what is available today.
If you disagree, that's fine though.
No I meant: there was only around 150 colonists at hadleys hope, every alien needs a human :P
We wouldn't know though, terminator, terminator 2, aliens, all were quite heavy on effects, but they were used in great ways.
Terminator 2 even won a ton of awards for its use of special effects.
Even Avatar which lacks in story uses cg to a great effect, and being a big 3d movie it still used 3d properly by not having things fly towards the camera at every possible scene. It used cg to imagine a world we couldn't have created with set pieces and prosthetics.
So it's not "too much cg in movies", it's "too much cg without purpose in movies" or the Prometheus style "Movie looks fantastic but the story..."
Live action segments filmed in stereo, it's as 3d as it gets.
They even developed the camera system for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Camera_System