CGI About to Boom In Hollywood 340
FortKnox writes "Because of the success of "Monsters Inc" and "Shrek", many major hollywood studios are scrambling getting on the CGI bandwagon. Looks like we're about to get smothered by CGI movies left and right. For those that like to tinker with CG, it might be a good time to go jobhunting..." Several upcoming movies mentioned. Some ven
look like they might have potential ;)
Hey Hollywood... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Write a good script
2. Make it with good actors (LOTR) or CGI.
3. Make money.
It is really pretty simple.
Re:Hey Hollywood... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hey Hollywood... (Score:2)
I disagree. Many of the visual jokes in Pixar's creations would not work with cartoons. They are incredibly skilled at finding what works with their chosen medium and using it. Do you honestly think that "For the Birds" or the infamous "Luxo Junior" or "Tin Toy" would be funny as a hand-drawn cartoon? I don't. But as rendered animation, it works, and is funny as can be.
I actually had this discussion with my girlfriend in the theatre for Monsters, Inc. about "For the Birds" and she, even though not the rendered animation freak I am, agreed :)
Re:Hey Hollywood... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there's a principle in movies called MOTSS ("more of the same stuff"... or for the cynical, "more of the same sh*t").
And even more unfortunately, sometimes that principle actually works, really REALLY well.
*sigh*
Re:Hey Hollywood... (Score:5, Interesting)
Any real animation fan will tell you that using CGI (or conventional cell animation) doesn't eliminate the need for good actors. The quality of the voice acting in an animated feature can make a huge difference in its overall quality.
To take a particularly strong negative example, consider JarJar Binks. His antics in Phantom Menace were certainly distracting, but it was the awful voice acting that made him so utterly annoying. On the positive side, look at your examples of Shrek and Toy Story. Both movies had top name actors providing the voices for key characters. In Japan, the best seiyuu (voice actors) in anime can be nationally famous just for their vocal talents.
Re:Hey Hollywood... (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Much of the success of the two Toy Story movies was due the fact they very effectively used voice talent--they got famous actors whose voice really made the movie go.
A Japanese seiyuu can become extremely famous if they do a large number of very good anime series. A good example is Hayashibara Megumi: she voiced Lina Inverse in three Slayers TV series, Ayanami Rei in Shin Seiki Evangelion, and Lime in two Saber Marionette TV series (among many other voice acting credits). She also has two radio shows in Japan and is a frequent guest on many Japanese entertainment shows. Even though most of use don't understand Japanese, you can understand why she's so famous in Japan--her voice acting skills range from very subdued to over-the-top hyperkenetic, and she pulls it off extremely effectively.
Re:Much simpler (Score:2)
Ishtar
Last Action Hero
Bloopers (Score:2)
Oh, that's sarcasm btw.
Re:Bloopers (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, that's sarcasm btw.
I guess you haven't heard about the Toy Story scene where Mr. Potatohead pulls his eyes off and sticks them under Bo-Peep's dress!
I *REALLY* want to get my hands on that!
AFAIK it hasn't escaped from Pixar's private insider collection.
-
Re:Bloopers (Score:2)
Toy Story had this too. (Score:2)
And while on the subject of contrived bloopers, I'm really not pleased with the "release the movie now, release the bloopers in 4 weeks" strategy that certain studios have adapted. Like I'm gonna sit through Monsters twice. It's cute, but in the end it's just another buddy picture. Like Lethal Weapon or Rush Hour.
Re:Bloopers (Score:2, Troll)
Plot. (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong; I'd like to see more CG films, but I don't really want that all-familliar Hollywood trend of copying an idea to death.
I predict that there will be a few good flicks out of this rush, and a whole bunch of lousy, plotless, kindergarten-quality films about wombats and potatoes.
Re:Plot. (Score:2)
Then, the era of "garbage CGI" will have truly dawned. Understand that Pixar are geeks. They get into nerdy things like developing the next coolest rendering technology. IIRC, "Gerri's Game" (the short about an old man who gets into a chess game with himself, and loses) was more of a technology demonstration about rendering hair more realistically - a proof of concept for the technology in Monsters Inc.
Us geeks watched Monsters Inc. and wowed over the supremely cool hair rendering, and wondered where they got enough CPU to do it all. While the "unwashed masses" went to go see a piece of crap like Jimmy Neutron, which was, while amusing, - it was technically a peice of crap. In the end, per dollar invested up front in engineering and production quality, I'll bet movies like Jimmy Neutron are going to end up being more profitable in the end. Which sucks.
Which business model do YOU think Hollywood will favor?
Hmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:See South Park (Score:2)
Let's face it, that's how most live action comedies are made.
This might be very bad. (Score:2, Funny)
This is very bad !
Real actors often act as projection surfaces for the phantasies of people like Natalie Portman. I doubt that CG actors will do the same, at least they are really artificial.
Also actors act as role model for little children making them bright, healthy and law-abiding citizens.
Without real live actor these will be gone. The only role models for little children will be the other people they see on news on TV - politicians and terrorists.
Would you like George "Duyba" Bush, Tony Blair or even Osama bin Laden to be a role model for your children ?
So all these CG movies are really very bad and might lead to reduction of morale in the free modern western civilization.
Re:This might be very bad. (Score:2)
So wait...you're saying Aki didn't do anything for you in FF? I left the theatre depressed because (unlike Catherine Zeta-Jones) I was attracted to someone who didn't even exist...damn them
Re:This might be very bad. (Score:2)
Talk about a totally submissive woman! Write the right macro, and she's your love-slave for ever!
Re:This might be very bad. (Score:2)
Damn. And I was so looking forward to bringing up my own kids...
Answer to your rhetorical question (Score:2)
Would you like George "Duyba" Bush, Tony Blair or even Osama bin Laden to be a role model for your children ?
No, yes, and no, respectively.
Okay article, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I still live action actors, so maybe a combination (Roger Rabbit, Cool World, etc.) of CG and live action is on the horizon.
Re:Okay article, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Okay article, but... (Score:2)
That's because final fantasy sucked serious ass. What a disappointing piece of crap.
Molly Star Racer (Score:4, Informative)
You can see an Mpeg format trailer here:
http://www.savtheworld.com/ [savtheworld.com]
Re:Molly Star Racer (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Molly Star Racer (Score:2)
Re:Molly Star Racer (Score:2)
And the reason I think it's so uber-cool is because it's not brainlessly trying to look like Japanimation (like recent Disney efforts). The French influence is very strong - it almost has that 1970's French comic-book look to it. And as a die-hard Moebius fan, that makes me very happy.
I also like the way they did the CGI. It's very laid back, and it gives the 3d motion a lot of life that would otherwise be missing in hand-drawn animation. But UNLIKE the same attempt in The Iron Giant, it doesn't jump off the screen and smack you in the face with "CGI precision!!!". It retains some semblance of unity. The only problem I had with it was the running scene at the end, there girl running looked a bit stiff and unnatural. There's just something that hand animators do that CGI just can't seem to handle yet, and that's the human form at a gallop.
(in all fairness, I think that Pixar licked that one in Monsters. Hell, they even got the pee-pee dance down!)
Re:Molly Star Racer (Score:2)
Graphics overhead for the most part. The algotrithms for flat-shaded 3d rendering have been around for a while, but the most efficient algorithm I know of requires some complex math on a Z-buffer render and brightness render, requiring 3x overhead.
There are some quake 3 models out there that are designed to be flat-rendered, but again, put a *lot* of stress on the GPU you're rendering Quake with.
Now, that said, this *is* about to start showing up in video games. The last screenshots distributed for the new Zelda game indicated that it would be a very cartoony, almost anime-style flat-rendered game. Whether or not that will still be the case has yet to be seen.
animation trends in general (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, as ususal many studios will slap together formulaic, crummy projects driven by the idea that CGI means a movie on the cheap (no locations! no actors!). They'll tank, and some burned studios will think twice before the next one. And even if the product is decent - I watched "Osmosis Jones" on video this weekend and enjoyed it quite a bit - it may pan because there are no sure things in entertainment.
This is what the Market Wants!! (Score:2, Insightful)
MORE SEQUELS!!!
MORE PIXELS!!!!
HIGHER BUDGETS!!!!
MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE!!!!!
One. ONE decent memorable character. ONE good storyline that wasn't licensed from a book. (Notice where the REALLY good movies come from?) ONE skillful use of setting, or non-canned music, or silence, or symbolism, or metaphor.
All the money in Hollywood, and NONE OF THESE THINGS can be produced, apparently.
But they can spend NINE FIGURES on CG!! Oh, sure. No problem.
Funny. The game industry is trying desperately to be Hollywood, and Hollywood is trying frantically to be the game industry.
Maybe instead of the THX thing, they'll put up a sign that says:
"The audience is yawning"
Re:This is what the Market Wants!! (Score:3, Insightful)
It wants jiggling breasts, special effects, fight scenes, puerile humor, big explosions, men with almost no bodyfat, and a plot simpler than the rules to a tractor pull.
The guy that brought up Hidden Tiger Crouching Dragon or whatever the hell it is - please remember that it's basically fight scenes, lovemaking, people waving swords around, special effects, etc. as well as a plot you can summarize in one sentence.
RULE ONE - if you can't tell me what the movie's about in one sentence, forget it.
RULE TWO - if there's no T&A, forget it.
RULE THREE - if there's no violence, forget it. Unless it's a French film, in which case double up on rule two, but realise noone outside France will ever watch it.
Re:This is what the Market Wants!! (Score:5, Funny)
Just-turned-18 year old Justinia wakes up, and slinks completely unclothed into a shower, where there's a very long, extended shower scene interspersed with the credits and the extremely violent murder of her cute brother by stereotypical Muslim/arab/mafia/other ethnic people. She finds out her brother has been killed, and they want to kill her next, because she somehow wound up through some unlikely but trivial twist of fate to have the map to something very valuable. She meets up with Mack Dolan, an incredibly muscled tough guy who rides a Harley. He also beats nine colors of heck out of more ethnics who show up just to be beaten up. They drive away, and along the way pick up a wisecracking skinny black guy sidekick played by a flavor-of-the-month filth-mouthed comedian. Along the way someone (not the leads) breaks wind, falls into a vat of manure, or otherwise has something vile happen. They then head to the desert/warehouse/safe house where they pick up lots of guns (shown just as pornographically as scene one) and after a requisite 30 second "character development" scene (she cries, he admits he's not been the same since those same people killed his puppy and standing up, grits his jaw) which leads to the two having steamy sex. They then suit up a la A-team for the glorious final scrumdown with lots of explosions, bullets, corpses, etc. and finally it turns out that Justinia can kick ass too. She dispatches the head/most stereotypically ethnic person and they grab the valuables, riding off into the sunset, sidekick in tow, who makes one last vulgar joke as the credits roll- cue hiphop song over the credits. ("Yo dat ma brotha Dolan, we be rollin...." BOOM chicka-pap chicka BOOM chicka-pap) Fake out-takes from the film in between credits optional. The script must be 90 pages EXACTLY, film to about 83 minutes total, and feature
a hot heroine
a hot hero
a slinky Asian/California babe evil chick
a overacting character actor or ethnic bad guy
A father figure, who dispenses some kind of Zen-like wisdom at a critical point
A dumbass, skinny black guy, or "mook" for comic relief
Re:This is what the Market Wants!! (Score:2)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's success is just further proof that more is possible, and it didn't cost eleventy-trillion dollars either.
Re:What's wrong with movies from books? (Score:2)
Re:This is what the Market Wants!! (Score:2)
But I'll guess it took more than a few meetings to sell the story.
You know, it's not just CG-only stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the scenery and cinematography in Lord of the Rings was fantastic. Granted, the perspective (swooping high above in many cases) allows for loss of detail in such a way that you fool the eyes of the audience in a lot of cases, but the close-up scenes have become finely detailed as well, showing that the possibilities for effectively integrating CG in a live action scene are greater than in previous years.
I agree that a bumper crop of CG movies are coming, but here's another trend to watch out for: actors that do especially well with blue-screens and acting with things/people that aren't really there.
Oh, and just a side note...I think all this effective CG stuff is going to really hurt the traditional latex/foam rubber movie monster special effects industry. In years past, things like the cave troll in LotR would have been done with a guy in a suit, or hydraulics or such. But, it probably wouldn't have seemed as fluid or expressive, so, eh no loss, right?
Re:You know, it's not just CG-only stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
LOTR's rubber movie monsters, spaceship models (Score:2)
I wouldn't say that yet, some of the LOTR stuff looked suspiciously close to stuff from Braindead, a truly excellent rubber and latex splatter film. I wouldn't be suprised if it brings on a whole new wave of films that use *more* FX because the director knows anything is possible.
And I still find that CGI spaceship models do not have the same impact or feel as a well done model. I say they will compliment each other's strengths.
Xix.
Re:LOTR's rubber movie monsters, spaceship models (Score:2)
There'd be a reason for that...!
harryhausen? (Score:2)
How soon they forget Ray Harryhausen. In years past he would have done the cave troll and it would have looked..... about like it did in LOTR. That thing had a definite Golden Eye of Sinbad vibe to it.
Re:You know, it's not just CG-only stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
To a lesser extent? You are far understating that comparison.
Peter Jackson specifically went away from the overuse of CG in LoTR. He, instead, made excellent use of miniatures that were completed by CG effects. That's why the effects in LoTR are so good. They completed the movie and story, not distracted and demanded center stage.
We must all thank the Old Took, that Lucas or a film maker like him didn't get ahold of LoTR. Who knows what lifeless and disgusting Jar-Jar-Hobbits we would have had to deal with.
The careful use of CG in LoTR distinguishes it from the CG crazed film making of George Lucas.
Re:You know, it's not just CG-only stuff (Score:2)
Re:You know, it's not just CG-only stuff (Score:2)
"Gamera will save us--he's the children's friend!" -- from Gamera vs. Guiron, in which Gamera fights an Exacto knife with legs from outer space
Will Astroboy still be a lying bastard? (Score:5, Funny)
Will the end of the movie feature Astroboy lying to the computer as he files his report just so he can have some fun with the audience? Or will this be fleshed out to reveal a deeper mistrust between superior, smarter AI entities and their more mundane, inferior counterparts in the information sector?
ian.
Re:Will Astroboy still be a lying bastard? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm afraid I never had the requisite attention span to catch AB's little faux pas - most of us 7 year olds were mainly watching to see if he'd use his butt laser again.
.
Bit sad for the big names in hollywood.... (Score:2)
Does it mean a lot to have a 'name' when it is just a voice? Not really, there are plenty of other lower profile (and cheaper) actors who can do the voices.
The current star system is getting a little bit out of order and this could provide an excellent antidote.
Unfortunately, I guess this will go the say of modern SFX. Wow, great, it looks good, lets have lots of it! Whoops, shame about the plot, direction and acting. Those good films like Shrek came about because some people (i.e., Dreamworks in this case) did a lot of work. Pixar are good too, but let us hope that the industry does not become led by the idea of turning out CGI dross.
Re:Bit sad for the big names in hollywood.... (Score:2)
Re:Bit sad for the big names in hollywood.... (Score:2)
Yes, what you say about the star power shift, well I would hope and expect for that but I can see some studios trying to go the animation path 'because it is cheaper' - this is what scares me.
another: ice age (Score:2, Informative)
[apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/ice_age/
it looks funny as hell..
BloodQuest from Exile Films (Score:2, Informative)
It's based on Games Workshop's Warhammer 40K universe [games-workshop.com], and looks like it has to possibility to be exciting (atleast to people who follow the hobby) Check out the Exile films site for some neat preview animations and renderings.
If you must render, (Score:3, Interesting)
Ender's game that is.
Probably one of the FEW novels that really NEED CGI in order to get it done (try finding a few hundred kids, who can act, and stay young enough for the sequels).
Too bad OSC allowed the screenplay to get ruined.
Re:If you must render, (Score:2)
Re:If you must render, (Score:2)
Re:If you must render, (Score:2)
What sequels? None of original kids appear in any of the sequels. (except for Ender, of course, but he's an adult). If you're talking about Shadow of the Hegemon, it's a sequal to Ender's Shadow, which is itself not a sequel, but a parallel novel.
Besides, who says you have to make any of the sequels?
Re:If you must render, (Score:2)
As for movie-making material, I've always thought the only real way to do the movie well would be CGI -- the ability to do zero-G "Battle Room" type-effects is possible, but would be much easier to do and portray through CGI than compositing live action actors.
I still don't think you can find enough actors who are young enough (4 or 5 in Bean's case, 5 o 6 in Ender's case) to truly bring out the "youth" factor in Ender's Game.
Speaker for the Dead and the rest of the Ender Quartet won't make it as movies. The books reside more in the mind of the characters than in actual vocalizations and physical contact -- very hard to convert to a screenplan. Ender's Game is probably as difficult, but at least I can visualize a movie.
Re:If you must render, (Score:2)
In any case, I don't really think an Ender's Game movie should be made. So much of the book is Ender just thinking to himself that a movie version would have to either be completely butchered or be mostly Ender just sitting there as you hear his voice with a corny reverb filter pretending to be his thoughts.
Re:If you must render, (Score:2)
How many child actors are just that -- children on and off the screen?
CGI killing traditional animation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... Apparently these guys are talking about Dizney and Dizney alone. The animation houses in Japan have done a great deal to convert over to digital CG production without sacrificing the look of traditional animation.
Take a good, close look at 'Love Hina', 'Excel Saga', or any newer anime and notice that the cels have all been 'painted' in Photoshop. On some of the closeup shots, you can make out typical Photoshop resizing residue and common filter effects.
CG may be killing the fatiguing process of 'pencil-paint-photograph', but not traditional animation.
Re:CGI killing traditional animation? (Score:2)
The reason is simple: FujiFilm a few years ago said they would phase out the production of the thick transparent film used in animation cel production. Because of that, the Japanese animation companies had to quickly adopt what Disney has been doing since the early 1990's with their Computer Aided Production System (CAPS)--the final cel is completely painted by computer and then directly transferred to film.
Re:CGI killing traditional animation? (Score:2)
CGI without good script and actors == bomb (Score:2)
People like interesting epic stories that stimulate their imagination... go figure...
This was probably said already, but I wanted to repeat it.. we've been spoiled with good CGI lately.. I really hope we're not in line for a truck load of crap.
I thought it was going the opposite way (Score:2)
And Shrek was not that good of movie. The script was so-so and the character movemnt was only believable on the donkey... and sometimes Shrek.
Monsters, Inc on the otherhand did an excellent job. Pixar does a good job of making things look right.
Also
Re:I thought it was going the opposite way (Score:2)
Am I the only one who didn't like "Shrek"?!? (Score:2)
Gee do ya think Shrek is going to save the Princess and fall in love with her? Gosh what a surprise. It had some cutesy side jokes, and Cameron Diaz's avatar was certainly a render-o-babe, but that was about it. Diaz's reading was terrible, and Mike Myers talking in a Scottish accent is funny only if you know that he is actually Canadian (although that accent was actually his own idea I gather and a late change in the movie). I can picture some film execs watching this and cracking up each time Myers says "Donkey!" and Eddie Murphy does his thing. But they are only meta-funny, not actually funny. Just the fact that you think of the characters by their human voicers as opposed to their CG selves shows one of the problems.
- adam
Re:Am I the only one who didn't like "Shrek"?!? (Score:2)
I did like Toy Story (and even its sequel), mostly because it had both decent plot and good (voice) actors. Even the jokes were actually funny. I didn't really like Bug's life; although its plot was ok, I hated whiny voice acting of the main char, plus the animation wasn't all that good. The latter was probably because they tried to use lots of 'close ups', and where CG still pretty much sucks is animating faces and facial expressions. In Toy Story clever thing was that being toys, their facial expressions are supposed to be plastick-y (or whatever material they were made of); contrast to 'humans' was remarkable... (ie. animated Andy sucked worse than anything else in the movies IMO).
Re:Am I the only one who didn't like "Shrek"?!? (Score:2)
I agree with you, absolutely. The script was shallow, rude and referenced non-fantastic elements way too much (Tag Team Professional Wrestling, for example? Way to kill the atmosphere...). All of that rock music blaring out during the film.... I liked the concept of being overrun by Disney characters, but apart from that sequence the plot bored me, and all of the main characters annoyed me. Add to that fart and smell jokes, and other examples of high wit, and I'm afraid I walked out feeling pretty damn cheapened...
The CGI was brilliant, although I do prefer the visual look of the Pixar films. Probably just bias on my part, though.
I've seen all of the Pixar films (just saw Monsters Inc. tonight
Re:Complex Animation/Cartoon Plots??? (Score:2)
Now compare that with Bug's Life. How is Flik going to save the day? What happens when the identity of the circus bugs is exposed? Or when the bird catches fire? Of course these movies all share the basic ending of good triumphing over evil but Bug's Life takes a lot more twisty route getting there.
Then you have the Toy Story movies which actually have a quite interesting idea behind them, and are also cleverly done. What truly baffles me is how something so simple-minded as Shrek is supposed to appeal to adults. I can see why kids like it but can such a simple plot really capture an adult's imagination, unless they are simply watching the animation?
The other thing about Toy Story/Bug's Life is that they could not have been made as live action movies, unlike Shrek (whose basic plot has been made countless times). I haven't seen Monsters Inc. but I think it may show Pixar descending into mere competence as opposed to brilliance.
- adam
Re:Complex Animation/Cartoon Plots??? (Score:2)
Re:Complex Animation/Cartoon Plots??? (Score:2)
Oh I guess that's why they are bloopers...(someone was telling me about an argument they had with someone trying to explain why they weren't really outtakes and had to be specifically made).
- adam
CG Movies "all of a sudden" have an impact. Not! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ed Catmull, the president of Pixar, has been trying to make animated films since the mid-70's, starting at the University of Utah, then going to the New York Institute of Technology's Computer Graphics Lab, then to Lucasfilm; whose computer division was spun off to become Pixar.
The film that did seem to happen amazingly fast was Jimmy Neutron; Boy Genius. While Pixar and PDI have used proprietary, in-house systems to do their animation; DNA used pretty much off-the-shelf software (although today's commercial software is very customizable, so the line is blurrier than you might think at first glance). DNA was able to make the jump from hand-drawn 2D animation to a 3D feature very quickly indeed. And while the characters are goofy and the rendering is not (even attempting to be) photoreal -- it is still amazing to me that a small group of people actually can pull off an animated film in a reasonable amount of time.
Jimmy Neutron will not be the box-office smash that Shrek or Monsters are; but it is the more revolutionary film.
thad
Re:CG Movies "all of a sudden" have an impact. Not (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I should mention that Final Fantasy was made mostly with Maya and Photorealistic renderman, (two programs that can be purchased) but it really isn't in the same league as Jimmy Neutron.
P.S.
All hail Edwin Catmull!
boom and bust: massive layoffs in 2001 (Score:2)
Whats coming out in 2002? (Score:2)
Pixar and Dreamworks/PDI are taking a rest after immense successes in 2001. Both are working on animal movies for 2003. What else is in the works?
Re:Whats coming out in 2002? (Score:2)
Arrgh! Get it fscking right! (Score:4, Informative)
CG graphics: (n) Computer Generated images. Typically used to describe animations created completely through computers, as opposed to images created through photography or traditional cel animation.
SGI graphics: (n) Refers specifically to those CG graphics created on SGI workstations.
Pick the right term and use it. Thanks!
Nathan
Re:Arrgh! Get it fscking right! (Score:2)
synthetic voices? (Score:2)
I knew it. (Score:2)
Tron (Score:2)
Many of the scenes in Tron that look like CGI, those that involve both live actors and effects, are actually hand-painted cel animation. Most of that glowing-line stuff is not CGI at all.
Is linux helping this boom? (Score:2, Informative)
Linux Goes Hollywood [slashdot.org]
Linux Goes To The Movies [salon.com]
Linux takes Hollywood by storm [zdnet.com]
Maya ported to Red Hat [slashdot.org]
Clever Use of CGI: Amelie (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Clever Use of CGI: Amelie (Score:2)
Amelie was a fantasitic movie, and a great example of how best to use CGI. We're going through a period where movies treat CGI as a main focal point, simply for it's own selfish beauty. While this can be acceptable for films such as Final Fantasy, which was very much meant to break obvious boundries, most films abuse CGI only because they can.
There are many CGI scenes in movies that, while beautiful, really don't do it for me. When I see a camera sweep of a CGI generated landscape, I want to take in the scene, not the CGI. It most often comes across that the only reason the camera has moved a certain way is to show off the CGI, not what the CGI is representing.
Amelie is one of the first movies (in memory) that has treated CGI as it should be: a supporting effect, meant to add to a scene qualities that could not have otherwise been brought about. It doesn't linger on the screen yelling "Look at me! I'm CGI", and it's use is very subtle, but precise. Given, Amelie can get away with it a little easier since it is not a Fantasy or Sci-Fi based story, but it is films like Episode I and FotR that could stand to learn how to put effects on the back burner once in a while. Having said that I must also say that I have never been so absorbed into a movie as have with FotR. It was stunning.
I'm happy to hear that CG effects are being widely adopted, but it will take a few years for the industry to realize they can be well used in films not dealing with space, trolls, and superheros. I don't have anything against digital animators, but I will enjoy the day when CGI is truely treated on the same level as more tried and true film techniques like lighting, cinematography, and even general character placement. When CGI becomes that prevalent it will absolutely be a sight to (not) be seen.
If you think today's CGI movies are cool... (Score:3, Funny)
Beginning of the death of the real actor? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd give it 10 years at most before we see mainstream pictures using dead actors. That could go to a really bad place... corporations and movie studios with licenses to particular actors' digital counterparts, licensing of their digital avatars, patents on the technology... we could see a very real mess develop... after all, precedent of a sort is already set with currently existing animated characters (Mickey Mouse, Aki Ross, Jar Jar Binks, Gollum, etc.) and if those rules were applied to living actors I expect people would not be pleased...
Some of you will say that computer actors will never be as good as the real thing. You'd be wrong of course... not to say it would be easy, but 99% as good as the real thing is close enough for 99% of the people. Readers on this site in particular should know exactly what CGI technology is capable of, and it's definitely not out of reach. Better start thinking about it now, if we see it happening perhaps we can do something to prevent it from going down the wrong road.
Investing in computers won't fix the problem. (Score:2)
The main problem with hollywood is they are running a buisness. Some people in "the company" are brilliant, but the others (majority) are just seeing and "understanding" the numbers.
Pixar's been around for quite a while, Disney's been around forever in the realm of 2D animation. If you look at both entities, what made them a success is the mix of mastering their art (2d, 3d) AND the storyline. Obvious you might say? well for us, yes, but think "marketting guy" (no no!!! I don't mean like "what would I do if I had unlimited spending money and a ferrari"
Hollywood sees something that makes money, and they use use use and abuse it until it runs dry and people puke when they see that again. Instead of "risking" new material or storylines. How about a movie that doesn't end well? How about a movie where the good guy gets killed in the middle and you see the movie from the bad guy's perspective until the end (something bad/good happens to him?), How about an ecological catastrophe that CAN'T be avoided and resulting on the mass destruction of the human being with stuff like pollution/asteroids/younameit, instead of having some crap about one guy that defeats nature?
Yes it might flop, depending, again, on the story and more importantly, how it's told. But I don't think I'd see anyone SERIOUSLY pissed and boycotting hollywood because of a different ending. Of course there's always alternative movies from other countries or independant films if you want something special, but usually only hollywood has the cashflow to push effects in a film to give it that extra "magic".
Am I the only one... (Score:2, Offtopic)
About to?? (Score:2)
(wipes away tear)
You really kill me, Rob. "About to", hehe!! ^_^
Ooh! Here's the next joke you should post as a story, to make me smile:
"US 'about to' sacrifice neccessary freedoms to catch 'terrorists'"
Or how about:
"Enron 'about to' go bankrupt."
Keep the silliness coming! ^_^
-Kasreyn
Market and Stock Opportunities (Score:2)
What do you think? What companies can capitalize on this trend?
(Note: People on Slashdot should ask these kinds of questions more often. Business questions would benefit many people here.)
Curious George in CGI? (Score:2)
I can just imagine the pitch session:
Producer: Ok, we can do Where the Wild Things Are, Sendak has agreed to supervise an army of sensitive consumptive artists to hand paint every cel. It'll be beautiful, and about 10 minutes long, but it'll be a shoe-in to win Best Animated Short.
Studio Exec: No way. Its gotta be feature length CGI or nothing! I can't put out a family film that isn't CGI! Not after Shrek!
Re: Curious George in CGI? (Score:2)
The Sony Metreon in San Francisco has a Where the Wild Things Are theme park section, along with a Night Kitchen restaurant.
Lower budget CG (Score:2)
"Reboot" was the first all-CG TV show, and it was produced by about 30 people doing one episode per week. That's an incredible level of productivity for CG work. When that level of output can be sustained at what we now consider theatrical quality, the CG revolution will really happen.
I know some pro animators who are looking forward to that. They'd like to head a small team and do their own projects, rather than being a small cog in a huge project outsourced to ten animation houses.
CGI and intellectual property (Score:2)
Well, yeah, provided the system of intellectual property law doesn't interfere with it too much. The legal regime that the big studios are making will eventually make it nearly impossible for any form of major creative production to move ahead without a large, skilled, and well paid legal department, which raises the bar quite a bit...
No...it's not a good time. (Score:2)
In six months, this, like the tech industry in general, may be a happier place, but they're hurting right now, too.
-db
Re:Save Us! (Score:2)
Linux and CG (Score:2)
Re:Cave Troll @ Lord of the Rings (Score:4, Interesting)
If Jackson had wanted more smooth action from the Cave Troll his CGI team at WETA Digital would have copied the movement style of the go motion figures that was first heavily used by Industrial Light and Magic for the movie Dragonslayer.
Re:Cave Troll @ Lord of the Rings (Score:2)
While the basic movements of the Cave Troll were done by motion capture, note that in the final movie the movements of the character had a herky-jerky feel like what you saw from the stop-motion work of Harryhausen. I think the CGI was deliberately done that way, hence my comment it was an homage to Harryhausen's special effects work.
WETA Digital could have rendered the Cave Troll so it moved smoothly, apeing the go-motion model designs from ILM. But then, it wouldn't be a homage to Harryhausen, would it?
Re:laura croft (Score:3, Funny)
Animator: We need to custom build a physics engine.
Executive: What? Why? It's all off-the-shelf now-a-days.
Animator: That's the problem; the physics engines are too realistic.
Executive: What do you mean?
Animator: Watch this test reel.
*Animator turns on a monitor, and runs an animation clip.*
Animation: *Lara Croft, in all her ray-traced glory, is standing as still as a statue on a flat plane. Suddenly she animates; her eyes start looking around, she starts breathing, her body is shifting ever so slightly on her feet, a breeze is playing with her hair. She stretches, arching her back.*
Animation: *as Lara arches her back, she gets a surprised look on her face*
Lara's Back: *SNAP*
Animation: *Lara's back snaps as gravity pulls her titanic brests downwards. She collapses in a hideously bent backward heap*
Lara: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
Animation: Gravity pulls Lara down, bending the flat plane she's standing on into a cone, looking like those graphical renditions of black holes you always see.*
Animator: See what we mean? Sure, we could reduce the size of her breasts to normal human proportions, but...
Executive: Hell no! We want to make some money on this!
Re:laura croft (Score:2)