Damn, I thought it was CG. Damn, I thought it was real.

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by fablefox: Oh, the squirrel in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory? ha ha

I AFAIK it was a combination of both. I remember watching the making of.

A comment from youtube:

"Rather than rely on CGI, Burton wanted the 40 squirrels in the Nut Room to be real. The animals were trained every day for 10 weeks before filming commenced. They began their coaching while newborns, fed by bottles to form relationships with human trainers. The squirrels were each taught how to sit upon a little blue bar stool, tap and then open a walnut, and deposit its meat onto a conveyor belt. Burton said, "for the close-ups and the main action, they're the real thing."

The clip and breakdown is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnTU4fPlfvA

I still can't tell the real and animatronic versions, they seem all CG.

Jules
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by Jules123: The clip and breakdown is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnTU4fPlfvA

I still can't tell the real and animatronic versions, they seem all CG.

Jules


Ha! This is my point.

From the video it seems the jumping down uses real squirrels (hence blue screen behind the squirrels). The shake nut obviously cg. There is no other info we can gather, but it seems that the rest is CGI. This is what piss me off certain times (although I don't know how guilty WWatCF is). They hire real animal just to be able to say 'there are scene we uses real animal, how cool is that!' while downplaying the amount of CGI.

It is nice when they didn't try to play it. Real Steel again: they made it obvious that they uses both technique, where, when and why.

While I don't care much about Willy Wonka, it is sad when things like that Dark Swan dancing thing (although its not about CG, although there are face replacement?).

On the topic, RDJ suffer a broken ankle while filming Iron Man 3, and there are articles on the internet about how much RDJ is NOT RDJ.

http://screencrush.com/fake-robert-...-jr-iron-man-3/

http://www.blastr.com/2013-5-15/bun...l-downey-really

http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/conte...eplaced-6-weeks

ha ha ha!

EDIT:

I was too carried away I forgot to mentioned my point. Since they already have the pipeline for CGI, why bother with real one - case in point - the squirrels.

Last edited by fablefox : 05 May 2013 at 07:32 AM.
 
  05 May 2013
It would have never crossed my mind that the robot was CG in that Hugo scene. Too much CG looks fake to me and I am rarely fooled. The few exceptions as, I believe it was Pyke who mentioned, is a lot of the invisible work done with set extensions and backgrounds today, mostly in TV. A lot of the feature stuff looks worse than what was done in the 90's.

Of course, I want to clarify that. Most of the big films today are doing huge impossible effects, with impossible camera moves that could never be achieved in any way using practical techniques. This often makes it stand out immediately. Combine that with ever shrinking VFX budgets and time schedules getting shorter, even though films have hundreds more shots than what was done ten years ago, and you can see the problem. The VFX guys are doing an outstanding job considering the circumstances, but the circumstances are against them. Also I should add that because of sites like this, we often know what was CG before we went into the movie.

Some instances where I was really fooled, and surprised after checking the DVD extra features, would be the digital double work in Star Wars Episode II. I still think the Blade II digital doubles look better, but they are doing impossible stuff with impossible camera moves. Nothing beats the shot of Trinity flying out of the window in The Matrix: Reloaded. Even after watching the wireframe on the extra features dozens of times I still can't believe that one is CG. In Avengers, the digital doubles tend to move weird. In fact, it is motion that almost always kills it, for me, with digital doubles, even in Star Wars Episode II.

Many movies have stuff that I think looks absolutely real, but we just know it's CGI. The first Transformers film has some of the best robot stuff ever put to film in my opinion. We can't be fooled by it, though, because we know nobody would build that. Then you have impossible stuff like the Hulk. Does the Hulk in Avengers look completely real? I think so, at least most of the time, but how can we know? We can't be fooled by it.

I wish movies would do more blending of effects, like a robot that is practical when it is sitting there and then becomes CGI when it gets up and moves. I wish the transformers films would do more with the real truck driving up and then, without cutting, suddenly transform. That would blow me away, but they almost always cut and then transform in a new shot. I would love to see a robot, like in the Stallone Judge Dredd movie, enhanced by CGI for his walks etc. but still mostly practical. Blade Runner had practical, full sized flying cars that they maybe lifted on a crane or with cables, I don't know, but I would love to see that blend, without cutting, into a shot of it turning and flying off into the distance.

Can you imagine if the robot in Robot and Frank was CGI? That would have destroyed the movie.

I have to admit, most movies I bother to watch are always huge science fiction and fantasy spectacles anyway. There might be some perfect invisible CGI in your typical spy thriller, or sky, crowd and background replacement in a romance movie. I just never saw them.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by teruchan: I wish movies would do more blending of effects, like a robot that is practical when it is sitting there and then becomes CGI when it gets up and moves. I wish the transformers films would do more with the real truck driving up and then, without cutting, suddenly transform. That would blow me away, but they almost always cut and then transform in a new shot. I would love to see a robot, like in the Stallone Judge Dredd movie, enhanced by CGI for his walks etc. but still mostly practical. Blade Runner had practical, full sized flying cars that they maybe lifted on a crane or with cables, I don't know, but I would love to see that blend, without cutting, into a shot of it turning and flying off into the distance.


Not sure I agree with this mentality though. I think practical should be used when it's the best choice, and cg when it is the best choice. I don't care if something is practical or not, I care how it looks. I mean all the practical stuff in Oblvion was awesome, but it was awesome cause it looked amazing, not simply cause of the fact that it was practical.

While I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, I thought Where the Wild Things Are did an excellent job of blending the two. Pan's Labyrinth as well (huge fan of that one).
__________________
-Michael

www.MichaelSime.com
 
  05 May 2013
@teruchan

End of 90s and early 00s were the best moment for me when it come to CGI. The reason is that I get to see a lot of extravaganzas so I didn't know which is CGI, which is model, and which is practical. Things you thought fake were real, and things you thought were real, is fake. And then funny stuff, like this:

In the Mission Impossible 2 (or was it 3?), the nose scene thing, whoa, it was Tom Cruise own hand, because nobody know how Tom would able to take it, and feel it, so it was better if Tom himself do it. Ha ha!

But yeah, quite several things today are practical. The car in new Total Recall is practical.

And then there are effect which is quirky but interesting, and that make it awesome: the knitted puppet in Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy. Yeah!

@Michael5188: I agree with the Where The Wild Things Are. From the book, Spike Jonze wanted to be full on practical. Since the monster head is big, it CAN be done - via robotics. However, when the actors wore it, the weight become obvious. So it was last minute decision to go CGI with the faces. But I like how a lot of it were practical, including the mud fight. Buy the making of book, you will enjoy it!

Last edited by fablefox : 05 May 2013 at 02:56 PM.
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by Michael5188: Not sure I agree with this mentality though. I think practical should be used when it's the best choice, and cg when it is the best choice. I don't care if something is practical or not, I care how it looks. I mean all the practical stuff in Oblvion was awesome, but it was awesome cause it looked amazing, not simply cause of the fact that it was practical.

While I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, I thought Where the Wild Things Are did an excellent job of blending the two. Pan's Labyrinth as well (huge fan of that one).


I don't think we're disagreeing here. I also only care what looks best. The examples I mention are because I believe they would look better with practical or a mix. Same with Oblivion. I haven't seen it, but I am guessing doing the sky tower with the huge screens, instead of compositing which might of come out like Oz the Great and Powerful, was a good decision. Oz could have used some practical bits, especially that little doll girl. Did she need to be CG when someone is holding her and she isn't even doing much? Rather than having her sliding around in his hand, and pull me out of the movie, why not have her dress or body be practical, and add her arms, legs and head with CG? It's a doll! Not Dobby.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by teruchan: Also I should add that because of sites like this, we often know what was CG before we went into the movie.

So here's a good question. Let's say you've already read about a movie and know a shot or effect is CG going in. Which ones were done well enough that even though you knew you didn't notice or it didn't pull you out of the film?

Gollum comes to mind first. But thinking back I was very excited about Jurassic Park mostly because I loved the book. So in reading about the film I found out they were going to be using CG. Well I thought that meant all of the dinosaurs would be CG. It wasn't until after, when I saw the behind the scenes, that I found out it was a combination of CG and practical.
__________________
HMC: Model Collection
WIP: Harris Nut House
WIP: WarCraft Troll
wyattharris.com Dig it!
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by WyattHarris: So here's a good question. Let's say you've already read about a movie and know a shot or effect is CG going in. Which ones were done well enough that even though you knew you didn't notice or it didn't pull you out of the film?

Gollum comes to mind first. But thinking back I was very excited about Jurassic Park mostly because I loved the book. So in reading about the film I found out they were going to be using CG. Well I thought that meant all of the dinosaurs would be CG. It wasn't until after, when I saw the behind the scenes, that I found out it was a combination of CG and practical.


Same with me, but on Real Steel. I think because of a lot of today use of CGI, everytime I see something, I was like, CGI! However, once I saw the trick, it was like, awesome!

The same can be said with The Grinch. I thought the christmas lamp was CGI. But it was practical. It was shot in reverse, and the gun actually PULLS the chrismas light in, ha ha!
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by fablefox:
While I don't care much about Willy Wonka, it is sad when things like that Dark Swan dancing thing (although its not about CG, although there are face replacement?).


I guess you are talking about Black Swan? Not sure if you are 'for' or 'against' the use of CG with that comment. But Natalie Portman is credited with more of her own dancing in that film than most people think-as she both trained for a year in prep but also had a background in ballet as a child.
Only the most extreme shots 'replaced' her. And don't forget she has to grow feathers later...Seems kinda on topic...
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by circusboy: I guess you are talking about Black Swan? Not sure if you are 'for' or 'against' the use of CG with that comment. But Natalie Portman is credited with more of her own dancing in that film than most people think-as she both trained for a year in prep but also had a background in ballet as a child.
Only the most extreme shots 'replaced' her. And don't forget she has to grow feathers later...Seems kinda on topic...


I'm for, but please give credits where its due. There was quite a bru ha ha regarding that, with each side with their own story (please google). Just like current Oscar microphone snub, I think the real dancer have a real reason to feel being 'hidden' / not mentioned, and wasn't thanked for in a speech. I think there should be a line between lying, suppressing information, and misleading fact.

Its like asking an actor do to a simple 'stunt', get it on camera, push that scene in the making of, and saying 'oh, he do his own stunt' while hiring real stuntmen for most of other stunts. And try to keep the info down. When pushed, "well, he DID that PARTICULAR stunt himself!".

There are rumors out there that any entertainment reporter that does not toe the line won't be an entertainment reporter for long (having access to entertainment personnel).

What saddened me about all this is that such focus was never given to script writing. What is wrong with telling the truth?

"Oh, simple movement we used real animal but the rest was CGI?"

or

"Due to shooting length and budget concern and issues with insurance company, we only allow our main principal to do basic stunt. We really thankful to Mr. XYZ for doing the dangerous stunts. You need to watch our film to enjoy his dangerous stunt works"

And the only thing I care about movies are the script. I like how Real Steel didn't lie when it come to CGI. They didn't even try to push out wrong info. Maybe for them its because of Hugh Jackman. They only need to push that name out. But for me Real Steel is not Hugh Jackman vehicle, its Dakota Goyo vehicle.

But sadly this kind of things is getting worse.

- Trailer for Sky Captain and World of Tomorrow pushes Jolie, even if she is not the main character and have very limited scene.

- Lying DVD poster. There is an actor that sue a distributor for having his face 90% of the poster, and getting mail billing name drop on the cover - and he only did special appearance in the film! (He said he has to sue in order not to allow his fan getting lied to)

- Lying (?) Trailer : The trailer to Bridge to Terabhtia made it look like it a fantasy film, but it was mostly coming of age film in a real world, with imagination sequence here and there.

I've seen Scott Ross talk video recently and he showed the scene from Life of Pi and how the director of photography(?) won an Oscar, when the particular scene is just a boat, blue puppet tiger in a water tank. If we cgi artist hated to be snubbed, so are dancers and stuntman and body doubles.
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by fablefox: I'm for, but please give credits where its due. There was quite a bru ha ha regarding that, with each side with their own story (please google). Just like current Oscar microphone snub, I think the real dancer have a real reason to feel being 'hidden' / not mentioned, and wasn't thanked for in a speech. I think there should be a line between lying, suppressing information, and misleading fact.

Who knows where the true crossover ends/begins?! All I know is the 'making ofs' on the DVD (I rented the film) was giving Portman a lot of remarkable dancing credit. So the production team were saying that -not her fiance - before it all became a cat fight with the Hollywood rags.

Besides does a dancer on the studio floor really have any idea what happens in the edit suite or in post production? About as much as the Gaffer does...

Dancers dedicate their lives to an art and stuntman prevent actors from getting killed. Neither have gotten much Oscar credit. But they aren't doing
really doing the stuff the actor wins the Oscar for anyway. Which takes us off topic now don't it.
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by WyattHarris: So here's a good question. Let's say you've already read about a movie and know a shot or effect is CG going in. Which ones were done well enough that even though you knew you didn't notice or it didn't pull you out of the film?

Gollum comes to mind first. But thinking back I was very excited about Jurassic Park mostly because I loved the book. So in reading about the film I found out they were going to be using CG. Well I thought that meant all of the dinosaurs would be CG. It wasn't until after, when I saw the behind the scenes, that I found out it was a combination of CG and practical.


I am having trouble coming up with ideas besides the very important two you already mention. King Kong and Mighty Joe Young come to mind. In fact, in Mighty Joe Young, it was the other way around. The CG was done so convincingly, I was surprised to find out later that a lot of it was, in fact, a guy in a monkey suit.

To give a counter example would be the movie Cursed with Christina Ricci. The CG werewolf looked like a cartoon while the guy in a suit was scary and looked awesome!
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
  05 May 2013
I remember 5 years ago Ive seen the Gremlins Fanfilm trailer and I ever thought this was done with extreme good CG animation. In fact only puppets were used in the complete production - so it all was real.
 
  05 May 2013
I was reading through Variety and found an article about the actual physically tangible Iron Man suits created by Legacy FX. (Formerly Stan Winston Studio and frankly changing their name was stupid in that Stan Winston Studio created some of the most iconic modern day movie monsters so why would they want to lose the name and recognition behind that. I'd think you'd lose business because people don't know who Legacy FX is vs Stan Winston Studio. Anyway...)

Here's the link:

http://variety.com/2013/digital/features/summerfx-digital-1200485895/


It's pretty cool practical effects are still used as it creates the sense of magic that is real and tangible. Can you imagine Universal Studios without the backlot and all their rides are virtual 3D rides...? Ok well most of their new rides are all 3D rides...But atleast the back lot is still there.
 
  05 May 2013
Originally Posted by ebbandflow: I was reading through Variety and found an article about the actual physically tangible Iron Man suits created by Legacy FX. (Formerly Stan Winston Studio and frankly changing their name was stupid in that Stan Winston Studio created some of the most iconic modern day movie monsters so why would they want to lose the name and recognition behind that. I'd think you'd lose business because people don't know who Legacy FX is vs Stan Winston Studio. Anyway...)



Wikipedia is your friend...

Quote: After his death, his four supervisors (Shane Mahan, John Rosengrant, Alan Scott, Lindsay Macgowan) founded and built their own studio, Legacy Effects, aptly named to honor his memory.


This is my own guess but maybe the studio was personally owned, and with his death, its basically closed shop? And his family doesn't want his name to be used? Legacy FX is NOT Stan Winston Studio, it just a studio four of his supervisor founded. They can say that they are ex-supervisor of Stan Winston Studios, but I don't think they can say that they ARE ex-Stan Winston Studios with new names. There are legalities there somewhere...
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.