FIREFALL Trailers: Live Action VS Animated

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
Old 06 June 2013   #1
FIREFALL Trailers: Live Action VS Animated

OK, so STAGE 5 showed their live action teaser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwnswcLOskw

I suppose it's... "Just OK".

But I couldn't help feeling that FIREFALL's promos looked much more punchy in animation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhiJtotZNWk

Better colors, better lighting that shows characters' faces and features with more volume than they appear in the live action version...

And yes.. I'm including motion in that mix. The FIREFALL characters all MOVE better in animation than they do as real people in my view.

I guess something is lost in translation.. or there's some artistic deviation.

Also that mohawked "Observer" doesn't stand up with the others in design language to me.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 06 June 2013   #2
live action video game commercials are just the worst.
__________________
[Invivo Animation Reel]
 
Old 06 June 2013   #3
i'm partial to the cg trailer too....
 
Old 06 June 2013   #4
I enjoy the live action stuff, although I think that the new digital cameras have a way of making everything look way too clean.
Even dirt looks like clean dirt. They need to really bugger stuff up even more to make it look 'real'.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #5
The live action trailers are cheesy as hell - and are even more disconnected from the actual game design than the pre-rendered cinematics are.
At least with pre-rens you can visually up-rez the game's geometry, etc so they at least look related.

And for the casting of real actors?!...that stupid mohawk wig has not connected me to the game!

Ironically I've worked of both types of promotions.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #6
I'd like to think that this isn't a problem with the Live Action medium.... but it does tell me that some things might be better done with computers and hyper-reality/stylization than with live elements.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 06 June 2013   #7
I liked both for different reasons, the animated one is legitimately higher quality but the cheesy live action one worked for me in an over the top sort of way.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #8
It's funny, the first season of the Spartacus TV show was so heavily post-processed and had so many greenscreen backgrounds, it almost looked like it was completely CG. Maybe this thing would work better if it was handled like that, too.
__________________
Tamas Varga
 
Old 06 June 2013   #9
Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh: It's funny, the first season of the Spartacus TV show was so heavily post-processed and had so many greenscreen backgrounds, it almost looked like it was completely CG. Maybe this thing would work better if it was handled like that, too.


And then you get the question: "Why'd they bother with live action if they were going to do so much of it in animation?"

Because to wit... sometimes I get the opposite question.... because generally when people think you're not doing "singing animals among the flowers" show they think it should be live action.

You talk about guns, and suits, and laboratories and things.. and people think it should be a live action film... I think the FIREFALL live action comparison is proof that sometimes your Use of the Medium matters regardless of subjects of the story.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 06 June 2013   #10
I still maintain my wish that if a certain percentage of a movie is animation it should be categorized as such for awards shows. 300 is a perfect example. Sin City, etc.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #11
Originally Posted by malcolmvexxed: I still maintain my wish that if a certain percentage of a movie is animation it should be categorized as such for awards shows. 300 is a perfect example. Sin City, etc.


Well already there is some "blurring" going on there.. AVATAR.. and also how Pixar films got nominated for Best Picture outright.

But what I'm talking about more is how people tend to compartmentalize the medium prior to application.

"Oh... you have a lot of human characters in it.. why don't you just do it real people?"

I just roll my eyes at that suggestion. But I guess it's less prevalent for those of us who watch a lot Japanese animation which is... for all purposes... Japan's live action substitute.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 06 June 2013   #12
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
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 06:05 AM.


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