I do put *some* blame on the artist because I've worked with plenty who fit
the bill. 'Artist' includes actors in this case.
Not all forms of 3D have a director like in movies. Games, for example, is
largely animators on their own with little supervision. Some games
productions will have an art director, but often that art director will
defer to the lead animator, and so on. One common problem in games
animation is making things move just for the sake of making things move -
aka idle poses. Characters are made to bounce in this stance, breath extra
heavy like their having an annual physical examination, and so on. It's
painful to watch. Those poses were originally devised because back in the
old days everything was rendered a such low resolution that nothing would
appear to move at all unless you made exaggerated motions as one pixel
represented as much as 10% of the character's width or height. Smaller more
realistic motion wouldn't register. However, with games now playing on HD
monitors and better, often in full 3D, idle poses of that nature are no
longer required and now just look stupid.
In movies there are ways around physical limitations - it's called editing.
If something doesn't fall fast enough, you cut away, then come back. By
virtue of inserting a cut you imply passage of time. The audience's minds
automatically fills in the blanks. You don't need to see every millisecond
animated on screen where things have to be forced from point A to point B.
In the old days, cinematographers would resort to using different lenses to
change the view to force the perspective to make things appear to move
faster or slower. It's effective because there is a consistency to
everything being too fast or too slow that makes it credible to the audience
allowing them to accept it as a stylistic choice. CG doesn't tend to use
those types of effects opting for normal lenses while producing physically
incorrect motion which destroys credibility because parts of the scene will
look/move correctly while other parts don't. That inconsistency makes the
problem stand out like a sore thumb.
There's also a difference between FX which are rotoscoped/replacement vs.
keyframed or fabricated. The former tends to look better as the source of
the motion is practical. Many problems I see in fabricated animation is the
lack of a sense of scale which throws off the physics quite a bit. In the
article there is a animated .gif of a transformer transforming then rushing
to the ground to stare down an actress. The actress doesn't even flinch in
the slightest, nor does the clothing move in response to what should be a
gust/breeze from the transformer's movements. Robot looks plenty shiny and
real, but credibility destroyed because it doesn't move correctly. Moves
much too quickly for something of that size. Two different artists are at
fault here. The animator for the unrealistic movement, and the actress for
not responding. Blame the director all you want, but many will accept
something done really well but deviates from the script slightly over
something that is done half assed and matches the script exactly. Assuming
it doesn't affect story points.
I haven't seen 'Ex Machina'. Is it on NetFlix yet?
Matt
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:08:53 -0700
From: Steven Caron <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money
To: "[email protected]"
I actually agreed with much of what that article was saying too, but I
didn't particularly like the style in which it was written though,
sensationalized click bait. And as you mentioned, for some reason the world
keeps on buying tickets to remakes and sequels with big effects in them. So
the producers and directors keep making those films.
BUT! It reads like you are placing to be placing the blame more on the
artist. We are constantly asked to do things which we know very well will
not look right. We try to make suggestions on how or why it doesn't look
right and we work with the director/client to make it look the best we can
within the parameters of the project. There are sooo many reasons why a
shot turns out the way it does, in my experience you give the director what
they want. And if the director wants a helicopter to fall from a 10 story
dome and explode on screen while a 2 story T-Rex runs to dodge and miss it,
all in 5 seconds... then that is what they get! Physics be damned!
Now go watch 'Ex Machina' and see that 'responsible use of technology' you
mentioned.
Steven
