That Transformers shot example is exactly what I mean. Had it been well planned out before shoting, they would have worked the actresses reaction and blow some wind on her at the appropriate time to simulate that big machine coming down. Most of the time, we are stuck with a plate like that and then asked to make it look good. Other then replacing that actress with a CG version (which would cost a lot of money) or reshooting her reaction (which also would cost a lot of money), then you are stuck with the limitations of that shot. And you can't deviate too much from what the client wants, so you are stuck with a shot that'll never look right.
It's not to put all the blame on the director or producers or animators etc. There often are too many cooks in the kitchen and not enough communication and planning to make sure the direction taken is the right one. But you know, time is money and already so much money are tied up in these movies. Decisions have to be taken quickly and then you have to live with them. -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: OT: Jurassic World, Mad Max, Avengers Ultron ... money From: "Matt Lind" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 2015/07/26 10:29:04 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
