Open discussion about ILM and the magic they create. Also VFX and movies in general. Anyone can post topics here.

Moderator: malducin

User avatar
By TylerMirage
#34226
The first teaser trailer for Jon Favreau's live-action The Lion King remake. Because...why not, I guess?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CbLXeGSDxg

I'm an admin on another website, and when we posted this trailer as a news article, one of our users' comment gave me a good chuckle (read: aneurysm).

"Disney has lost it. Now they think the only thing that matters is how "real" everything looks. You can never connect with these lifeless digital puppets the way you connect with a real animation."

"lifeless digital puppets"

"real animation"

Care to unpack that for us, Mr. Unpopular-But-Not-Really-Unpopular Opinion?
User avatar
By ShaneP
#34227
The first teaser trailer for Jon Favreau's live-action The Lion King remake. Because...why not, I guess?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CbLXeGSDxg

I'm an admin on another website, and when we posted this trailer as a news article, one of our users' comment gave me a good chuckle (read: aneurysm).

"Disney has lost it. Now they think the only thing that matters is how "real" everything looks. You can never connect with these lifeless digital puppets the way you connect with a real animation."

"lifeless digital puppets"

"real animation"

Care to unpack that for us, Mr. Unpopular-But-Not-Really-Unpopular Opinion?
:lol: That comment is gold. WTF is the difference between a digital puppet and "real animation"?
#34228
:lol: That comment is gold. WTF is the difference between a digital puppet and "real animation"?
Right? Like, it's that unfortunate stigma that people have that goes hand-in-hand with the whole "CGI is ruining movies"/"too much CGI these days" mentality. How is CG animation more or less valid/artistic/important than traditional hand-drawn animation? Because it's done with a pencil and paper instead of a mouse and pixels it's somehow more authentic? Why aren't these people also complaining about Thanos or Caesar or Optimus Prime?

But who are we to argue with the obvious experts all around Imgur and Reddit and Youtube comment sections? It's clear that the cartoon kitty cats drawn by hand in the 1990s have so much more heart and soul in them than the photorealistic kitty cats rendered by computer engineers on a fancy computer . </sarcasm>

I personally know of several people who sadly have that mindset. So I've had to hear things like "I don't care about a bunch of f***ing pixels", "There's no artistry with this CGI crap" and "This cheap sh*t CGI doesn't hold a candle to traditional animation" said with 100% earnestness. :( It's one thing to see these kinds of comments from anonymous schmoes on the internet who think they're so important, because you just stop and consider the source. But when you hear them from "real" people in your life who aren't trying to hide behind internet anonymity and who are even avid film fans themselves, that's what's disheartening.

Honestly, I feel like those "hur dur it's not live-action"-complaints are simply masking other issues that individuals are taking with the movie. They don't like the idea that it's a cashgrab, they don't want their precious original movie being ruined with a remake, they don't like CGI, or whatever. But it's just a thinly veiled attempt to argue against what the movie's being classified as. I mean, the whole "is it live-action or not?"-debate is simultaneously just about semantics, yet also opens up a whole can of worms because visual effects are blending and blurring the lines between mediums that is cause for discussion about the differences between said mediums.
User avatar
By ShaneP
#34229
I don't have a problem with people complaining about CG or vfx in a movie or whatever. But, they could at least be more scene or shot specific in their criticisms. Heck, I've railed against the flying at the camera vfx shots in the past or the virtual camera moves that swoop and fly through scenes plenty of times as gratuitous and not mimicking live action camera work, but you shouldn't rail against an entire film. I don't see an entire film with bad vfx today. Maybe I don't watch those movies?

I don't hold much stock in the argument that because it is CG it is automatically awful. We've seen enough evidence of CG being used that has been terrific to know that is a bogus argument. As you say, it is usually an argument made when someone has a gripe about a movie at large. That is a fair argument but attacking vfx for it seems off base. In fact, vfx artists today work their tails off, sometimes without adequate pay and benefits, and criticizing them for bad movies today seems downright wrong.
Look at all of the big successful box office films today and they are benefiting from those artists. I say vfx artists should get a cut of that success, not just a basic monetary compensation. It is obscene that the executives of these massive companies get big fat bonuses and benefits from these films while the artists do not. Every last vfx artist that works on these massive blockbusters should get a cut of the profits.
But I realize we are 180 from that right now. Heck, Rhythm and Hues artists were rewarded for their Oscar-winning work for Ang Lee by being laid off. It's disgraceful.

A film like The Lion King, destined to rake in hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion, dollars and we will still see the industry continue on its downward trajectory of subsidy crony capitalism and under appreciated and underrepresented artists. Meanwhile, we have a so-called Democratic governor in New York, you know, the party of the working man, essentially forcing the taxpaying working people of his state subsidize a mega-billion dollar Amazon HQ. Obscene!

Okay, I am ranting like an old hippie columnist at The Daily Worker so I will stop. :P

edit:

Oh, some people are wondering if this film will be a shot for shot remake much like Beauty and the Beast supposedly was(it really wasnt).

Well, I'm not saying Fav's The Lion King will be but this made me laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... x_nNmoyeeo
#34230
I don't have a problem with people complaining about CG or vfx in a movie or whatever. But, they could at least be more scene or shot specific in their criticisms. Heck, I've railed against the flying at the camera vfx shots in the past or the virtual camera moves that swoop and fly through scenes plenty of times as gratuitous and not mimicking live action camera work, but you shouldn't rail against an entire film. I don't see an entire film with bad vfx today. Maybe I don't watch those movies?
Exactly. We're savvy enough to at least be able to articulate our issues with it. Whoozy-floozy digital camera work, poor compositing, etc.. Blanket complaints like that mean nothing. Be specific. The most specific VFX-related complaint I saw from the onslaught of comments was "the rendered fur looks creepy". Which, I mean, I guess they're at least stating explicitly what they don't like. :lol:

And I saw a few comments like "I hate CGI in movies. I never watch a movie made with CGI" and "Why can't we have movies without CGI?" :lol: I don't know if these comments are funnier, or the "real animation/digital puppets" one.
A film like The Lion King, destined to rake in hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion, dollars and we will still see the industry continue on its downward trajectory of subsidy crony capitalism and under appreciated and underrepresented artists.
Oh, gosh, this movie is guaranteed to make Avengers/Star Wars level money, if not more. It'll reach hundreds of millions...on its opening weekend. It'll reach one billion dollars...before one month is done. If it makes any less than $1.5 billion worldwide by the end of its run, I'll eat my shoe.
Oh, some people are wondering if this film will be a shot for shot remake much like Beauty and the Beast supposedly was(it really wasnt).

Well, I'm not saying Fav's The Lion King will be but this made me laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... x_nNmoyeeo
The way I explain away the whole "it's just a shot-for-shot remake"-thing is that, well, of course the studio is aware that the trailers are advertised that way. Do people actually think they're smart for pointing that out? It's deliberate. They're choosing those specific shots to cater to the nostalgia and get people in seats. They did that with Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and now Lion King. Will those "copy and paste moments" still exist in the movies? Of course. But we're talking about 120 minute movies, here. They're going to be new compositions and framing and set-ups and sequences and whatever stitched together with those shot-for-shot remade moments. Like, at most, 10% of the the remakes are "shot-for-shot" from the original. And even the shot-for-shot shots have some flavour to them, albeit slightly. It's mirrored, the shot is longer, it's day instead of night, whatever. Jungle Book was the least shot-for-shot of them so far.
By Kmart
#34231
Have I mentioned how much I miss seeing blue skies and white clouds in movies? Cuz I think a lot of what people pee on when they cry out against bad CG that they are reacting to the look of movies being so 'off' from what they used to resemble in the photochemical pre-DI era. You've got the switch to predominantly digital fx just ahead of the switch from 35mm film, and the cumulative effect for me, is that I don't go see movies in the theater anymore. Not saying scripting and other choices don't figure into that, but at the baseline of my moviegoing experience, there's a desire to see a film that looks nice and not all tricked out. I was never a fan of the Zsigmond MCCABE/MRSMILLER fogging or much of the use of LightFlex (outside of DUNE) either, so it isn't just a pushback against digital imaging or CG.

I think part of the storytelling process with fx films now 'needing' 2000 shots when 200 or less worked just fine a generation back contributes to the problem, because more of the film is being affected by whatever they go through to get the image -- and while the cg character may look good enough, it might be that putting him into three-quarters of the live-action is enough to drag the live-action down to being an unpleasant viewing. That's a gross oversimplification, but maybe you get the idea of where I'm at on this?

I do have to say that I continue to be impressed by a lot of 'invisible' cg vfx in the modern films, but then again, I was on the NZ PETE matte site today to looks at the first part of his Whitlock article and realized that there was still a ton of photochemical work that has had me fooled for most of my 58 years. Shots in EARTHQUAKE that I never realized were VFX shots in ... well, go check the article out, it has some awesome stuff and is a load of fun to read.
User avatar
By ShaneP
#34232
Comments about DIs are specific enough. And then you have certain filmmakers. I don't know what it is about David Yates, but the last several films of his I cannot stand to watch. I first noticed it with his last few Harry Potter films. But then it continued with Tarzan and the first Fantastic Beasts. I don't know if it's him overworking the DI or what but they all look bled out. I just hate that look on every film. I can understand it on a certain gritty film, but he does it on every single one. Spielberg is another that we've talked about before with his collaborations with Kaminski, but that was pre-DI and more about Director/DOP collaboration.

And Favreau's The Lion King seems to be doing the same thing with this lack of vibrant colors. Everything looks kind of flat.