Ben Morris wrote:When we first met we talked a lot of about techniques, old and new, and how we should aim to get as many in-camera effects as possible.
Man, I hate it when that button sticks.
I'm sorry, but do filmmakers just have this comment queued up to auto-play when making statements about any big action/spectacle/FX movie (no offense to Ben Morris)? I've lost count of the times I've heard that response - or a slight variation of it - in interviews, commentaries, articles, BTS, etc..
For literally any
From directors/producers/SFX and VFX Supervisors/Production Designers/DPs, as if this method of using practical effects makes them unique against the onslaught of other similar movies.
Yeah, we get it, practical FX work is making a comeback against the "scourge" of CG-heavy movies. I'd be preaching to the choir if I wanted to mention that practical FX/VFX should work hand-in-hand together rather than be an "us vs. them" mentality. We all know that. And the filmmakers know that, too, so why do they keep re-serving the same response of something that should seem obvious? Yeah, duh
, get as many effects in-camera as possible. That's pretty much always
been the mindset of every filmmaker. Ever.
Show me an interview where a director said "You know, there's just not enough CGI these days, so my goal is to do everything with the computer". Because apparently there are
filmmakers out there who say that, based on the number of times I've heard people regurgitate this "we're doing as much as we can practically"-response, as if to appease some hipster audience fanbase and assure them their movie will be different from others because it goes back to "old school" techniques.
Apologies if I'm coming off as a curmudgeonly old man, because I'm sure the talented artists did a bang-up job on this movie with everything from CGI to SPFX to make-up FX, but I just feel like I'm taking crazy pills every single time I hear a filmmaker or crew member say something obvious like this.
EDIT: To clarify, I have absolutely nothing against practical FX (obviously), or even the overall mindset of "let's do as much in-camera as we can". That's cool. Do as much for real, then augment with CGI. Use the best of both worlds. What I am
taking issue with is the coating of pretension that often comes with public comments about it. Like, to me, it's inherent that a movie and its crew will want to do as much "for real" as possible. That's obvious. Every filmmaker in the last decade has made a comment like that. To do as much practically as possible... it's so obvious, that it seems odd that they feel the need to state it. It's like having an interviewee say "we didn't want to go over budget", "we wanted to treat our crew with respect" or "we didn't use living breathing dinosaurs". Like, duh