Eh, just based on the footage and photographs showing how the FX were done on the movie, there was obviously a lot of scenes involving real, actually driving vehicles and practical effects and stunts. (They had a lot of stunt performers and drivers - if the vehicles were rarely moving, that wouldn’t have been necessary.) They certainly could have swapped Theron’s lips from another scen, though - things like that happen all the time now.
1 Like
I don’t think it affects the story and pacing negatively; but I find it very conspicuous, much like if one were to put super realistic/photographic elements in the midst of an impressionist painting or something.
The narrator’s voice was obviously CG. Completely distracting.
There certainly are limited synths, hard to use synths, and synths with strange quirks, but I’ll have to agree there’s no “bad” synth I’ve ever seen. It’s usually the fact that I don’t play the keys that makes it sound crappy. Hours and hours of dicking around on the piano roll and step sequencer trying to get a riff out of my head. Then some child with rudimentary training comes along plinks it out on the keys and says “this is what you meant to do, right?”
Then I go looking for a suitable rope and a staircase.
3 Likes
It was actually Freddie Wong. If you haven’t checked out his shorts on youtube, or Video Game High School (3 season web series) which he directed on RocketJump, I highly recommend his work. Also CorridorDigital, who Freddie worked with when he got his start in LA. They’re both fantastic filmmakers.
So there were never any bad hand-drawn cartoons where the laws of physics are utterly optional and anything and everything can explode/transform/be magical with the same budget as if it didn’t? I’m not buying it. I’m generally skeptical of the “new thing is ruining everything” cliche. Especially because special-effects aren’t new, and they have not always been used skillfully right up until CGI. Or am I the only person who remembers pre-CGI action heroes walking away from gasoline explosions every thirty seconds?
Bad movies will always exist, with or without CGI, and directors will make stupid and unaccountable choices with or without it. Just look at this critique of Oblivion. At this point with everyone used to it, was anyone wowwed by the CGI? No. Inferior ripoff of Moon was inferior no matter how the CGI was used.
3 Likes
I hate these. So much. HATE. Might as well toss in sparklers and colored smoke and a bear on a unicycle.
The Hurt Locker is the only movie I’ve watched not felt insulted by the explosions.
3 Likes
The mythological storylines can be told hundreds of times (just ask Joseph Campbell). The problem was that Avatar did it badly.
2 Likes
I have to say that is such a hugely cynical perspective.
Yes, if you only choose to look at the crud that Hollywood churns out then yes, it’s crud (and that’s all you alluded to in your post).
But if you’re not finding endless streams of amazing story and cinematic experiences then you’re very blinkered (and for what it’s worth, I don’t suspect you are, hence why I think you’re being cynical). I couldn’t watch every good movie available in a lifetime, even if they stopped making them tomorrow.
As pointed out in this very video, a good tale transcends bad effects - whether they’re CGI or not. I mean, you’ve seen Star Trek, right?
This is actually one of the things I’ve noticed I actually prefer over bad CGI- It seems like there’s a point where the effects seem not-even-trying bad (think original Star Trek, or the abovementioned projection behind an obviously fake car). I actually find those to be more believable. It’s almost like live theatre- You just accept that the big painting behind the actors is supposed to mean they’re in a specific location, and you focus on the dialogue. You accept that the silver-painted broom handle is a sharp and deadly sword, and that the cardboard cutout of waves is a mighty ocean.
When the CGI is good, you don’t notice it. It just runs in the background and helps the story along.
The problem is when the special effects fall in a particular spot between those- When they’re good enough that you can’t ignore them, but not so good you no longer see them. At that point, they just distract from everything else. You focus on the effect, instead of the thing which the effect was meant to convey or enhance.
2 Likes
I can’t agree. I can ignore CGI, “good” or “bad”, when it’s necessary. I can not ignore good CGI when it’s not needed and just shoehorned in at the expense of the plot.
Granted, it’s rarely shoehorned in with a good plot, but I’m sure if I tried, I could find an example of a movie where they awkwardly added CGI for “wow” factor, probably at the producers’ demand.
I believe that’s generally deliberate to some extent (in Ghibli films anyway).
But is it similar to the sort of conspicuousness that goes with an element being part of the background in and old cartoon being manipulated by a character? Like an apple being picked from a tree by a character which changes from paint to a cel drawing? While I’d never describe that as jarring, it is often pretty noticeable.
I’d argue that what Ghibli does is much better than that, and less intrusively—even when they’re drawing deliberate attention to it. The scene in Spirited Away, Haku pulls Chihiro through the flowers, and the camera gives us her POV, I always thought pretty remarkable.
Or for Nausicaa: the Ohmu are basically painted elements which are then stop-motion animated. It makes them look a little stiff, but the Ohmu are supposed to be hard-carapaced animals, and it might feel wrong to animate them the way Nausicaa herself is animated. No CG, but Ghibli often treats CG as just another background painting being manipulated in 3D anyway.
1 Like
I don’t know. Badly suggests the structure was flawed somehow, as opposed to “I didn’t like it” or “it didn’t feel fresh.” Both are valid, but I wouldn’t call Avatar “bad.”
Like an apple being picked from a tree by a character which changes from paint to a cel drawing?
That’s awesome to read you describe this: I always would peg out which objects would move or be picked up next in a scenery because the cell drawing popped out. Funny enough, that’s one of the thing that made me want to grow up to be an animator; the tiny details and the hints of the labour and tricks involved in each frame were fascinating. Clearly, you’ve also loved tons of animated films 
Yeah, putting it that way, it is a good point. Maybe my eye is pegging the CG out in the same way but being harsher on it. I perceived the cell v.s. background effect as nearly inevitable for a long time, while I think of CGI as an active choice, therefore having more scrutiny about it. The Chihiro scene through the flowers is very much the one that I’m very ambivalent about. I practically worship Miyazaki and his work, but that scene just sticks out to me. It IS gorgeous, intense and expertly handled and I know it. Yet I cannot mute a little nagging voice that so wishes to have seen that exact scene in 2D/hand animation. It just won’t shut up.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
