"Don't blame a director for CGI, that's the VFX fault"

What did John Campea mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

mobile.twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/930882867743170560
nofilmschool.com/2017/05/david-fincher-vfx-effects-video-essay
youtu.be/QChWIFi8fOY
youtube.com/watch?v=xmsq8l305j8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>seth worley
who?

Who's the retard ? He has absolutely no idea of how the VFX world works

Not that I disagree, but that guy only does shorts and commercials from what I see on his imdb. It's different when you have a 100 mil fx budget.

>John Campea
who?

CGI is done in post and directors have nothing to do with it

Who you gonna believe, the guy who worked on The One, or a fucking nobody?

Kek, implying the process of making a 300M feature film is the same as a commercial with your mum. Kill yourself Seth

>remember folks... don't blame a composer for mad music. That's on the musical instruments. The composer doesn't sit there and adjust/fine tune the instruments. The instruments are supposed to do that to themselves

Seth pls

directs direct the CGI artists in the same way they direct the fucking set decorator and actors. fucking retard.

If you are a real director and not a studio figurehead you take control and make that shit look good

So every time a green screen is used over practical effects it's the vfx companies making sure the director knows his place and that they are the final word on the movies these directors put their name on? That's believable

Yeah, he spends half a year in some indian sweatshop where kids click add dots on superman's suit

for whatever its worth:

mobile.twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/930882867743170560

Guillermo del Taco is also known to personally supervise the digital effects in all his movies

>Seth Byron Worley (born April 26, 1984) is an American film director and writer.
>He's best known for short films including Plot Device (2011), Tempo (2012), Spy Vs Guy (2013), and Form 17 (2012). In 2013, he directed Space Fender Bender, a TV Commercial for Star Trek Into Darkness and Esurance.

Because directing shorts is the same experience as directing a major studio picture with lots of expensive effects shots.
You totally get the same level of control on the effects budget and level of outsourcing to artists in third world shitholes in order to maximise profit potential.

is this the latest "don't blame zack snyder" narrative

>uhhhhmmmm acttttuallyyy snookums

I’d love to beat this leftist soyboy faggot within an inch of his life and then let Jyrone and his boys go ham on his asshole.

It's true that most directors obviously did not direct the CGI scenes.

he hasnt been involved in the movie since March, so yes, he is not to blame for the final cut of the movie.

is THIS the latest "don't blame zack snyder" narrative

I feel bad for our guy Zakk.

WRONG

Fincher used more VFX in The Social Network than there were in Godzilla.

It's how the director chooses to use it and does so tastefully.

Typical DC cuck behaviour where they shift blame just like they did with whedon

Yes they do. The good ones.
The director has his storyboards for the CGI scenes, tells the head CGI director what exactly he wants and he's also the one with the final OK on the scenes.

To say you shouldn't blame a director for bad CGI is very silly.

We have a nomenclature problem here.

There are studios mercenaries like JJ or Ratner, yes men in disguise who will always bend the knee to their studio execs and marketing dept.
They don't really have much standards, and care even less in overseeing vfx.

Then you have directors, like Fincher or Cameron, who do not bend the knee, and oversee every single stage of production from beginning to end. They usually have high standards, and they care a great fucking deal about vfx as they do with any other aspect of movie production.

If you want to come here and pretend that all directors behave the same way and share the same standards, I think you're in for some serious rebuttals.

you seem mad about something

That's not true. A movie like The Social Netwrk literally has more CGI effects than your average blockbuster but I bet you didn't know that. Why? Because David Fincher sat down and made sure every frame of that shit looked perfect.

He-Mad and the masters of the universe

>i din du nuffin ya hear me? NUFFIN

VFX isn't magic. If you don't give them good footage to work with it will look like shit.

/thread

Based Gunn. The CGI in the Guardians movies is by far the best of all MCU movies.

isnt every great director known for micromanaging shit and being autistic about every detail

just letting the the vfx teams do whatever to your movie seems a little lax

Campea is right though.

> I am a director

No you're not. Does this faggot not know google exists?

> a director of a +200 millions blockbuster has the last word

shut the fuck up

see

its a team effort, he absolutely has direction over the appearance of cgi.

this

Do you think that when the CGI is done that it immediately goes to the screen? Do you think a director doesn't come and change things to his liking like 50 times?

This all started because of the ILM butthurt tweet.

My question...if the VFX team are irrelevant to the quality of the VFX...what are they being paid for?

Who the fuck is Seth Worley?
Maybe this is why he's a fucking nobody. The director isn't completely absolved of blame, but the majority lies on the producer since it's their job to hire a good team and effectively co-ordinate.
The cgi artists are essentially just contractors. But their work is still their work.

yes

Literally this. If this is about Justice League, how can anyone blame Zack?
Oh right, cause people are still butthurt about BvS and look for any excuse to hate the guy

WAT

What CGI is there in social network

who's the responsible for giving the audiences a final product with a consistent, interesting, aesthetic vision?

can you also blame the cameramen for shit photography?

They obviously aren't irrelevant to the quality of the VFX you absolute brainlet, it's just that the director has the final say in everything and if the VFX company has done a poor job the director should point that out or hire a different VFX company altogether if they can't sort it out. Or it's a problem with the preplanning for the VFX from the director so the VFX company has no ground to start from.
Someone like David Fincher would never allow anything to stick out in a single frame like it sticks out in half of these capeshit flicks

And?

Is VFX the only job in the entire world where the quality of the work isn't related the competency or ability of the people undertaking it?

Would Pacific Rim still have passable edfects if the studio hired a downie and a stray dog to handle the VFX?

>WAT
>What CGI is there in social network

nofilmschool.com/2017/05/david-fincher-vfx-effects-video-essay

>David Fincher may not be widely regarded as a visual effects director, but the fact is, he got his start at ILM in the early '80s working on Return of the Jedi. Also, The Social Network has more VFX shots than Godzilla

youtu.be/QChWIFi8fOY
The Social Network has more VFX shots than the 2014 Godzilla movie

He helped write it and directed it for the entirety of principal photography. Whedon handled reshoots.

Do you think the director does the CGI?

It's not rocket science, my dude.

There are budgets and release schedules. If your VFX team are shit, there might not be a single thing a director can do to correct that.

If you hire aemless wheelchair bound midgets, no amount of coaching is going to make them NBA champs

>Would Pacific Rim still have passable edfects if the studio hired a downie and a stray dog to handle the VFX?
No, but if they did hire a downie and a stray dog for the CGI and it ends up looking like shit it would still be the directors fault for allowing that bad work to be in his end film and not choosing changing/working with someone else, just like with any other filmmaking element.
If an actor does a poor performance it's the director's job to "direct" the actor to make it good in the end, not allowing that bad take to end up in the actual film

Riddley Scott sends you a hello.

The artists undertaking it have some degree of responsibility too, yes, but it's part of a director's job to throw that shit in the trash if it sucks.

I listened to the VFX commentary for Spider-Man 1, and they were talking about how Raimi was heavily involved in deciding which shots needed to be CGI and how the time and budget should be best spent. I assume all good directors do something similar.

Then it's still the fault of the director and the producer for choosing such terrible work partners and allowing their terrible work to end up in the film.
And CGI is done in multiple stages, it's not like the director comes in when it's all done and fully rendered, you can see if something will end up bad pretty early

Villeneuve had absolute control over everything in BR2049 and the budget was 150 million.

I was talking about the cgi, which is only finalised in the latter stages of post production. The only "bad" cgi in BvS is Doomsday and even then it's not really bad so much as uninspired (or directly inspired from the troll in LotR).

But in terms of the film in general, there have been numerous leaks about how the tone of the film has changed in the reshoots and how many plotlines were supposedly dropped (with some characters apparently being recast). Apparently the reshoots cost $100m which is way too much for simple reshoots and implies that some pretty major changes were made.
On top of that, we can compare the different trailers and see directly the changes Whedon made from lighting to colour to tone.
And finally, we know that once Whedon took over, he completely changed the OST and hired Danny Elfman. And the score for BvS was incredible. Love or hate the film, you have to admit it had a great soundtrack.

So I don't know how someone can say with a straight face that the final product that became Justice League is Zack Snyder's film. Did he have significant influence on it? Of course. But, without seeing it to be fair, I wouldn't call it a Zack Snyder film.

Only if you have clout. Cameron, Scott, Nolan, Villeneuve, Fincher all have complete control over their massive projects.

If it's good = Director
If it's bad = the actor, the editor, the vfx, the cinematographer

>They obviously aren't irrelevant to the quality of the VFX you absolute brainlet

Then you acknowledge John Campena is correct.

>it's just that the director has the final say in everything

Objectively false.

> if the VFX company has done a poor job the director should point that out or hire a different VFX company altogether if they can't sort it out.

Sure. And if the 15 year old at McDonald's isn't doing a great job on the fries, the manager can hire Heston Blumenthal and Gordon Ramsey to come down and man the machine, amirite?

>Or it's a problem with the preplanning for the VFX from the director so the VFX company has no ground to start from.

Or the VFX team have done a bad job? Perhaps VFX teams don't exist in a magical universe where the quality of the craft is in part determined by the qualiyt of the craftsman?

>Someone like David Fincher would never allow anything to stick out in a single frame like it sticks out in half of these capeshit flicks

He doesn't make Capeshit and doesn't use anywhere near as much VFX shots as your average Capeshit AND he has plenty of films with garbage CGI (Panic Room, Fight Club)

>Then it's the fault of the director

Oh - it's the fault of the guy who has nothing to do with the hiring of the VFX team?

>...and producer

So now we're shifting the goal posts?

But Pacific Rim DOES look like shit?

>it would still be the directors fault for allowing that bad work to be in his end film and not choosing changing/working with someone else
That isn't always a decision the director can make.Producers have a say in this as well.

The difference for Lucas, Spielberg and Cameron is that they are also executive producers on top of being the director and they have more say on what the money is spent on and who is contracted to do it.

>WHY AREN'T WE PAID MORE!
>WHY AREN'T WE CREDITED PROPERLY!

>oh...btw if the work is poor, it's not out fault and we take no responsibillity for it's quality

makes sense.

A good director will fight the battle to get the work done. That is, ultimately, what a director's job is.

IF something looked bad, then it's their job to go to the studio and get it fixed. They didn't, probably because Whedon is used to someone else doing that shit.

DO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO MADE THAT HORRIBLE CYBORG CGI

MPC IS IN THE CREDITS, BUT THEY DID AWESOME SHIT IN PROMETHEUS
THEY DO HAVE AN OFFICE IN INDIA THOUGH, LIKE ILM'S SCRUB TEAM IN SINGAPORE

WETA IS ON THERE, INB4 THOSE HOBBIT WEBMS
BET ITS WETA BRAVO HACKSON

>He-Mad
holy shit

lol no. Dr strange has better cg

>A good director will fight the battle to get the work done

What the fuck are you talking about?

Yeah, and maybe the studio will respond with "no".

>That is, ultimately, what a director's job is.

No it's not.

>IF something looked bad, then it's their job to go to the studio and get it fixed.

And if they don't want it fixed?

Because that's Fincher. A no-name director doesn't have that kind of authority

That applies to the directors as well. You know Whedon said he didn't get paid enough for Avengers, a movie dependent on VFX. When it's good, he wants the credit.

Now we have this turd. I give it two weeks before he's flinging shit any and everywhere.

OP. are you the same OP that makes every single thread that is just a random twitter quote from some literally who? I see like 20 of these threads a day and they are all the same.

He wasn't the only one to respond to the John Campea tweet, Seth Rogen called him out on his bullshit, James Gunn did too

I didn't know the twins were played by just one actor. And it looks more realistic than Superman's cgi mustache removal.

kek

This how Director Michael Bay deals with his movies' editing and VFX.

youtube.com/watch?v=xmsq8l305j8

Directors has conrol over VFX being done on the movie, if they really put some effort in it.

>no, we'll let out movie we're spending 300M+ for reshoots look like shit

LOL. You fanboys are pathetic.

He wasn't always Fincher, you know. Every one of his movies, save A4, he puts the fucking work in. The Game, Fight Club, all that shit has well-done CGI.

It was overseen by Warner Brother's VFX supervisor, who has worked on a lot of their projects, and always does laughably bad work.

Guess he's cheap.

Apparently a company called Scanline handled a lot of the character work (Flash, Aquaman, Cyborg)

>Objectively false.
How? What do you think a director does?

>And if the 15 year old at McDonald's isn't doing a great job on the fries, the manager can hire Heston Blumenthal and Gordon Ramsey to come down and man the machine, amirite?
That's the problem of the person who hired such a bad worker at all.
If an actor is completely fucking terrible, in the end it's the fault of bad casting from the casting director and the director himself for not choosing the right actor in the first place.

>He doesn't make Capeshit and doesn't use anywhere near as much VFX shots as your average Capeshit
Every Fincher film has more CGI than a standard Hollywood blockbuster. Literally every interior scene is shot on a sound stage. Every time you see blood in a Fincher film you can be sure it's CGI. The Social Network has more VFX shots than the 2014 Godzilla. And no one ever notices a thing.

Then why does his VFX look shit?

So the shitty CGI IS the fault of the VFX artists...?

>And no one ever notices a thing
I remember hearing how much TGWTDT cost and I was like "how?"

this

those perfect examples, who understand the tech and know there has to be a standard

JJ is a hack who views cgi as just another tool in the director's chest, when in reality a true craftsman like a fincher or cameron understands that the tool itself must also be refined constantly and used for the right job

>can't even follow your own logic

Just bow out, kiddo.

>Yeah, and maybe the studio will respond with "no".
Why would the studio be okay with terrible fucking CGI? The studio will go in heavy debt if needed just so it looks good. And not only the biggest +100 million budget studio infested Hollywood films have CGI you know?

>No it's not.
You don't have a single clue what you're talking about. The director should "direct" the making of the film right from the start of preproduction till the very end with the color grading and sound design.

>And if they don't want it fixed?
See my first point. If anything, the studio wants to "overfix" everything, that's why all these blockbusters always have so much reshoots

Because he likes it that way.

the vinklevoss twins? it's only one guy there never was twins on set. The whole rowing scene with tilt shift photography? Every single shot of that scene has tens of VFX. That scene is a pure vfx avalanche but it's so well done that untrained audiences have no fucking clue. Also if you ever see blood in a post fight club Fincher movie, it's cg, no exception.
Fincher is a genuine master of vfx, i can count on one hand directors with higher expertise of vfx than this man.

They used CGI to stick Armie hammers face onto both Winklevoss twins. One of them had another actor do all the body work and then they stick Armie Hammers face onto him.

>How? What do you think a director does?

I'm going to blow your mind here - Sometimes a director doesn't get a say in multiple creative decisions. Sometimes he doesn't even get a say in the scoring of his movie, or the editing, or the casting, or the VFX, or even what format it will be shot on.

>That's the problem of the person who hired such a bad worker at all.

Sure. Like I said, if it's not working out, just shut down the shop and go hire a couple of guys on a million dollar a year salary to make your 2 dollar burgers. That's completely reasonable.

>If an actor is completely fucking terrible, in the end it's the fault of bad casting from the casting director

Oh, so the casting director is responsible for bad casting, but a bad actor isn't responsible for bad acting?

Interesting.

>Every Fincher film has more CGI than a standard Hollywood blockbuster.

Wrong.

>Literally every interior scene is shot on a sound stage.

Again, wrong.

>The Social Network has more VFX shots than the 2014 Godzilla

So what? There is a vast chasm in the complexity and scale of the VFX work being undertaken. Correcting someone's hairline as opposed to a full rendered cityscape with a giant lizard monster requires a different level of work and capability.

How did that work out?
>complete box office failure
>hated by critics and fans alike
>immediately stated that there will never be another one

It's your logic. You claim that the studio wouldn't spend 300 million dollars on bad VFX. So if the studio isn't responsible for the shitty effects, it's obviously the, you know, VFX team.

>"Hurr don't blame the director for bad VFX durr."
>after getting BTFO'd by directors
>"Hurr blame isn't exclusive on one party durr."
Jesus, this guy.

Same reason why his movies shit in general.
It depens on the director, his judments on story, characters, production design and VFX may not be the best.

But there are tools and workflows that allows directors to make those decisions on the movies VFX.

>Why would the studio be okay with terrible fucking CGI?

...I mean, I don't understand what you're asking here? They released the film, didn't they? If anyone was going to be happy with terrible CGI, it would be the studio, since they only need it to be good enough to not turn away audiences - see Marvel.

>The studio will go in heavy debt if needed just so it looks good.

And often they will cut budgets and get a shitty looking film.

>You don't have a single clue what you're talking about.

Says the idiot who thinks the director dictates budgets to studios and does the CGI himself.

>should

Nice.

>See my first point.

Your first point is objectively wrong.

>Sometimes a director doesn't get a say in multiple creative decisions
So what you're saying is that your argument works only if we're talking about literal-who studio baby directors for B movies no one here even watches?
Got it.

>Like I said, if it's not working out, just shut down the shop and go hire a couple of guys on a million dollar a year salary to make your 2 dollar burgers.
Are you intentionally playing dumb? You ofcourse don't hire Gordon Ramsay, but out of all the people who applied for that position it's the employers responsibility to choose the right person for that job.

>Oh, so the casting director is responsible for bad casting, but a bad actor isn't responsible for bad acting?
Why are you acting like those are mutually exclusive? Yes, they are both responsible for their bad work, but the bigger baggage is on the director for not seeing how bad that work from the actor is and allowing a terrible performance in his film.

>Correcting someone's hairline as opposed to a full rendered cityscape with a giant lizard monster requires a different level of work and capability.
There are plenty of full CGI shots in Fincher films. In Zodiac, the entire street in that night scene was done entirely in CGI, pic related.

That doesn't change the fact that he did have full control.
Nolan also has full control and every single film of his is a smash hit, what now?

>Says the idiot who thinks the director dictates budgets to studios and does the CGI himself.
Never did I say or imply any of that my dear amigo friend, nice headcanon

>complete box office failure
>hated by critics and fans alike

Didn't know a movie's quality was judged by what it did at the box office. I honestly don't care either way if they made a sequel or not. The film was good on its own.

Roland Emmerich was right when he told the team to render only a quarter of fur of the mammoths in 10000 BC. They ended up being the best creatures in the movie too

He and the team were fucked over by the final transfer of Godzilla 1998 - they mastered it for a certain film stock but the producers jewed out and printed it on a different one. The color timing and fine detail were destroyed and it turned the CGI into a mediocre mess. The blu-ray version restores the original image quality, theatrical and older home releases are not representative of the CGI's quality.