Is green screen and CGI relied upon too heavily in modern movie-making Sup Forums?

is green screen and CGI relied upon too heavily in modern movie-making Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

nme.com/news/film/ian-mckellen-filming-the-hobbit-made-me-cry-with-f-877575
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1511466454085.webm
youtube.com/watch?v=LDGqKyNV-HU
m.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k
youtube.com/watch?v=sUajJiGatDU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes god yes

How does it feel that in this age of green screen actresses will never have to endure cold nightshoots ever again? RIP unintentional pokies.

It's so cheap, movies these days claim the movie takes 100s of millions of dollars but in reality the cgi makes the cost almost nothing

Depends on the movie. It wasn’t a serious problem in the early 2000’s and a big reason why movies like the prequels sucked but I think a lot of directors are starting to realize the folly of their ways. TFA was a positive example in regards to this despite its other flaws

>Designers and 30 Modelers work for free
>They don't demand high salaries when their work is making up the bulk of the movie

It was a serious problem*

>he thinks cgi is made in the West

Lol

Yes? It's expensive as fuck, looks fake as shit and it gives movie producers retarded ideas, like using CGI actors.

It must be hard to act properly when you're just surrounded by 4 green walls and some green boxes attached to cables.

Many studios outsource the 3D modelling to artists in places like Thailand, Eastern Europe etc.

Making a full animated movie is a different matter to 3D asset creation.

ikr

A MONTH?!?!!!?!!

damn
nme.com/news/film/ian-mckellen-filming-the-hobbit-made-me-cry-with-f-877575

>building all this green shit instead of non green stuff.

MOAR BENOIST

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1511466454085.webm

Yes, its basically witchcraft at this point

How did they do it in Lord of the Rings?

Why? Isn't just shooting on actual street cheaper and simpler?
Forced perspective.

yes

those hips sure can act

...

CGI makes the dreams come to life. We are no longer bounded by the real world in films. It's literally the golden age of cinema right now and we don't even know it. A hundred years from now the current batch of CGI wonders will be regarded as the true beginning of kino.

No for the total movie production

How could a Pixar animator afford to live in the Bay Area on that low a salary?

Get out.

...

JUST

>ywn be a green man
why live

Is this how they film blacked so the actresses arent in any danger?

Thanks for sharing bro. Modern Hollywood blows. Was most of that cgi even necessary? Use real locations!

Need a green screen skullcap on that rats nest

...

That's a yearly salary.

So that's why everything looks fake.
I thought is was because digital cameras and filters.

not if it involves a real Melissa Benoist

>real Melissa Benoist

That'sa hologram user

...

>Use real locations
film permits, legal stuff is a bitch to work with, that's why most filmmakers don't bother nowadays
it's because most films nowadays are "upgraded" in the sense than the real stuff is overlapped with the same stuff
youtube.com/watch?v=LDGqKyNV-HU

that's why people notice cgi, but they don't notice vfx

>too heavily
cgi is weightless

...

“Green screen” in Tv shows

m.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

I know this doesn't look great but what would a literal river of gold look like to the eye anyways? I feel like it'd be so surreal.

i'm sure you could find videos of molten gold on youtube. It's probably more like golden lava with cooling crusty black bits than a river of pure gold

Make yellower than usual fake lava. Real > accurate.

kek

you decide OP

>Oh, gosh. I get payed all this money to say some lines. #GaysForKids #Antifa #Atheism+

>50k

CGI animation used to be 100k+ or am I wrong?

Forced perspective.

The "problem" with forced perspective is that it only works from one very specific angle, which means you can't do 3D with it. I THINK that's why they went full greenscreen for The Hobbit.

>3D
fuck this gay earth

So this is the power of kino

They get paid millions to do this

*runs in with ranged weapon*

kek

It was a good effect but not perfect. When Gandalf was talking to Frodo you could see him knock the 'big' table slightly where the 'little' one in the distance didn't budge.
Also the increased resolution and HFR are very unforgiving for those types of shots, flaws in the setup become blindingly obvious. Combine that with 3D and it doubles the problem.

Jackson should've kept it simple, making some of these green-screen shots with forced perspective in the old way might have retained some of the charm, but he was seduced by tech like Lucas.

>measures everything in $$$
>gonna probably call somebody else a jew

Isn't technology wonderful?

...

I think I remember an article about an older actor in GoT who was confused as fuck and had no idea what to do because everything around him was green and he just couldn't wrap his head around it. Can't find it though.

You're thinking of Shae, who freaked out because they told her to look at the boat and look sad, but the boat was going to be CGI'd in and she couldn't handle just looking at water and acting like there wad a boat

She's a terrible actress so no surprise here.

UMA

The article I'm vaguely remembering was about something in the iron bank, but either way this is pretty funny. Kind of makes you appreciate the actors more when they have to try to act well while putting up with this sort of weird shit.

>"would you like live actors with your CGI mashup?"

CGI is cheaper than everything else. Like t o shoot a street scene at the location they need to literally shut down the entire street, which they pay to do by the hour usually, hire a shit load more extras, pay for shipping people all over the world, pay for housing them, it is an insurance nightmare, etc.

Alternatively, for CGI they can hire fewer people, do it all in-house, don't have to fly people anywhere or house them at marked up expenses, insurance is always fully sorted, the list goes on. The company that does the actual CGI charges a lot of money because they can, because of unions and lawyers. Not because CGI is actually expensive to produce.

Then you must be a shit actor.

>Why? Isn't just shooting on actual street cheaper and simpler?
>paying the city to shut down a street
>and let you blow up a car in it
>or paying a city to let you film in front of a court house blocking that entrance way
>or paying a city to let you block a street just for a 10 second shot.
It's way cheaper to use a green screen in a controlled environment. Saves money on insurance too.

its certainly why movies look dated 5 years after release compared to using models, practical effects then a touch of cg to fill in whats needed vs full blown cg

No, it is rather bright and pure with nothing on top of it. It doesn't oxidize like other metals when exposed to the air. Aluminum on the other hand gets a terrible crust on the top, but it is more off white and grey color than black, except for some impurities.

good to know

Movies with all practical effects age so much better. Even if you can tell the models and whatnot are aren't real, you know they physically exist and it seems better than CGI.

CGI makes producers lazy. I watched Hunt for Red October the other night and ended up reading about its production. They got the use of a Navy drydock, two frigates, a submarine, and an aircraft carrier. The sub practiced emergency surfacing 40 times to get the right shot. They also built a full-size floating Typhoon replica for the shot at the beginning, and the underwater scenes were all models (which were enhanced digitally which REALLY didn't age well.) Not to mention built full interior sets for each sub.

Movies like Top Gun and Patton got use of whatever military hardware they actually wanted. The Longest Day had an assload of extras assault the beach for the long shots. The Final Voyage actually tried to sink an ocean liner on camera. The Abyss was all practical shots in a giant water tank--the cast got sick from being too far underwater all day.

These days anyone making movies like that would do everything with fucking CGI.

That's not gold, that was high end quality, non-radioactive aluminium recovered from a WW2 wreck.

I think this spider man picture is from a poster not the movie

Does anyone think there is even a slight chance that green screens will eventually be recognized as a gimmick? Like it is just a crazy phase of cinema that studios make these wacky CGI sets, like the waves of WW2 films, Cowboy films etc

...

I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if most movies in a decade were shot entirely on green screens with the actors wearing motion capture suits instead of costumes or makeup.

...

Such a hideous and shallow movie. They knew it was terrible so they sought to impress us with gimmicks

>Elves jump out between a charging enemy and a protective shield+spear phalanx

This is why you can't take the knife-ears seriously.

This is the dumbest thing I've seen in weeks.

And that's saying a lot.

user, pretty soon having digital and CGI actors is going to become the norm too. "Live action" movies will entirely be made on a computer.

youtube.com/watch?v=sUajJiGatDU

The Train by Frankenheimer has some great train wreck scenes. Battle of Britain also has mostly real aircraft and a few models for certain types and for crashes. The problem is that nowadays you couldn't find such equipment in quantity and/or at a reasonable price.

>people actually talk about cgi instead of melissa benost

skinny blonde who made her bf use a condom when they made personal-porn

what's to discuss?

Also supergirl's eye lasers are blue, not red. Fix your pic

looks fucking creepy!

worst choice for supergirl, but fitting for that shit show!

goddamn she was such a cutie.

I saw a disheartening interview with James Cameron recently where he talked about how today he'd do all the stunts from T2 and Titanic with CGI. How can such a talented filmmaker like that not realise that the real-world, physical stunts in T2 are the reason it's a timeless movie?

it's not because it's cheap, it's because it's convenient
set designers don't have to worry about having to redo sets because they could just fix it in post
take the scene in independence day where the aliens blow up the white house, they only had time and money to build one house, if it had failed or blown up the wrong way the whole shot would've been wasted
now if cgi was as prevalent as it is today they'd let it render on a computer for a couple of days and the explosion would be perfect, it would look shit but they wouldn't have to concern blowing the entire budget if they'd done a model and the explosion had gone wrong

>How can out of touch people be so out of touch?

I love it when tryhards try to make condoms out to be something beta since if they actually live their values you just know their lives will get JUSTed

It's not just him. Peter Jackson, George Lucas, Robert Zemeckis among others don't seem to realise what made their early movies good.

while I mostly agree my friends and I used to make fun of motorcycle the stunt scenes so much because it obviously wasn't Arnie and you could clearly tell.

There are so many discreet contraceptives, condoms are unnecessary

Reminder that CGI actually isn't expensive at all and whenever you hear about a movie costing $400m to make, it's just Hollywood accounting at work.

How else would you enter a video game world without green screen?

>trusting a woman with your life

>It's ok, it was his first day

>le CGI boogeyman meme
CGI itself is not bad, it's bad when it's used out of laziness and lack of ideas.
Even other recent movies praised for their practical effects (Fury Road, Interstellar, BR2049) have a shitload of CGI in them too, but it's used as a tool to touch up and improve the already set ideas and set pieces.

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.

Full CGI sequences work only if the director knows exactly what he wants, but in most cases the director just hires an army of CGI rendering slaves from a visual effects company and tells them only general guidelines of how he wants something to look, leaving the company to be the actual creative part which is an impossible task because it's a whole army of people trying to form a singular piece.

CGI is just a tool like any other, you just need to know how and when to use it.