No Horses Were Harmed in the Making of This Footage
January 8, 2017 8:34 AM Subscribe
CGI breakdown reel for the Game of Thrones episode Battle of the Bastards, from VXF house Iloura. [CW: graphic battle carnage]
The bit around 1:40 where they show a mix of real video, rendered skeletons, renderedskeletons-with-muscles, rendered white untextured things, etc? All without rhyme or reason but just mixing different stages of rendering and composition? I want to watch that movie all the time.
posted by Nelson at 8:50 AM on January 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 8:50 AM on January 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
Holy crap that was good.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:54 AM on January 8, 2017
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:54 AM on January 8, 2017
This is the level of computer effects everyone thought they had in the 2000s, but it wasn't quite there, leading to things like Anakin riding the Shaak in Attack of the Clones (As well as almost everything else in Attack of the Clones)
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:58 AM on January 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:58 AM on January 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
How do you even act your way through a scene like this when you're acting in a green box with red Xs taped in various places?
Although it's something of a shame these huge pieces are no longer being made from real things and people, I am constantly amazed how well people can act when the ENTIRE OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS is in the actor's and director's imagination. It must be a different kind of acting skill and it is hugely impressive.
Of course it's not a shame that they don't have to have hundreds of horses and people risking injury throwing themselves on the ground and faking injuries, but it is stunning how quickly we have gone from having to do that and being able to do all this on a computer.
posted by Brockles at 8:59 AM on January 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Although it's something of a shame these huge pieces are no longer being made from real things and people, I am constantly amazed how well people can act when the ENTIRE OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS is in the actor's and director's imagination. It must be a different kind of acting skill and it is hugely impressive.
Of course it's not a shame that they don't have to have hundreds of horses and people risking injury throwing themselves on the ground and faking injuries, but it is stunning how quickly we have gone from having to do that and being able to do all this on a computer.
posted by Brockles at 8:59 AM on January 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Also, I'd forgotten just how jarring that moment in the battle was and how well it expressed the loneliness of that battle for Jon Snow when he grabs that guy to talk to him just as an arrow goes right through his head.
posted by Brockles at 9:00 AM on January 8, 2017
posted by Brockles at 9:00 AM on January 8, 2017
I still find it fascinating that the best method we have for building CGI creatures (whether they're realistic like those in this video or Disney cartoon creations) are to start with the skeleton and build outward from there, basically reproducing nature even if the character is going to move in cartoonish, unnatural ways.
Our brains know reality well enough that even our illusions need to be based in the reality those brains learned to perceive.
posted by hippybear at 9:02 AM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Our brains know reality well enough that even our illusions need to be based in the reality those brains learned to perceive.
posted by hippybear at 9:02 AM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I honestly thought the men on horses were actual actors on actual horses who were filmed and then layered in, not whole cloth CGI creations.
So did I. I'm glad to know that at least on in some cases it is no longer actual horses being made to fall over.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:02 AM on January 8, 2017
So did I. I'm glad to know that at least on in some cases it is no longer actual horses being made to fall over.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:02 AM on January 8, 2017
I remember watching two-hour-long "the making of..." SFX specials on television after big movie releases in the 70s and 80s. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and others had them. They were complete breakdowns of how they did the effects in these movies, and they were utterly fascinating because the difficulties they had to overcome to get a camera to film a thing in the way they needed it to be filmed, and yes, it all happened in camera back then....
Now I think a lot of effect-heavy movies are pretty boring because so much of it is done in a computer. When basically anything that can be imagined can be eventually rendered to look "real" if a team of artists is given enough time to experiment sort of has ruined the sense of wonder that I had seeing movies in the 80s and 90s, when I would wonder "how the fuck did they DO that", and then later see a Making Of thing and go "wow, that's really creative, outside the box thinking to get from concept to final product". So even then, the magic wasn't lost.
With the Marvel movies especially, but not only them, I find I don't have any sense of wonder.
But then I watch a reel like this, and I realize that I should have a LOT MORE WONDER about what I'm watching on-screen because wow. (I remember seeing an FX reel for Boardwalk Empire, and was really blown away by how much of that world was simply not there when the actors were acting, but that I never even questioned as being a physical world.)
posted by hippybear at 9:09 AM on January 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Now I think a lot of effect-heavy movies are pretty boring because so much of it is done in a computer. When basically anything that can be imagined can be eventually rendered to look "real" if a team of artists is given enough time to experiment sort of has ruined the sense of wonder that I had seeing movies in the 80s and 90s, when I would wonder "how the fuck did they DO that", and then later see a Making Of thing and go "wow, that's really creative, outside the box thinking to get from concept to final product". So even then, the magic wasn't lost.
With the Marvel movies especially, but not only them, I find I don't have any sense of wonder.
But then I watch a reel like this, and I realize that I should have a LOT MORE WONDER about what I'm watching on-screen because wow. (I remember seeing an FX reel for Boardwalk Empire, and was really blown away by how much of that world was simply not there when the actors were acting, but that I never even questioned as being a physical world.)
posted by hippybear at 9:09 AM on January 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
How do you even act your way through a scene like this when you're acting in a green box
Previsualization
There's an entire niche industry of 3D graphics arts folks that build large scenes or entire films in digital mockup prior to production.
And, well, they're "actors", it's what they do, in a black box with a live audience or one other person holding a camera. (but it is a very good question, I got no idea how they actually "do eet")
posted by sammyo at 9:10 AM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Previsualization
There's an entire niche industry of 3D graphics arts folks that build large scenes or entire films in digital mockup prior to production.
And, well, they're "actors", it's what they do, in a black box with a live audience or one other person holding a camera. (but it is a very good question, I got no idea how they actually "do eet")
posted by sammyo at 9:10 AM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
They still used around 70 real horses for this scene and did in fact have some of them fall over (which they are trained to do). Due to animal welfare rules, the horses have to be kept from touching each other, so whenever two horses are shown colliding at least one of them is CGI. Also note that much of the filming was done on-site in Ireland. Green screen was only used for some shots. The shot where Jon Snow is filmed from behind with a wall of horses galloping towards him (00:35) is real, and was reportedly somewhat unnerving for Kit Harington.
posted by dephlogisticated at 9:24 AM on January 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by dephlogisticated at 9:24 AM on January 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
It always irritates me when someone dismisses a movie because there's cgi in it, as if that's somehow cheating or taking the easy route. It takes a lot of work, skill, and creativity, as this reel demonstrates.
Also, there's cgi in almost everything these days.
posted by dazed_one at 9:27 AM on January 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
Also, there's cgi in almost everything these days.
posted by dazed_one at 9:27 AM on January 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
I am constantly amazed how well people can act when the ENTIRE OF THEIR SURROUNDINGS is in the actor's and director's imagination. It must be a different kind of acting skill and it is hugely impressive.
Yeah, this struck me too. I remember reading somewhere that Meryl Streep hated making Death Becomes Her because she found it so difficult to act with all the green screen work. Meryl. Streep! And one of the many reasons the acting was so awful in the Star Wars prequels was because there was so much CGI the actors had difficulty getting into their characters and the scenes.
The actors in GoT are good, there are some really excellent performances, but I would not say any of them are at the level of Meryl Streep. This video illustrates how far the industry has come. Not just CGI quality, but in the abilities of directors and actors to adjust their craft to working with CGI-heavy sets. It's so impressive.
posted by Anonymous at 9:28 AM on January 8, 2017
Yeah, this struck me too. I remember reading somewhere that Meryl Streep hated making Death Becomes Her because she found it so difficult to act with all the green screen work. Meryl. Streep! And one of the many reasons the acting was so awful in the Star Wars prequels was because there was so much CGI the actors had difficulty getting into their characters and the scenes.
The actors in GoT are good, there are some really excellent performances, but I would not say any of them are at the level of Meryl Streep. This video illustrates how far the industry has come. Not just CGI quality, but in the abilities of directors and actors to adjust their craft to working with CGI-heavy sets. It's so impressive.
posted by Anonymous at 9:28 AM on January 8, 2017
Whoa.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:34 AM on January 8, 2017
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:34 AM on January 8, 2017
Meryl may have hated making Death Becomes Her, but that movie remains one of the most perplexing and reality-questioning and wonderful movie watching experiences I have ever had. There might have been ridiculous pot brownies and a three joint car hotbox that happened before we went into the theater. But still!
posted by hippybear at 9:34 AM on January 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 9:34 AM on January 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
Ian McKellen complained about acting against greenscreen in The Hobbit which he found very isolating.
posted by octothorpe at 9:43 AM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 9:43 AM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I think basically everyone involved in making or watching The Hobbit found it very isolating.
posted by hippybear at 10:03 AM on January 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 10:03 AM on January 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
It's been posted here before, but it bears re-posting: Before and After shots from "The Great Gatsby".
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 10:05 AM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
hippybear, I was not high when I first saw it and Death Becomes Her is still one of my favorite comedies. Meryl Streep, Goldie Hawn, and Bruce Willis achieved a peak of campy dark satire.
posted by Anonymous at 10:06 AM on January 8, 2017
posted by Anonymous at 10:06 AM on January 8, 2017
I have a distinct memory of when I saw the spear being thrown through Goldie Hawn that my addled brain went "okay, so reality doesn't matter any more, LET'S HAVE FUN".
posted by hippybear at 10:08 AM on January 8, 2017
posted by hippybear at 10:08 AM on January 8, 2017
Immersive CGI effects to bring adaptations of books to life is just sort of weird to me. Like that's why I read the books, I love when my brain makes the scene in my head. I understand that people love to read the books and see the adaptations, but that's literally (ha!) not one of the funnest things I like to do, as the film adaptation takes control of my mind's depiction sometimes, and I lose a little of the control of actually, I dunno, imagining things. Like my brain is lazy, so someone else imagine all this for me, it says. Sigh.
There was a story on MeFi about people who do not think visually, and that again just was crazy to think about. I don't understand how people can read some sort of fantasy novel with epic fights and strange characters without fleshing them out in their heads. It's all very fascinating.
posted by alex_skazat at 11:14 AM on January 8, 2017
There was a story on MeFi about people who do not think visually, and that again just was crazy to think about. I don't understand how people can read some sort of fantasy novel with epic fights and strange characters without fleshing them out in their heads. It's all very fascinating.
posted by alex_skazat at 11:14 AM on January 8, 2017
Those red X's used to be men...
posted by biffa at 11:17 AM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by biffa at 11:17 AM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Ok, when they started showing the skeleton horses running around in the battle scene I briefly thought that the White Walker horses had gotten even scarier and had suddenly shown up at this battle before I realized what was going on.
posted by TwoStride at 12:01 PM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by TwoStride at 12:01 PM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
I used to be really obsessed with movie special effects back in the analog era and bought books and watched documentaries about how they were made but now the answer is just "CGI" and I don't care that much now. Not to take away with how effective it can be; I loved this battle and it's great that CGI can support storytelling easier than old effects could but there just isn't that much to talk about with it.
posted by octothorpe at 12:21 PM on January 8, 2017
posted by octothorpe at 12:21 PM on January 8, 2017
I still find it fascinating that the best method we have for building CGI creatures (whether they're realistic like those in this video or Disney cartoon creations) are to start with the skeleton and build outward from there, basically reproducing nature even if the character is going to move in cartoonish, unnatural ways
I'm pretty sure this was just done for effect for this video, and that your typical CGI creature would just be a virtual 'skin', connecting 3D control points scanned from a real horse.
posted by Flashman at 12:21 PM on January 8, 2017
I'm pretty sure this was just done for effect for this video, and that your typical CGI creature would just be a virtual 'skin', connecting 3D control points scanned from a real horse.
posted by Flashman at 12:21 PM on January 8, 2017
No, I've heard interviews with Pixar and Disney artists talking about how they have to start with the armature and grow the characters out from there. It's a standard CG animation technique, really. It's not just done for effect in this video. It's how the video was constructed.
posted by hippybear at 12:25 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 12:25 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I loved this battle and it's great that CGI can support storytelling easier than old effects could but there just isn't that much to talk about with it.
Yeah. I feel the same way. Maybe I would have a better appreciation if I were a stronger programmer. When you see demonstrations of old-school effects like this list, pretty much anyone can understand how they work and applaud the innovation and creativity. But when it comes to making CGI water that looks like more like water, then as a layman all I can really do is think "Yup, that sure does look better". I know there's algorithm development and hardware improvements that enable it to happen, but the details of those are so outside my level of knowledge that it's difficult to judge exactly where the improvements in artistry and technical skill lie.
posted by Anonymous at 12:43 PM on January 8, 2017
Yeah. I feel the same way. Maybe I would have a better appreciation if I were a stronger programmer. When you see demonstrations of old-school effects like this list, pretty much anyone can understand how they work and applaud the innovation and creativity. But when it comes to making CGI water that looks like more like water, then as a layman all I can really do is think "Yup, that sure does look better". I know there's algorithm development and hardware improvements that enable it to happen, but the details of those are so outside my level of knowledge that it's difficult to judge exactly where the improvements in artistry and technical skill lie.
posted by Anonymous at 12:43 PM on January 8, 2017
Skeletal animation has been standard for a very long time. Even in video games it's been in use for a couple of decades (first major game use I know of is in the original Half-Life in 1998).
Initially it was virtual "bones" moving a skin surface, but nowadays everything is quite sophisticated with actually-simulated bones, muscle, skin, clothes, etc. Even current video games do this (in real time!) to an extent.
The alternative is animating the skin mesh by hand, which is extremely time-consuming and tends look pretty bad. (If you've ever seen someone's terrible CGI demo reel from the 90s, you probably know what I mean.) I don't think this technique was ever really used for film, since by the time of Jurassic Park ILM was using skeletal animation.
Full-body motion capture is sort of a reverse-engineering process -- use the mocap data to figure out how the actor's bones/muscles were moving, then apply that to your CG model.
(I don't work in CG, but I've dabbled a bunch and had an aborted attempt at a computer animation degree once. Feel free to correct me.)
posted by neckro23 at 12:57 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Initially it was virtual "bones" moving a skin surface, but nowadays everything is quite sophisticated with actually-simulated bones, muscle, skin, clothes, etc. Even current video games do this (in real time!) to an extent.
The alternative is animating the skin mesh by hand, which is extremely time-consuming and tends look pretty bad. (If you've ever seen someone's terrible CGI demo reel from the 90s, you probably know what I mean.) I don't think this technique was ever really used for film, since by the time of Jurassic Park ILM was using skeletal animation.
Full-body motion capture is sort of a reverse-engineering process -- use the mocap data to figure out how the actor's bones/muscles were moving, then apply that to your CG model.
(I don't work in CG, but I've dabbled a bunch and had an aborted attempt at a computer animation degree once. Feel free to correct me.)
posted by neckro23 at 12:57 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I know there's algorithm development and hardware improvements that enable it to happen, but the details of those are so outside my level of knowledge that it's difficult to judge exactly where the improvements in artistry and technical skill lie.
I think a lot of this is simply the onward march of tech making it so artists don't have to spend so much time "faking" things. For example, lighting a 3D scene used to be a ton of work because CG lights didn't realistically bounce off surfaces (doing it properly took far too long to render), so you had to add a bunch of fiddly little lights to your scene to make it not look as weird. Nowadays your renderer is using some sort of global illumination so you can place your lights in a realistic fashion and it'll work out.
Another point I wanted to make is that CG has revolutionized the use of practical special effects as well. CG can erase puppet wires and stray film crew, change backgrounds, isolate stunt performers, combine different takes, etc. For example, people like to point to Mad Max: Fury Road as a triumph of "real" stunt work, but it still wouldn't have been possible to make that movie thirty years ago without a zillion-dollar budget.
posted by neckro23 at 1:18 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I think a lot of this is simply the onward march of tech making it so artists don't have to spend so much time "faking" things. For example, lighting a 3D scene used to be a ton of work because CG lights didn't realistically bounce off surfaces (doing it properly took far too long to render), so you had to add a bunch of fiddly little lights to your scene to make it not look as weird. Nowadays your renderer is using some sort of global illumination so you can place your lights in a realistic fashion and it'll work out.
Another point I wanted to make is that CG has revolutionized the use of practical special effects as well. CG can erase puppet wires and stray film crew, change backgrounds, isolate stunt performers, combine different takes, etc. For example, people like to point to Mad Max: Fury Road as a triumph of "real" stunt work, but it still wouldn't have been possible to make that movie thirty years ago without a zillion-dollar budget.
posted by neckro23 at 1:18 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I still find it fascinating that the best method we have for building CGI creatures (whether they're realistic like those in this video or Disney cartoon creations) are to start with the skeleton and build outward from there, basically reproducing nature even if the character is going to move in cartoonish, unnatural ways.
Important to note that this is pretty much how artists draw and paint, to varying extents. Pretty much every artist sketches out a basic form and then builds up over that. The goal, if there is one in art, is to get to the point where your initial sketch is just a few lines and all the "fun" detailing is done after that.
It'll be interesting to see if CGI software follows a similar trend. Hell, it might already be there.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:11 PM on January 8, 2017
Important to note that this is pretty much how artists draw and paint, to varying extents. Pretty much every artist sketches out a basic form and then builds up over that. The goal, if there is one in art, is to get to the point where your initial sketch is just a few lines and all the "fun" detailing is done after that.
It'll be interesting to see if CGI software follows a similar trend. Hell, it might already be there.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:11 PM on January 8, 2017
Julia Roberts in Hook famously insisted on the scene where Tinker Bell magically grows to human size and tries to seduce Peter because otherwise she would have spent the whole movie acting alone against a green screen.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:12 PM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:12 PM on January 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Equally famously, Tinker Bell in the original Disney movie lobbied heavily to only act alone and not have to be on set with any of her loathsome co-stars.
posted by hippybear at 8:26 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 8:26 PM on January 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Although it's something of a shame these huge pieces are no longer being made from real things
But we've also been seeing sort of a new minor golden age for practical effects and stuntwork, since now it's cheap and easy to remove the rigging and wires and whatnot from things afterwards, which it feasible to do things in real life and at full scale that wouldn't have been possible before. Like in The Dark Knight when the truck flips ass over teakettle in downtown Chicago, which they did by flipping an 18-wheeler ass over teakettle in downtown Chicago... and then using cgi to remove the piston and exhausted gases.
Or more or less the entire content of Fury Road.
Now I think a lot of effect-heavy movies are pretty boring because so much of it is done in a computer.
I think that's more that a lot of filmmakers don't know what to do with it very well. Some -- Miller, Abrams -- have a pretty good eye for what you should do in real life and what should be cgi and how they can come together into a coherent whole, and Blomkamp has a real gift for shooting mocap/cgi with a mundanity that makes it convincingly real, while other people (Bay) take the same capabilities and create confusing visual mush because mush is all that's in their heads.
The later Marvel movies are boring because they're cynical crap driven by the requirement that all 834 of the characters have their little moments to sell the new toys or so that aficionadoes of $CHARACTER want to show up. You could film Ultron or Civil War in real life with actual superheroes and they'd still be boring because they're written to be boring.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:52 PM on January 8, 2017
But we've also been seeing sort of a new minor golden age for practical effects and stuntwork, since now it's cheap and easy to remove the rigging and wires and whatnot from things afterwards, which it feasible to do things in real life and at full scale that wouldn't have been possible before. Like in The Dark Knight when the truck flips ass over teakettle in downtown Chicago, which they did by flipping an 18-wheeler ass over teakettle in downtown Chicago... and then using cgi to remove the piston and exhausted gases.
Or more or less the entire content of Fury Road.
Now I think a lot of effect-heavy movies are pretty boring because so much of it is done in a computer.
I think that's more that a lot of filmmakers don't know what to do with it very well. Some -- Miller, Abrams -- have a pretty good eye for what you should do in real life and what should be cgi and how they can come together into a coherent whole, and Blomkamp has a real gift for shooting mocap/cgi with a mundanity that makes it convincingly real, while other people (Bay) take the same capabilities and create confusing visual mush because mush is all that's in their heads.
The later Marvel movies are boring because they're cynical crap driven by the requirement that all 834 of the characters have their little moments to sell the new toys or so that aficionadoes of $CHARACTER want to show up. You could film Ultron or Civil War in real life with actual superheroes and they'd still be boring because they're written to be boring.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:52 PM on January 8, 2017
Did they explain the decision to edit out the uprooted tree or horse carcass or whatever else that Wun Wun would have OBVIOUSLY BEEN SWINGING AROUND during that fight? because seriously what the hell, two thirds of that fight was an empty-handed giant being confounded by pointy sticks and just flapping around doing fuck-all
posted by FatherDagon at 2:48 PM on January 10, 2017
posted by FatherDagon at 2:48 PM on January 10, 2017
But he punched a horse! Isn't that enough?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:59 PM on January 10, 2017
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:59 PM on January 10, 2017
« Older Don't believe the height | The Pussyhat Project--knit, crochet, sew for... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I honestly thought the men on horses were actual actors on actual horses who were filmed and then layered in, not whole cloth CGI creations.
This is the sort of CGI that I truly like, stuff that entirely blends in and feels real. I don't need superheroes performing fantastical CGI deeds. I need CGI that lets battles happen without injuring any animals or humans.
posted by hippybear at 8:46 AM on January 8, 2017 [13 favorites]