Do you love that studios are finally using no CGI in epic action scenes?
May 2, 2024 1:23 AM Subscribe
In this episode we'll look at how production notes flat out lie about the making of a film, we'll look at two different sides of Gran Turismo, and we'll check out the history of CGI and why it fell from grace. We'll bust some common misconceptions about CGI, and we'll look at the most notorious "no CGI" project that I know of. the 4th and final episode of "NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI
Episode 3
Episode 2 [Previously]
Episode 1 [Previously]
Episode 3
Episode 2 [Previously]
Episode 1 [Previously]
I grew up on Saturday afternoon monster movies and Fangoria magazine. I loved the artistry of the models and sculptures but for all the work and talent that went into them, they were never “right” on screen. Foam never really moved like flesh, things like fins wiggled and in a nearly all cases the puppetry wasn’t that great…or the puppet had some really limited, clunky controls. Even throwing tons of money at it didn’t help when it came to characters. Frank Oz's Yoda wasn’t “believable” in a screen full of human actors. The CGI Davey Jones tentacle-beard character was the first thing that truly blew my socks off.
posted by brachiopod at 5:48 AM on May 2 [4 favorites]
posted by brachiopod at 5:48 AM on May 2 [4 favorites]
It's like the natural/no make up face, which is achieved by masterfully applying a lot of makeup.
posted by kimberussell at 5:56 AM on May 2 [23 favorites]
posted by kimberussell at 5:56 AM on May 2 [23 favorites]
Oh thanks for the tip off! This series has been really great so far.
posted by subdee at 6:11 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]
posted by subdee at 6:11 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]
I knew Peter Faulk was not real when in Wings of Desire 2: Last Angels he just seemed reconstructed.
He has a few good points. There is a big push to no code or low code solutions as if we aren’t already doing that. I would consider Typescript low code next to to C already but there becomes a point where you get the uncanny valley effect like Wix generating obviously “fake” websites. The Spielberg example was perfect when you didn’t even notice it was CGI. The thing about any technology really is that when it works well you don’t notice it.
CGI is still expensive so it isn’t a cost cutting measure. I didn’t see or missed anything about that. It is just that VFX artists don’t have the luxury to spend 4 years making the next GTA game for a superhero movie.
For a lot of reasons we are in a technical trough all around. Look at Metafilter it runs on an aging code base and used to go down all the time. Moving it to the cloud even it is still just a VM and not a scalable multi region Kubernetes instance solved all that. Add a bunch of of CGI and you get the same thing (to be fair Metafilter wasn’t done lazy it was just how sites were built at the time).
Plus you have cultural factors. Annie Hall wouldn’t play well in China or other big markets. Add CGI to a movie you remove a lot of cultural nuance and can literally make billions more. Really hard to finance even a cheap movie like Annie Hall which may not even make back the budget than it is to add a lazy plot with a talking raccoon that a 14 year old anywhere can enjoy.
In any case CGI isn’t the problem technology just won’t get you out of good film making or any hard problem. Kind of like the tidal wave problems where we begin to understand the impacts of other planets and not just the moon but the equations were so hard they could only effectively be done with computers. You still had to know what you wanted to solve, you just didn’t punch in to a chat bot “when will the next low tide be in Sydney?” … it only works now because someone knew the problem.
posted by geoff. at 6:15 AM on May 2 [3 favorites]
He has a few good points. There is a big push to no code or low code solutions as if we aren’t already doing that. I would consider Typescript low code next to to C already but there becomes a point where you get the uncanny valley effect like Wix generating obviously “fake” websites. The Spielberg example was perfect when you didn’t even notice it was CGI. The thing about any technology really is that when it works well you don’t notice it.
CGI is still expensive so it isn’t a cost cutting measure. I didn’t see or missed anything about that. It is just that VFX artists don’t have the luxury to spend 4 years making the next GTA game for a superhero movie.
For a lot of reasons we are in a technical trough all around. Look at Metafilter it runs on an aging code base and used to go down all the time. Moving it to the cloud even it is still just a VM and not a scalable multi region Kubernetes instance solved all that. Add a bunch of of CGI and you get the same thing (to be fair Metafilter wasn’t done lazy it was just how sites were built at the time).
Plus you have cultural factors. Annie Hall wouldn’t play well in China or other big markets. Add CGI to a movie you remove a lot of cultural nuance and can literally make billions more. Really hard to finance even a cheap movie like Annie Hall which may not even make back the budget than it is to add a lazy plot with a talking raccoon that a 14 year old anywhere can enjoy.
In any case CGI isn’t the problem technology just won’t get you out of good film making or any hard problem. Kind of like the tidal wave problems where we begin to understand the impacts of other planets and not just the moon but the equations were so hard they could only effectively be done with computers. You still had to know what you wanted to solve, you just didn’t punch in to a chat bot “when will the next low tide be in Sydney?” … it only works now because someone knew the problem.
posted by geoff. at 6:15 AM on May 2 [3 favorites]
The director of Hellboy and the Crooked Man (a movie that's apparently due out this year that I didn't even know was in production) is pushing back after accusations that they used generative AI to do the villain. According to him and Mike Mignola, they "didn't even use CGI, it's all practical." I assume this is heavy makeup with some invisible CGI, but still heartening that there's a notion of blending technologies and techniques (like Peter Jackson did with the "bigature" concept in LOTR) instead of "fuck it, we'll CGI it in post" or just do what Marvel does, pre-vising literally every fight scene, hamstringing directors up front.
posted by KrampusQuick at 6:45 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]
posted by KrampusQuick at 6:45 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]
Kind of like the tidal wave problems where we begin to understand the impacts of other planets and not just the moon but the equations were so hard they could only effectively be done with computers
What? No. Tidal forces vary with the cube of distance. The total tidal forces of every other body come to less than 1/10000th of the Sun and the Moon. (The sun and the moon's contribution are on the same order of magnitude; tidal effects are (amusingly to me) also proportional to steradian volume and density, and the Sun is about half as dense as the moon and has near identical visual area).
Tides are hard because they are driven by Tidal forces; the world is a giant extremely strangely shaped shallow bath tub on a rocking machine powered by the solar and lunar tides. The water sloshes around in strange patterns, with energy input by the overall rocking.
If you look at tidal depth over time, you see these circular "sloshing" effects that are powered by being in harmony with the moon and other nearby sloshing.
Venusian effect on tides is like a butterfly's effect on a hurricane.
posted by NotAYakk at 7:29 AM on May 2 [4 favorites]
What? No. Tidal forces vary with the cube of distance. The total tidal forces of every other body come to less than 1/10000th of the Sun and the Moon. (The sun and the moon's contribution are on the same order of magnitude; tidal effects are (amusingly to me) also proportional to steradian volume and density, and the Sun is about half as dense as the moon and has near identical visual area).
Tides are hard because they are driven by Tidal forces; the world is a giant extremely strangely shaped shallow bath tub on a rocking machine powered by the solar and lunar tides. The water sloshes around in strange patterns, with energy input by the overall rocking.
If you look at tidal depth over time, you see these circular "sloshing" effects that are powered by being in harmony with the moon and other nearby sloshing.
Venusian effect on tides is like a butterfly's effect on a hurricane.
posted by NotAYakk at 7:29 AM on May 2 [4 favorites]
Yes, there's a lot to be said for practical effects, but they do have their limitations; it's silly to pretend otherwise. (I'm honestly not sure whether actors find it harder to act against foam or against a tennis ball suspended against a green screen, though.)
lazy plot with a talking raccoon that a 14 year old anywhere can enjoy
You leave Rocket out of this!!! (Also, 14 is barely old enough to see the last GotG movie, I'm serious.)
posted by praemunire at 7:34 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
lazy plot with a talking raccoon that a 14 year old anywhere can enjoy
You leave Rocket out of this!!! (Also, 14 is barely old enough to see the last GotG movie, I'm serious.)
posted by praemunire at 7:34 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
kimberussell: It's like the natural/no make up face, which is achieved by masterfully applying a lot of makeup.
"You are such a natural beauty"... My jawline cost $10,000, okay? (or in text form, if you don't want to Tiktok today.)
There's an interesting parallel there, isn't there? Older plastic surgery and older CGI both aimed for (or were only capable of?) "look at this amazing expensive thing we've done!", while the trend now, like you say, is the "no makeup/no CGI" look.
Am I someone who can tell the difference in either case? I doubt it. I could sit through all the makeup tutorials and VFX tutorials I'd want to, but I probably still couldn't tell you which part of your face has naturalistic makeup on or which part of Tom Cruise's fighter jet is real.
posted by clawsoon at 7:40 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
"You are such a natural beauty"... My jawline cost $10,000, okay? (or in text form, if you don't want to Tiktok today.)
There's an interesting parallel there, isn't there? Older plastic surgery and older CGI both aimed for (or were only capable of?) "look at this amazing expensive thing we've done!", while the trend now, like you say, is the "no makeup/no CGI" look.
Am I someone who can tell the difference in either case? I doubt it. I could sit through all the makeup tutorials and VFX tutorials I'd want to, but I probably still couldn't tell you which part of your face has naturalistic makeup on or which part of Tom Cruise's fighter jet is real.
posted by clawsoon at 7:40 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
Hollywood's job is making people cheer, more or less, and it turns out that saying "No CGI on the jets" makes people cheer, so they just do that. They lie like a rug because that's what they have always done. The real lesson that I'm hoping to keep clearly in my mind isn't about SFX/CGI, it's that the behind-the-scenes, inside-scoop tales and anecdotes that come from anything close to Hollywood's orbit have always been about the payload of warm feelings and celebrity burnishing, and have never had any particular connection to facts.
The newish practice of creating virtual sets and backgrounds with LED panels will make it easier than ever for directors to say "We did it all in-camera" with a straight face ,when what they mean is "Almost everything on the screen is CGI."
posted by Western Infidels at 8:11 AM on May 2 [5 favorites]
The newish practice of creating virtual sets and backgrounds with LED panels will make it easier than ever for directors to say "We did it all in-camera" with a straight face ,when what they mean is "Almost everything on the screen is CGI."
posted by Western Infidels at 8:11 AM on May 2 [5 favorites]
There was a similar sort of thing in TV animation back in the 80s and 90s when many studios were farming the animation, cel painting and camera work out to Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines. The credits would list every single one of the North American studio personnel and give the giant overseas studios a single “additional services” credit. If you read the local business or entertainment section of the paper, it was being sold as all still done in house “old-school” and the overseas work (when mentioned) was described as mindless drudgery.
posted by brachiopod at 8:39 AM on May 2 [4 favorites]
posted by brachiopod at 8:39 AM on May 2 [4 favorites]
just do what Marvel does, pre-vising literally every fight scene, hamstringing directors up frontDo you think that directors have no input into previsualization?
posted by MagnificentVacuum at 11:18 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]
I kinda hate that the response is NO YOU DON'T KNOW! Where the point should be, OH! WE'RE MKAING AI, BETTER! The innate horror of AI is that it edges out humans based on regularity...eugenics, et al. I look forward to the world where expressing individuality punishes you because of automation. Oh...nevermind. Here we are.
posted by es_de_bah at 2:35 PM on May 2 [1 favorite]
posted by es_de_bah at 2:35 PM on May 2 [1 favorite]
MagnificentVacuum, it sounds like it really depends on the director. James Gunn oversaw the pre-viz of all the Guardians movies, which was based on his ideas and storyboards... But he might be more the exception than the rule. Some directors were brought onto their movies after a lot of the pre-viz was already underway, and didn't seem to have a ton of oversight of the action. That's not exclusive to the MCU, or Studio-driven projects... Lucas let ILM have pretty much total control with planning the chaotic battle at the end of the Clone Wars, for insurance. But the MCU is extremely studio and creator driven, for better and worse. Some of the directors seem to be playing a role that's more akin to what's the norm for TV episodes, where the producers and writers are usually the driving creative force, and the directors are more constrained.
posted by Green Winnebago at 1:45 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]
posted by Green Winnebago at 1:45 AM on May 4 [1 favorite]
« Older Avalanche! | UK Bookshop opens at 5am for local writers Newer »
As the host of the series says, "no CGI" and "all practical" usually means "really, really good CGI". And why shouldn't we acknowledge the hard work and high level of skill of the artists who make really, really good CGI?
posted by clawsoon at 5:00 AM on May 2 [6 favorites]