CGI Is Starting to Suck

Yes, actually, we can./ Oh well. Practical effects (can) take more time to do but the pay off is better and more satisfying. I haven't heard much satisfaction out of film goers lately just resignation, shoulder shrugging and mehs regardless of box office intake. Above all else there's no reason for CG blood. That's the worst and laziest.

 

I have to say, some of the Japanese productions dubbed to English were hilarious because of the bad effects and bad dubbing. Ultraman was a huge favorite of my junior high friends and myself in the late 1960s, as were the Godzilla movies. Just awful shows beyond belief... but a lot of fun in their own way, to a point. The Japanese effects movies of that era kind of embraced the cheesiness, and I think audiences accepted that... at least for awhile.

No, sometimes CG blood is done for safety reasons, and also because if you wanted an actual physical blood spray to hit only a certain part of the frame, you'd be there all day doing 97 takes trying to do it for real. And after every take, you'd have to wipe the set down, change the actors' costumes, and try again. But if it's CGI blood, you just shoot a clean plate and then have very, very talented VFX artists drop in the blood later under highly controlled circumstances.

The first time I ever saw CGI blood done was in Inglorius Basterds (and there were undoubtedly earlier films). Most of the gunfire, ricochets, bullet hits, and facial blood wounds were all CG and I thought they were 100% convincing. All of the blood spray in one major scene of Gone Girl was done with CGI as well. Gone Girl is a good example of a contemporary film with over 2000 VFX shots, but you can't see them because they're done so well. But in that case, director David Fincher worked in VFX for almost ten years before he got into filmmaking, so he really, really knows that world well.

I watched Gone Girl and was looking for the VFX, and I only caught maybe a couple of dozen of them at most. I don't like the film very much, but technically it's brilliant, brilliant work. Extremely good lighting, pin-perfect editing, great composition, and precise effects work that never jumps out at you.

 

No, because old school champs of practical effects like Peter Jackson and James Cameron have sunk so much money into their CG effect depts that they HAVE TO keep up this charade. Practical effects is having a resurgence in indie films. But as to the mainstream, forget it the only films left in that arena is Marvel and DC and they're not going practical ever.

 

Unless it's coming from a CG creature. How else do you get blood coming out of something that isn't there for "real" blood to work?

 

Actually, they are. A surprising amount of the physical production in those films involves real breaking glass, dust, explosions, dozens and dozens of real stunt people, and a large number of cars that are actually wrecked.

I see the opposite happening in indie films (and I've worked on 20 in the last 5-6 years): they're putting more and more CGI in there to save money, sometimes for scenes that should have been shot on location but they either added the shot at the last minute, or just couldn't get the actors together in that moment. And in fairness, some of the shots are impossible to do in real life, like a swarm of insects jumping on an actor or somebody's head getting cut off, that kind of thing.

 

All Japanese cartoons are dubbed. That's how they do it. They match just as well in English as they do in Japanese.

 

There actually are two really good reasons for CG blood. 1. No rigging so no down time on set. 2. It can be dialed back if the MPAA has an issue with it.

 

Check out what's going on in Canada. Practical Effect revival. Steven Kostanski of Astron-6 asked for 50K for the effects alone on his new project. He got over 80.

I'll have to take your word about the superhero flicks. I bowed out completely after a previously dead Professor X appeared in the latest X-men film without so much as a throw away line of dialogue to explain his inclusion and Nolan's last Batman flick just flat out shrugged off all the logic the previous two worked so hard to incorporate.

 

That's the filmmakers' perspective. I'm in the audience. Those aren't "really good reasons" those are conveniences. Certainly not effective.

By your logic no down time/reset is a great excuse for lack of lighting. Check out David Lynch's Inland Empire and tell me how well that worked. (He was soooo in love with expediency of eschewing lighting when digital came out. However he's "fallen back in love with film" (and by default, lighting) for the new Twin Peaks, so yeah, making the effort is the better option.)

 

This is a staple of practical effects.

But, yes, there are a few downright impossible things to do practically...but not many when you factor in miniature use, etc. I can say no-one worth their salt (in indie horror/cult at least) is relying heavily on CG right now. And if they are they're getting themselves a real bad rap in the current climate. Heck, although not really a fan, the team behind Frankenstein Created Bikers (or whatever it's called) is even shooting on film!

 

No they are actually *really good reasons.* It's not about "convenience." It's often about getting your movie in the can on budget. It affects artistic choices. It has nothing to do with "effort." When there is a concern about MPAA ratings the general rule is dial back the blood and gore. It's an all or nothing proposition with practical effects. There is no "dialing it back in post." It either flies with the MPAA or it gets cut. Then MAYBE it will get reshot. So it is an artistic choice that is affected by a lack of options. With digital blood a director can push the envelope and if the MPAA says too much he can literally "dial it back." No risk of losing the shot completely. That also affects artsistic choices. Likewise back in the day I have been involved in shows where blood gags were cut on the day because they would not be able to finish the day's work due to the time involved in rigging, clean up (no trivial matter) and re-rigging for take two. It has nothing to do with "convenience" or "effort."

Seriously, come work a 20 hour day on an FX heavy show and then let's talk about "convenience" and "effort." The comparison with rigging light is way off the mark.

 

I'm glad you know so much about what I do. (and, no it isn't. It's an apt comparison. cutting corners one way or the other affects the final product.)
And speaking of budgets...yeah...exactly: budget and pre-production...that all goes a long way. Say whatever you want about the hardships of production because the what matters is the final product. These are some of the weakest arguments I've ever heard if we're talking about effectiveness and quality. I'll toss that in there with forgoing tri-pods and crap lighting for convenience and budget. And, honestly it's about time producers hear this kind of stuff so they do something about budgeting and timing. An unsatisfied audience can hurt your bottom line just as well. I feel for the outside forces that can tamper with a vision but my arguments are more to producers than the crew working on a long shoot. But again, when speaking as a viewer I don't care. It's easier to use CG stuntman too, but it's not effective. ultimately I don't think the risk of turing off potential viewers with CG blood is worth the time or worries about a cut shot. In fact, how much money is made of off "unrated" cuts that re-isnert 2 extra seconds of blood?

I've noticed so many crew members are completely ignorant of what the audience wants. Not sure what the point of that is. Crew members are often so insular that it boggles my mind. I like keeping an eye on both sides.

Anyway, like I say go take a peep at what the Canadians are doing these days and see why someone who released a movie that cost 1K to make total is getting 80K for the effects alone on his next film 3 years later.

EDIT: And please don't tell me CG folks can't have just as long a work day.

EDIT 2: Sure. Everything you said is true and can happen. So perhaps my statement of "never" is stretching a bit. But I think you're splitting hairs, as snide as I was it is easy to see I was taking aim and the the growing trend of laziness of which CG blood, weak lighting, lack of tripods and fixing it post being the norm due to poor planning, stingy producers, and, yes, laziness. If you're gonna do something in the arena of heavy FX then you know what you're in for and what expectations are. Otherwise get all Mad Max 1 about it and have the gore and violence implied and off screen. CG blood in zombie films don't cut it.

 

Well I actually do know a bit about what **I** do.

Nonsense. It's not about "cutting corners." It's about managing resources and making decisions that actually get the job done.

Not about "hardships." It's about the realities of film making.

Really? So the argument that it's often a choice between getting the day's work or not getting the day's work, between having a shot make it into the film and not make it into the film, that, in your opinion, is one of the weakest arguments you have ever heard? Please explain the logic behind that. How is it more effective film making to not shoot the coverage you need to better edit the scene? How is it more effective film making to shoot a scene only to have it cut so the MPAA gives it the needed rating? Please please explain how that is more effective and raises the quality of a film.

Please, toss in all the irrelevant comments you like. But at the end please explain how losing shots is actually higher quality more effective film making.

all I can say to that is . Sorry but such a comment is beyond ridiculous.

Sorry but it is an absurdly broad assertion. Producers, like all humans, vary in ability from brilliant to incompetent. Seriously, do you think it's news to filmmakers that their bottom line is affected by audience satisfaction? Look, wwe fail miserably all the time at trying to make good films. The audience gets to judge the product. But I can't imagine how anyone with a working knowledge of film production can make the kind of assertions you are making about things like blood rigging. Let me put a little perspective on this particular subject. When blood rigging actually happens guys like me make money. I have a vested interest in using practical effects. But as a responsible film worker there comes a point where I have to concede that CGI is often the **better** choice for reasons I have already explained. If I cost a director needed coverage by absorbing his day with rigging and cleaning blood gags we both failed to make an effective choice on technique. That has nothing to do with some producer not knowing how to budget or schedule. It has to do with directors and artisans knowing all the dynamics of the choice in front of them and choosing for the better of the production.

Sorry but this is just another ridiculously overly broad assertion. Most of the time it is easier to use real stunt men. that is one of the reasons we still use them most of the time. Sometimes it's stunt men just doing plain old practical stunts. Sometimes it's stunt men with digital augmentation of the scene, some times it's stuntmen with digital replacement and some times it's all CG. and choices are based on many different factors. And sometimes the CG is so effective you had no idea it was even used.

I can guarantee you that you have seen CG blood and didn't even know it. How much money is made off of unrated cuts? really? None if they don't get the initial release which has to be rated by the MPAA.

really? you have noticed that? Which crew members?

With all due respect to my Canadian film making friends, I really don't need to look at what any low budget Canadian film is doing at the moment. Every film is it's own unique project with it's own unique dynamics. You really need to know a lot more about the film making process to have any kind of meaningful opinion about it. Feel free to judge the final product. that is for the audience to do. But you are in way over your head in any discussion about the dynamics of choices made on a film set.

Did I comment at all about the work day of a CGI artist? No I did not.

I am not splitting hairs at all. I am speaking of 30+ years of experience on film sets as someone who actually does blood rigging when it is called for. I did it before CGI existed and have done it through the development of digital techniques for blood in post. Hate to argue from authority on this one but I gonna. Your comments about laziness are out of pure ignorance when it comes to practical film making.

 

Your comments about laziness are out of pure ignorance when it comes to practical film making.[/QUOTE]
Bull. Crap.

Everything you're talking about is referring to the convenience and new expectancies of filmmaking in present day. First and foremost I am technically correct when I say there's no reason to use CG blood. All you're discussing is about budget and time and possible political problems from the ratings system. Using CG to negate these potential problems are out of convenience. It may be prudent but it doesn't necessarily serve the final product.

Secondly, of course you'd turn your nose up to indies. And that's my point. You "pros" have so much distance between a good product and what the audience wants (and sometimes what's possible) It just gets ridiculous.

And thirdly if you understood context then you'd realize I was talking from an indie perspective. I admittedly don't know what the pros in mainstream are doing anymore. Guess why. Because I stopped watching, because I lost interest, because the work being done/decisions being made weren't effective to me. Pros know what to do in mainstream filmmaking according mainstream rules and that's fine. Doesn't make it better.

Fourth, there is plenty of CG blood mixed in with practical. That's a given. But telling me I can't tell the difference between the two is more bull. There may be some indistinguishable CG blood out there but it's a rare occasion and I'm hearing or seeing the praises of these magicians. Certainly not exclusive use of CG blood.

Whatever your "war stories" or experiences are, you got me beat by sheer numbers. But those numbers can make you fossilized. And don't expect me, especially as viewer, to tell you that CG blood is A.) effective on a regular basis (as of 2015), and B.) used because other than convenience, it may be practical in today's environment, I'm not arguing that, but it's still mostly a matter of convenience. You're the first I've heard or seen say otherwise.

Finally, don't make me laugh about the discrepancy between crew members and their professional bubbles and the finished product that reachers viewers. THAT MUCH I am VERY familiar with. Pure snobbery and sometimes ignorance. It is possible for pros and veterans to be ignorant.

You keep talking about my broad assertions, well in terms of viewing experiences I'd like for you to give some examples of when CG use has the same impact of practical effects or stunts. Even anecdotally.

You haven't even acknowledged that using CG blood CAN be used to cut corners. You've never been on a show like that? In all your 30 years? Nothing of what I said rings a bell in terms of lazy decision making? Then you have a stellar track record of co-workers. And for the record I'm not calling crew members lazy, so stop being butthurt. I'm calling certain decisions made by producers/directors lazy. And lack of tripods and CG blood are of the two main ones I've known over the last 14 years. Practical effects realization is all about the pre-production period. )

All you're basically saying is:

1. You have 30 years on the job. (OK, got it.)
2.Using CG allows filmmakers to scale back effects without losing shots. (Well, perhaps.But there's plenty of alt-cuts of films I've seen that have scaled back gore in practical effects movies without losing entire scenes. But even so this still goes under convenience/practicality.) So maybe you got a shot in that you wouldn't have otherwise, what's the point if it doesn't resonate? This may be too philosophical and naive but in wider terms I am arguing for a "less is more" approach and a "more quality, less quantity". But that's a business argument.
3. Quicker set up times (again, convenience).
4. You're too above the indie scene to look at what's going on otherwise. (Spare me the comparisons to shooting in mom's backyard with a camcorder. There are real contenders for great films in the indie world. And we're using practical effects as much as possible. )

Budgets, time, returns are all mandates made according to whatever producers want/expect. There's all kinds of crazy things that have gone on in film that were done because CG wasn't available at the time. So don't tell me CG HAS to be used. It IS used in accordance with new expectations of budget and turnaround time for products. And also the audience by and large doesn't like it. You don't need 30 years on the job to know that.

Having said all that, I'm not dismissing your work or intent and I surely am not pitting my experiences on a myriad of issues in the business to yours (or Vids). But I am arguing this point.

Non-sequiter: if you're a practical FX guy why aren't you looking into the rising indie scene? If the answer is money no need to answer but I am curious.

 

No, you are wrong. Completely wrong. Last blood gag I did just a few weeks ago is a perfect example. The director, after we were into a scene that had a great deal of improvisation, decided *on the spot* he wanted an actress's nose to start bleeding in a single shot. The actress had tiny nostrils. The normal way to rig a gag like that is cut tips off of baby bottle nipples, fill them with blood, place them in the nostril and have them blow. It's tricky, hard to control and really unpleasant for the actor. But it works. Not this time though. The actress could not possibly fit a baby bottle nipple end in her nostril that had enough blood to make the gag work. So I tried it with the cut off tip of a vinyl glove. Being more flexible I could make it fit. But it didn't work. There is this thing called gravity. It was getting in the way. Her body position made it impossible to place the little make-shift blood bag in her nose and secure it. It was 3:00 AM and we still had a lot to do before the sun came up. That's what we call a hard out in the business. We gave it two tries and it failed both times. IMO there was no practical way to make this happen. So we shot the continuation with dressed blood and with no dressed blood so the director has the option of doing a digital bleed. This isn't some petty quibble about budget and time. This is film making reality. Sooooo should we have lost the rest of the day trying to make a gag work that obviously was not going to work? Was I lazy for not anticipating an improvised scene might call for a $100,000 practical effect using a mechanical puppet head of an actress that was cast the day before we started shooting just in case the director might want to see a nose start bleeding in a shot? That director HATES digital blood gags. But he will likely use one in that shot. It is the only way we could do that under the circumstances. IT_HAS_NOTHING_TO_DO_WITH_CONVENIENCE. Before digital blood effects we would have gone with the dressed blood and the director would not have the option to get the actual shot he wanted.

WTF? I love how you act as if time and budget are trivial issues in film making. That is reality! Everything has to work with the time and the budget. It has to or we don't have any film. But you are still wrong. It isn't *just* about time and budget. It's also about the complex dynamics of decision making on a set. And the problem hanging over any director's head when it comes to the MPAA is not some trivial "political" problem. It is the reality that hangs over their choices.

No, they are not out of convenience. They are often out of necessity.

"Of course I'd turn my nose up at Indies?" Yeah right, I turn my nose up at them every time I work on them for a fraction of my usual rate. Sometimes at an actual monetary loss.

No, you are not talking from an indie filmmaker perspective. Let's keep it real. You are talking from a fanboy perspective that is completely free of any working knowledge of how films are actually made. As someone who has been involved with several indie films from the ground up I can assure you that you are not talking from an "indie" filmmaker perspective. I really can't go on dissecting the rest of your nonsense. My boots just aren't high enough to wade through crap that runs that deep.

Keep on enjoying indie films. They need all the support they can get. But do yourself a favor and get some sort of education on the film making process before commenting on it. You may as well be saying babies come from storks. You are that far off on the subject of actual film making.

 

Whatever you say. You're farther removed from the scene than know. Keep it mainstream, bud.

And it doesn't change the bottom line that audience don't like it.

 

? There were all sorts of movies with insects and other critters (like the rats in WILLLARD, 1971) jumping on people -- and also many "decapitations". Long before CGI, movie magic had "achieved the seemingly impossible"...

 

@ Scott Wheeler:

So your director's *on the spot* decision has nothing to do with the lack of foresight/pre production I discussed earlier?

Anyway,

I admit to being green as can be but I also admit to having my name on a few professional releases, the first one as camera operator no less and I'm damn proud. I also admit the first time I was in a post session (for sound) that the pros threw my ideas out the window because "It wouldn't work." But since I was paying for the session they had to take a stab anyway. Guess how my suggestions turned out? That doesn't negate their experience but it doesn't make my naivete completely useless either.

I also implore anyone interested to look into the Canadian movement like I mentioned and make your own decisions about this discussions because, yes it's indie and needs all the help it can get. But we also take the time to make things that count and with planning and resources it can be done.

Take a look at releases from Shout Factory and Raven Banner to see what I'm talking about. The mighty Scott Wheeler can make me look like an ass for lack of experience (or even correct jargon) but he can't dismiss the quality being made from people sticking to their guns about practical effects or that I'm a part of it and will be more so as time goes on.

I'll make sure that at least one gets dedicated to you, Wheeler.

 

The bird in Jurassic World was a clear example of using CGI where it wasn't needed. The bird added nothing to the film...other than sending the message that nothing in the film was going to be realistic.

 

I think this thread needs some CGI blood?

 

Dude. there's this word "impovisation." Look it up.

Make sure it's the one that has every shot planned well in advance with no decision making being done on set.

I can't make you look like an ass. But I can point it out when you are doing it yourself.

But hey, jump in with both feet into the indie film world and then get back to me about how time and budget are merely nothing but "convenient" excuses for "lazy" filmmakers.

 

I just love that you think you actually know anything about me. "the scene" Do tell us about "the scene."

Really? You mean the audience that just dropped 1.5 billion on Jurassic World? You clearly fail to speak in any meaningful way about what the "audience" wants.

The "bottom line" is one of the biggest and saddest realities that frustrates real filmmakers whose sole desire is to make quality films. The "bottom line" is the reason most indie films never get made. (you might learn a thing or two about that if indie film making is your thing)

I really do wish that we could ignore the bottom line and the audience and just follow our muses and make these wonderful works of art that represent our visions as film makers. I wish we could make movies of artistic merit with no concern for time or budget. Just take all the time and money we need to do every little thing the best way possible and have every move planned months in advance. And if we come up with an idea at the last minute that we love, we can just shut down production and take all the time and spend all the money we need to make that idea a reality that is carefully planned with no compromise. Then start right back up where we left off.

I also really wish for peace on earth and perfect weather every day and chocolate that makes me lose weight and grow younger.

 

We have different ideas of decapitations. When somebody is in mid-sentence speaking to you and then their head gets cuts off and blood spurts directly into the camera, let me know when we can do that as a live special effect.

I must not work with anybody worth their salt. They're all relying on a lot of VFX. The current film I'm wrapping has 200 shots in the entire film... but that's 200 out of maybe 2500. A lot of them are "invisible" effects, like erasing lighting stands, covering up boom shadows, sky replacement (adding clouds and blu sky instead of dreary gray), stuff like that. But we also have a lotta CG cockroaches. Good cockroach wranglers are hard to find, especially when you're dealing with a couple of thousands of them.

 

I'm sure they would have found a way. They probably even did, in some of the hundreds of thousands horror films out there from some country or another. Probably back to a mechanical or prop head after a cutaway shot or something. Look at the effects in Carpenter's THE THING (1982).

Speaking of blood spattering, I just watched the new movie SOUL/lESS, and when the sickly Ben Kingsley coughs up blood and spits it onto a computer screen, there was some very unconvincing CGI Blood sprayed close-up onto the computer screen. This is an example of when filmmakers could just have used actual real liquid and "spit it at the screen".

I can appreciate the trouble a filmmaker must have to endure for such a shot with thousands of cockroaches. But me speaking as a filmgoer, I am completely unimpressed with streams of cartoony CGI bugs, and am much more "wowed" by using real physical effects. For example, I'm sure Steven Spielberg and his cast and crew would have much preferred to utilize a CGI shark during the making of JAWS, and not ever have to endure endless hours or days waiting around for a mechanical shark to work, while stuck on the ocean getting sea sick (just CGI in the ocean and whatever else -- even the boat!); but from MY theater seat, I am far more in awe of all they were able to achieve through the hardships of physically enduring it all.

Still, there was a time where the work would be done in finding cockroaches, and yes - wrangling them up. There are plenty of "swarms of bugs movies" from out of the past -- and also rats -- The Birds --- and even worms (SQUIRM, 1976) ! I really do think there is a faux feeling today of "- but how could we ever do this without CGI?".

One other cool example of ingenuity in using physical effects that immediately came to mind is in WESTWORLD (1973), where robot Yul Brynner is hit in the face with acid and his skin begins to sizzle and smoke. They had to actually dissolves Alka-Seltzer and mix it in with the makeup on Yul's face, so that when water came into contact with it, it would start to sizzle. Then they pumped smoke through a tube. When they did the take, Brynner had to hold his breath for a long time as the smoke was in his face -- and after director Crichton finally yelled "CUT!", Yul exploded into a coughing attack. This is the kind of thing that makes me -- the movie fan -- so much more enthralled with movies, even though I can appreciate the cast and crew's frustrations and hardships. (*Ironically, I believe WESTWORLD was the first film to utilize computer graphics -- but only as a computerized POV from the robot's world!).