A step back from CGI to physical effects

Compa_Mighty

Compa_Mighty

Tol Eressea
Hello all! IGN posted an interesting interview with, I quote, "FX Legend Howard Berger", the man in charge Makeup and creatures in Prince Caspian. http://movies.ign.com/articles/877/877057p1.html

I did not know the guy, but I googled him, he has an Oscar and appears to work for the Sony VFX house, taking into account his filmography. (I could not verify that last bit) http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Howard_Berger/1125586

Narnia's VFX have been done by all three powerhouses: ILM, Weta, and Sony's, whose name I cannot recall.

What struck me as an important thing to post here was one of his answers:

IGN: Has there been a shift back from CGI to non-digital effects in Hollywood in recent times?

HB: There has definitely, but I think there's also a good combination, I think there are a lot of directors who are using both, you know? I mean you're foolish not to have practical effects on set - Adam loved to have things on set, he really does. I was really surprised as he comes from a digital background, I thought when I was hired I'd have to do a lot of stand stuff which was cool, but it ended up being so much more.

It's the same with John Favreau's Iron Man , I went to his studio and the stuff is spectacular, I think he's someone who really understands the value of these effects. There was a period though, where you had directors who were very uninformed, and they would say 'Well I want state of the art stuff done on a computer' and I would be like 'you don't need that! It really should be practical...' and I would think 'what a fool!' There was one director like that and he came and redid all our stuff and I came in and was like 'all of that is garbage.'
Click to expand...

Reminded me of what Del Toro has been saying lately. It seems he is not the only one combining real effects with CGI.
 
in the art areana, not just film - A tendancy to keep working with practical skills.
In one artistic field I work in there is quite a division between computer generated works and handmade practical works - whilst both have their benefits and challenges, it is usually the blending of the two which brings a new dimension to much of what is being created.
For film, I am not a fan of just practical when it is evident that it is a model - or where special FX could have been used to add a certain realistic perspective - or can manipulate something to be percieved as real or 'living'. Backgrounds are another area.

GdT had talked about this in relation to his approach with the Hobbit - Smaug especially - so we may be treated to quite an array of mediums which can translate thestory both using practical and CGI to its best advantage.

In Pans Labyrinth I was quite taken with the toad in the tree with the Golden key - yet there was something about it which did not seem as 'real' to me as I would have liked ... it may have been the blink of the eyes, or some other movement which caught my attention as not being 'natural to the toad' ... and it is that fine line which makes or breaks a character like the toad to being realistic to being exactly what it is - a prop with CGI.

I feel safe in saying, Im sure I wont notice anything like this with the Hobbit though - not after the LOTR and the work that they did on those - although not perfection (considering the amount of shots they had to do in the time they had to do them in) I think many things will be ironed out in relation to this - more technical advancments and attention to detail as well - so in all - yes, using both I think would be beneficial to the films.

Cheers Elven x
 
About the prospect of GDT using CGI to enhance whatever they achieve using animatronics. His mention of an animatronic Smaug sent a Gramma-style geek spasm all over my body [sorry]

I personally feel that the use of animatronics would first and foremost make it easier for the actors to perform their parts. I really really really really really have no idea how Sam could have fought with an imaginary Shelob having no idea of its size or what it looked like, yet portray such intense emotion in that action-heavy scene.

Using the animatronic Treebeard gave a semblance of realism to him that I don't really think CGI could have, not with all those scenes that had Merry and Pippin perched atop his branches. That was one awesome animatronic... even the pics I've seen make me feel like he'd suddenly come alive and go burraroom.

The dead Mumakil was another life-size prop that could have been an animatronic had we seen something tragic like him writhing in pain and breathing his last. I'm all for making death scenes poignant, be they deaths of people or animals. How sad would it be to hear Sam's Oliphaunt poem be recited by one of the hobbits right beside the dying beast? [:(]

Anyway, with The Hobbit, I think Smaug could be a better dragon with the use of animatronics. The flying would obviously be CGI, but the conversation driven scenes could benefit from having a "real" Smaug interact with Bilbo. Also, I'm not sure what GDT meant that Smaug would talk... did he mean we'd actually see his mouth moving? I think the environment aspect mentioned by GDT also had something to do with the fact that Smaug only talks when he's shrouded in darkness, so we don't have to see his snout articulate English words, and hence the design doesn't depend on it. For one, the animatronic could be used to actually have real fumes spout out of Smaug's mouth and nostrils, enhanced to some intense red and orange coloured fume curling about his snake-like body in the dim fiery light reflected by the many shiny objects there... I think I feel another Gramma-type spasm coming [crazy]
 
I thought a great example of what you are talking about - CGI combined with animatronics - was used for the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. Not for second did I think it looked fake.

Of course, getting a T-Rex to talk would be a whole other challenge. I'll be interested to see how he addresses that challenge.
 
The last one in Two Towers with Mount Doom and Barad-Dur... it must be a second film thing... the fakest scene in the whole Star Wars saga is in the end of Attack of the Clones when the clones are shown in front of Palpatine's balcony.

Anyway, I agree with what you said entirely. I believe this should be quite impressive with all the advances they have now in relation to what they had 10 years ago. Not to mention monetary resources.

I am also not sure if Guillermo meant the jaw would articulate or not. But they could work that out.
 
Three Star Wars movies, three Lord of the Rings movies, and three Matrix movies later... they could do a lot better nowadays!
 
upclose, and its realism is breathtaking. Especially the eyes. When they had that animatronic up and moving, it must have looked incredibly real, and that's bound to be easier than working opposite a creature you have to imagine!
 
Anyway, with The Hobbit, I think Smaug could be a better dragon with the use of animatronics. The flying would obviously be CGI, but the conversation driven scenes could benefit from having a "real" Smaug interact with Bilbo. Also, I'm not sure what GDT meant that Smaug would talk... did he mean we'd actually see his mouth moving? I think the environment aspect mentioned by GDT also had something to do with the fact that Smaug only talks when he's shrouded in darkness, so we don't have to see his snout articulate English words, and hence the design doesn't depend on it. For one, the animatronic could be used to actually have real fumes spout out of Smaug's mouth and nostrils, enhanced to some intense red and orange coloured fume curling about his snake-like body in the dim fiery light reflected by the many shiny objects there... I think I feel another Gramma-type spasm coming [crazy]
Click to expand...


That would actually work very well and could be quite eerie and terrifying. Imagine Smaug shrouded in darkness but just seeing those eyes as he's talking to Bilbo. You could pan the camera over the immensity of Smaug at times or focus on aspects of him but never really see his mouth move. You just hear him. And the eyes themselves could send shivers down your spine as they can offer all the insight to his malice and cunning. That might be a way to do this without seeing the mouth move so it won't be hokey.
 
Imagine watching the Oscars for 2012, and the best actor nominations come up. We see Martin Freeman blush as it cuts from a quick shot of him in the audience with The Hobbit team entourage, to a shot of a clip from The Hobbit. It is the scene where Bilbo talks with Smaug. We see the deliciously animated Smaug, a seamless combination of animatronics and CGI in conversation with Bilbo. The scene has added weight as Freeman was able to truly interact with the creature instead of having to be in a green screen backdrop. Smaug's voice actor whispers the last few lines hauntingly and it cuts away back to the host (hopefully not Jon Stewart again.. maybe Jack Black.. LOL).

"And the winner is..." silence.... "Doug Jones as Smaug in The Hobbit!"

The audience cheers as for the first time an actor behind a mask wins Best Actor!

Had you going didn't I? You thought it was for Martin Freeman? Well, it would be neat to see an oscar go to Smaug not just for SFX, but for the acting. It would be history in the making. I shall return to my childish fanish dreams and leave these boards in peace for the rest of the day now that I have embarassed myself! LOL
 
Well I just realized I had forgotten that I read Doug Jones ended up being dubbed over as the faun in Pan's Labyrinth by Pablo Adán. If Pablo can speak english then I think his rich spanish accented voice would be perfect for adding that class and exotic character to Smaug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top