On visual effects and CGI (1 Viewer)

"So maybe the reason why people seem to think visual effects are ruining movies isn’t really a problem with the visual effects. Maybe it’s a problem with the movies themselves."


This is a really good video piece by the folks at Rocket Jump Film School about the use of CGI in movies.





BTW, can some one tell me how to embed this in the post? I tried to figure it out and did a search, but had no success.

Thanks, Neil.

That was terrific and is exactly the way I feel (though I am typically forgiving of bad films that use too much CGI because I am fascinated with the artistry and craft of effects work of every kind)


And I typically turn off the HTML mode (little button in the top corner of the reply options) in my reply before pasting in the URL - that seems to work for me

I just copy the YT URL, paste it into a reply box and click on "Post."


And the video usually appears instantly in the post.


Thanks for that clip, David!

^^^ subscribed... can't believe I just learned so much in 7.5 minutes!

I think they're addressing a strawman argument, but it was awesome anyway.

While I find the video instructive, I'm not sure I buy its argument. I tend to prefer certain kinds of effects to CGI no matter how well CGI is integrated into an image. I liked the days when you KNEW where the special effects were and could better appreciate them, whether it was the stop-motion in Harryhausen movies, the matte paintings used in so many period films when the set designer needed to add prohibitively expensive background imagery to an existing set, the optical effects whenever anybody beamed up or down from the Starship Enterprise, or the men in rubber suits stomping around miniature sets in Godzilla movies. When such effects weren't there, you could be reasonably certain that what you were seeing was REAL! Nowadays, CGI used in the ways the video describes simply means that you can't trust any image anymore. That, to me, is a huge negative in movies of the last 20 years.

Seriously? Movie images are all manipulated images, pre and post-CGI. No image in a movie can be trusted to necessarily reflect reality. Yourargument is the first time I have seen anyone defend fake looking effects as a good thing in films. I don't see anything inherently good in the fact that a person can tell what was and wasn't VFX in an old movie. I just accept the fact that that was the best they could do given the available technology and budgets.


If stop motion effects of the quality that Harryhausen was limited to were in a film today, I would be completely taken out of the film. A fake looking effect is not the same as knowing an effect is fake.

If I can elaborate by choosing one type of special effect: rear screen projection. In old movies, actors rarely went on location, they were simply filmed in front of projected backgrounds, like this one from Hope and Crosby's ROAD TO MOROCCO (1943):




This extended to scenes of driving like this one from a '60s Bond film, so that Sean Connery wouldn't have to participate in a car chase:





This was standard practice and audiences didn't seem to mind this "artificial" aspect of films that were generally shot in Hollywood studios. No one expected a Hope and Crosby Road movie to be realistic. After WWII, audiences wanted more realism and more and more films shot on location, so that you could see Joseph Cotten and Jennifer Jones ice skating on a frozen pond in the real Central Park in PORTRAIT OF JENNIE (1948) and Joseph Cotten and Joan Fontaine on location in Italy in SEPTEMBER AFFAIR (1950). Lots of urban crime dramas were filmed entirely on location, e.g. KISS OF DEATH, BOOMERANG, NAKED CITY, CALL NORTHSIDE 777 and many others. However the practice of rear screen projection remained common into the '60s, especially in Elvis and Bond movies and Alfred Hitchcock movies. As a film student in the '70s, I saw several Hitchcock films screened for audiences who laughed at the obvious rear screen projection.


I don't mind rear screen projection in certain films, like the Hope and Crosby Road movies, because I don't expect them to be realistic. I also understand that in the 1930s and '40s it wasn't common to leave the studio for certain genres, so even outdoor scenes were routinely shot indoors. When locations were required for westerns and swashbucklers and historical adventures, the crews traveled to familiar California locations so they didn't have to venture too far from the studios.


In the 1970s, we expected realism from films like THE FRENCH CONNECTION and DIRTY HARRY, but we still got occasional rear-screen projection from the Bond films and maybe a few other sci-fi or fantasy genre films. But most films went on location and, in driving scenes, hooked up cameras to cars and drove with the actors in them. This extended even to films that should have been shot in the studio, like the "Road to"-like comedy, SPIES LIKE US, which went on location in Finland for a fanciful story that didn't require realism at all.


Today, rear-screen projection is back, only it's green screen and we never know if they're driving for real or against a fake background. The overwhelming majority of moviegoers don't care, nor am I suggesting they should, but it bothers me. I like to know if what I'm seeing is "real" or not. As a moviegoer, digital just doesn't have the same physiological effect on me as analog and I don't feel as engaged with movies since they went digital. When I see a 35mm print shot in the pre-digital era on the big screen, I feel the difference.

Some Bond films, have on and off rear-screen projection but it doesn't give it creditably. When I can see the performer driving or if it isn't a car fitted to a trailer and actor is looking away from the road its trailer. I like real driving it gives it edge of tension.


Not noticed much rear projection with newer Bond it all seems like practical real driving.


The Spy Who Loved Me, all the inside car shots so much rear projection in the background. So who is really driving the Lotus? If its a slow drive by you can see Roger Moore is driving the car.

I like the rear protection in Airplane!

Don't forget Aliens, rear projection 1986-style


Me, I like all effects to be invisible, CGI, in-camera, post, whatever; I just want the picture to tell me a story, and not take me out of it because of sloppy effects, camerawork or otherwise.

The best effects are those you don't even realize are effects, like much of those in Contact, for example.


CGI is just another tool, use it wisely, like all tools.

Vic Pardo said:

Today, rear-screen projection is back, only it's green screen and we never know if they're driving for real or against a fake background. The overwhelming majority of moviegoers don't care, nor am I suggesting they should, but it bothers me. I like to know if what I'm seeing is "real" or not. As a moviegoer, digital just doesn't have the same physiological effect on me as analog and I don't feel as engaged with movies since they went digital. When I see a 35mm print shot in the pre-digital era on the big screen, I feel the difference.

Click to expand...

None of what you're seeing is real. Sets aren't real. Costumes aren't real. The dialogue isn't real. The effects (practical or digital) aren't real. It's all fabricated to tell a story and manipulate your emotions. Whether you can tell something was a miniature or a digital model is irrelevant and most of the time these days, you really can't tell. It's seamless and that's what filmmakers have been striving for for over 100 years. Effects serve the story. In the case of something like Star Wars or Avatar, they are used for something more - world building. You can't fault a film for using extensive visual effects in order to give you visions of otherworldly and extreme locations, creatures, and environments. Whether it be the invisible effects in films like Master and Commander or Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or the immense scale of Avatar or Star Wars, the effects are used to manipulate your senses and emotions to tell a story.

Vic Pardo said:

Today, rear-screen projection is back, only it's green screen and we never know if they're driving for real or against a fake background.

Click to expand...

They still can't get it right most of the time. Even with all the advances in digital compositing, there's no shortage of driving shots that look no better than the rear-projection of the 40s.

Worth said:

They still can't get it right most of the time. Even with all the advances in digital compositing, there's no shortage of driving shots that look no better than the rear-projection of the 40s.

Click to expand...

I still think rear projection for driving is an excellent effect and when done right, by someone like James Cameron, is an "inivisible" effect.

Worth said:

They still can't get it right most of the time. Even with all the advances in digital compositing, there's no shortage of driving shots that look no better than the rear-projection of the 40s.

Click to expand...

I don't know why so many movies and TV shows still have a problem with it but the key to green screen driving shots is to put the background out of focus. When both the people in the car and the background are in focus, it looks fake but when the person is in focus and the background isn't, it's usually pretty seamless.

Salacious Ackbar said:

I still think rear projection for driving is an excellent effect and when done right, by someone like James Cameron, is an "inivisible" effect.

Click to expand...

Have you seen True Lies recently?

Salacious Ackbar said:

None of what you're seeing is real. Sets aren't real. Costumes aren't real. The dialogue isn't real. The effects (practical or digital) aren't real. It's all fabricated to tell a story and manipulate your emotions. Whether you can tell something was a miniature or a digital model is irrelevant and most of the time these days, you really can't tell. It's seamless and that's what filmmakers have been striving for for over 100 years. Effects serve the story. In the case of something like Star Wars or Avatar, they are used for something more - world building. You can't fault a film for using extensive visual effects in order to give you visions of otherworldly and extreme locations, creatures, and environments. Whether it be the invisible effects in films like Master and Commander or Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or the immense scale of Avatar or Star Wars, the effects are used to manipulate your senses and emotions to tell a story.

Click to expand...

You raise some interesting points, but I would argue that there have been periods in filmmaking where directors strived for realism and not for "seamlessness" in the manner you describe. For instance, there's Sidney Lumet, with films like SERPICO and PRINCE OF THE CITY. He shot actors in real clothes, on real streets, in real cars, in real rooms, etc. TWELVE ANGRY MEN was shot on a set that duplicated a real jury room simply to make shooting and lighting and moving a camera around more practical. The goal was realism. Granted, the story was manipulative, so maybe the goal wasn't achieved. William Friedkin's FRENCH CONNECTION achieved what I'm talking about, with the only "unreal" aspect being some editing sleight-of-hand during the famous car-and-subway chase, although I understand that even most of that was shot without any staging or blocking off of streets. Martin Scorsese shot MEAN STREETS to look real, even though he shot a lot of it in California and not New York, but I wouldn't say that the California bits weren't "real." TAXI DRIVER, on the other hand, shot entirely in New York on real streets, etc., used stylized means with some of the optical effects (esp. in the opening credits) to try to convey the skewed vision of its protagonist. How are "unrealistic" effects employed in realistic films? And is the result more or less "real" as a result? My point is that there's a whole body of worthy films that are more real than the ways you describe and some of us prefer that kind of filmmaking when it comes to non-fantastic genres. And I haven't even mentioned Italian neo-realism.

Vic Pardo said:

You raise some interesting points, but I would argue that there have been periods in filmmaking where directors strived for realism and not for "seamlessness" in the manner you describe. For instance, there's Sidney Lumet, with films like SERPICO and PRINCE OF THE CITY. He shot actors in real clothes, on real streets, in real cars, in real rooms, etc. TWELVE ANGRY MEN was shot on a set that duplicated a real jury room simply to make shooting and lighting and moving a camera around more practical. The goal was realism. Granted, the story was manipulative, so maybe the goal wasn't achieved. William Friedkin's FRENCH CONNECTION achieved what I'm talking about, with the only "unreal" aspect being some editing sleight-of-hand during the famous car-and-subway chase, although I understand that even most of that was shot without any staging or blocking off of streets. Martin Scorsese shot MEAN STREETS to look real, even though he shot a lot of it in California and not New York, but I wouldn't say that the California bits weren't "real." TAXI DRIVER, on the other hand, shot entirely in New York on real streets, etc., used stylized means with some of the optical effects (esp. in the opening credits) to try to convey the skewed vision of its protagonist. How are "unrealistic" effects employed in realistic films? And is the result more or less "real" as a result? My point is that there's a whole body of worthy films that are more real than the ways you describe and some of us prefer that kind of filmmaking when it comes to non-fantastic genres. And I haven't even mentioned Italian neo-realism.

Click to expand...

But they're reading from a script and being directed by an actor, so it's not real. And the locations were chosen for a reason, whether it be for a particular shot or because they liked the color or atmosphere of that street nad location. So even for films that many claim are more "real" are still fabricated to elicit an emotional response from the audience. Sets and locations, just like effects and costumes, are just another aspect of manipulation and can be used to astounding effect to make a film feel more lively or "real" if the director desires, but saying that every film needs to be that way is does not sit well at all. Every film is stylized to a certain degree to reflect the story and direction.