search results matching tag: filmmaking

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (568)     Sift Talk (15)     Blogs (13)     Comments (417)   

noims (Member Profile)

noims (Member Profile)

It’s not you - movies are getting darker.

Amazing New Japanese Hanabi Fireworks

newtboy says...

Ha.

Explain please. I read the entire article/page. Their definition was exactly what I quoted, so it does actually support exactly what I said.

“ Computer-generated imagery, or CGI for short, is a term that describes digitally-created images in film and television. CGI is a subcategory of visual effects (VFX), imagery filmmakers create or manipulate that does not exist in the physical environment being captured on film or video. CGI is instrumental in the making of movies and television shows and serves as the primary method for creating 3D-computer graphics for video games.”

Imagery Filmmakers create OR MANIPULATE that does not exist in the physical environment…exactly what this video is.

Did you actually read it? Because it does say what I’m saying.

You mean because their three examples of CGI films were all pure cgi animation the specific definition they gave doesn’t apply? Lol. It wasn’t an all inclusive list, it was 3 cgi blockbusters.

I hope that’s not your argument. If it is, you should feel ashamed.

kir_mokum said:

lol. that doesn't actually support what you're saying. maybe you should read the rest of it for better context.

Alpine Descents--Longboarding in Northern California

How Marvel Actually Makes Movies Years Before Filming

Khufu says...

It's not the VFX that bore you, it's the design of the shots/action. You would feel the same way if the same busy, over-designed novelty shot was done with traditional special fx techniques. Just making the distinction because people often blame vfx for stuff that is really a design/filmmaker issue.

cloudballoon said:

Super busy VFX bores me to death...

6 Underground: Because Science Says So

Drachen_Jager says...

Hmm.

I think of "Michael Bay"ishness as a bad thing in movies.

Explosions for no reason. Narrative leaps that make no sense except to get to the next action. Plot only serves as a device to get from one explosion/action scene to the next with no character development or originality whatsoever.

If you've outgrown your teens and still like Michael Bay, I honestly feel pity for you. There is a world of brilliant filmmaking out there you're missing for this immature pablum.

To paraphrase, another film: Mr. Bay, what you've just made is one of the most insanely idiotic movies I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent film were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational plot. Everyone in this theatre is now dumber for having watched to it. I award you no stars, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Anatomy of a Scene -- A Quiet Place

mentality says...

Using a white board or having a character flat out say the information are both bad storytelling. A better filmmaker would have been able to convey such information organically. At least the saying it flat out approach could have been worked into the movie as an old emergency warning broadcast, or early on in the outbreak when people could conceivably still be ignorant.

Also, I didn't think the weakness to hearing aids was that blatant. It was certainty better than the water vulnerability of the aliens from Signs. It just felt silly that the all the world's militaries with all their armor piercing weapons couldn't do much to these monsters but a wounded mother with a shotgun and her child could.

Sarzy said:

Yeah, the whiteboard wasn't the most elegant way to convey that information, but it's quick and efficient, and it's still better than having one of the characters flat-out say that stuff even though they'd all know it already.

As for the second issue, as greatgooglymoogly mentioned, they're only able to shoot the creature because of the dumb luck of the frequency of the hearing aid weakening it and causing its armour to pop off. Deus ex machina, maybe, but the film spends enough time planting that seed that it doesn't feel too blatant.

Actors of Sound - Trailer

Phooz says...

wiki link to Foley Sound

I was going to say; I wonder if it is a continuation of old radio show sound design, and it is!

I think there will always be a place for it just like the acoustic piano. There are too many variables and our subconscious is too in tune with sound that a digital sample will ever be enough to trick us. MAYBE they will get there but I can always hear when they use digital instruments in music.

Actors of Sound - Trailer

ChaosEngine says...

Simply not true. Will you get some directors using cookie cutter sound templates? Of course... bad ones. Hell, Bay reuses entire shots in his movies (often in the same damn franchise).

But good filmmakers will hire good sound designers and they will create good sound with what they have available.

Computers are a tool, nothing more. Digital sound is no different to digital imagery... people say they hate it, but they only hate BAD examples of it.

Can foley survive? Short term, maybe; long term, unlikely.

Fundamentally, it'll come down to the same question as any other technique in any commercial artform... cost vs quality. If foley remains the best way to get a sound, you will find people willing to pay for it. As digital sound creation gets better and better, there WILL come a point where no-one can tell the difference.

If you don't believe me look at guitar amplifiers. For decades, guitarists have preferred old vacuum tubes (known as valves) to generate the sound they want in a guitar amp. Digital (commonly referred to as solid state) amps are cheaper and generally pretty crap.

But these days, even people who love valve amps (and I include myself in that) have to admit that it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a genuine valve amp and a good computer model of the same (side note for guitar techy people... I know modelling != solid state).

And that's not just in playback, it's in live performance too. A kemper or an AxeFX FEELS like a valve amp, and you can vary the settings like a valve amp.

I believe that foley will ultimately go the same way. People like Wes Anderson will continue to use it, but for most filmmakers on a budget, they'll go with the sound creation software.

newtboy said:

*promote
The art of foley outshines the science of sound editing. If this art dies, we'll be left with what has been digitized and little more. Every scream a Wilhelm, every roar a T-rex.
Computers can't paint with sound, they can barely print with sound files.
I certainly hope new directors understand that.

ant (Member Profile)

Filmmaking Methods That R Ruining Movies: Methods of Madness

ChaosEngine says...

Sorry, but this argument is nonsense.
CGI, colour grading and digital cameras aren't "ruining movies". All those tools can be used well.

What's ruining movies is dumb scripts and bad filmmaking.

Ashenkase (Member Profile)

Nerdwriter - How Not To Adapt A Movie

Drachen_Jager says...

Hollywood big-budget productions have lost all sense of artistry (with few exceptions). The directors all seem to think that audiences are inherently impatient twitch machines and if they hold on a shot for more than two seconds or give us a chance to breathe we'll get up and walk out.

Maybe that's true for some audience members, but you can't create art for the lowest common denominator and expect to produce anything great, or even good.

They wonder why Rotten Tomatoes and audiences are forsaking them? They need to break out of the corporate group-think and embrace artistry again. Yes it means you stink sometimes, but they produce big-budget stinkers anyhow (emoji movie anyone?). At least it would give filmmakers a chance to be great.

Rogue One vs. The Force Awakens The Fault in Our Star Wars



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon