The End of the HVX200

Zig_Zigman

Zig_Zigman

Well-known member
and other cameras....

So I have a friend who is working with Bob Zemeckis on his new film. They are hooking up Cristian Slater, Angelina Jolie, Tony Hopkins et all with sensors, and just letting them act the scenes.

There are no cameras. No film. No videotape. No green screen. No dp's, no camera assistants, etc. Very minimal lighting. They are simply running the sensors into a databank, processing data, adding cgi and then Bob and his editor go to work in another room...

200 mill budget. They are ahead of schedule already just becuase they need no time to do set ups, worry about where the camera is, light actors....

The actors LOVE working like this, it's like theater. The unions hate it.

Coming soon to a theater near you.
 
Don't you mean "They are hooking up 'Chris' and 'Angie' as well as TONY"?? Cmon he is so Anthony Hopkins. Weird. Peace out Ziggy. K-
 
Crispin Glover, perhaps, not Christian Slater? ;)

We'll see how it turns out. Beowulf, Cameron's Battle Angel... 2007 is not that soon...
 
Have you seen Polar Express? Another Zemekis film. Same process. How amazing was that?

On the other side of the spectrum you have A Scanner Darkly, shot on DV and rotoscoped. Same process as Linklaters earlier film Waking Life. I found that style to be a lot more enjoyable and emotional than the photorealistic CGI. Which comes across as kind of creepy, like mannequins animated.
I bet the budget on that is no where near 200 million, probably closer to $10 million and its cast includes Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr. Woody Harrelson, Wyona Ryder.

In the end who really cares. If it works for directors who dont enjoy shooting in the real world, on location and feel more secure by having the ability to change everything in post, good for them.

though it makes me think of a Werner Herzog quote, "storyboards are for cowards".
 
fiercecurry said:
Have you seen Polar Express? Another Zemekis film. Same process. How amazing was that?
Click to expand...

Not very amazing...

Did you really like it, I found it really cheesy and false. Vomit inducingly so.

I don't think many movies will take this path, it is too expensive, and anyway, people like to watch other people most of the time - Something real.
 
mmm said:
Not very amazing...

Did you really like it, I found it really cheesy and false. Vomit inducingly so.

I don't think many movies will take this path, it is too expensive, and anyway, people like to watch other people most of the time - Something real.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree! The characters look more like zombies that living people. "Stare into my lifeless computer generated eyes!"

Heh! Heh!
 
Dark Crystal and Final Fantasy. Two movies without any real people in them and they both did poorly. We're not quite at the stage of completely accepting those types of movies.

There will be many many more cameras released between now and when CG becomes that cheap and widespread. Not much to "worry" about for a while me thinks.

I would recommend embracing CG and learning as much as possible to stay with the game. I feel as though that's an areas Indies can stand out based on cost and accessibility.
 
you know, CGI has come a long way, BUT its still not quite perfect. The real world is just too complex.


Anhar
 
200 million? Do you realize how well that will have to do in theaters for them to see one cent in return? Not the wave of the near future, that's for sure.
 
braw said:
Dark Crystal and Final Fantasy. Two movies without any real people in them and they both did poorly. We're not quite at the stage of completely accepting those types of movies...
Click to expand...

The only reason Final Fantasy did poorly was because the movie sucked, not because it was CG. Look at The Incredibles, and all the other Pixar movies. Huge box-office successes.

This new Zemekis movie looks intriguing. And I do believe that CG has gotten to the point where the average person doesn't care if it's animation or not. They care whether it's an engaging story. I think it was something ridiculous like "almost one hour of Return of the King was all CG". ONE HOUR!!! And it was a "live action" movie. The whole big war with the giant elephants. Mostly fake. Nobody cared, because it was well done, and more importantly, incredibly thrillng.

People hated Jar Jar because he was annoying, not because he was CG. Gollum was a compelling character, and that made him watchable.

Anyways... It's an interesting way of making films. If you can even call it a "film" when there's no camera!!!!
 
So that wasn't my point. There's CG everywhere, I'm saying an all CG or movie or one with no live actors that's directed toward adults. CG animation for kids is a whole other issue.

The thread seemed to be saying that CG is going to make cameras obsolete. Well, if everyone wants to see Toy Story's all the time cool. Lord of the rings had massive CG, but it was to support the story that had real live people emoting. So they were comped in to CG elements a lot, so what, that's secondary.

For what Zig is suggesting to happen, we need technology to create a CG character that can evoke emotion in an audience. So far only cartoony films geared toward children can do that because they're over the top metaphors, and kids aren't as annoyingly critical as we all are.
 
end for HVX200?

So how are you going to film news? Will you scan whole San Diego to animate a forest fire in summer 2006? Well then better start now scanning for having the news rendered in 2006...

And the 5th birthday of your daughter? Did you scan her to animate on PC how she will grow and do you already have rendered her future birthdays and her college years?

Well.... then it's really the end for HVX200 and any videocamera... I'm gonna render my own tomb tonight on PC - beside the tomb of my loved camcorders after the "big bang" in 2005 - the year when all videocameras died...
 
I agree with John Hudson, what's the point? I think if you like animated films then this new technolgy is great, but I personally want to see real people in real settings rather than watch a 200 million dollar cartoon.
 
The point is to get people riled up in extremist conversation. Most of the threads that take off are ones with credible, useful information or flame bait.

Examples:

1 - The confirmed feature set of the HVX

2 - HVX killing millions in Europe/Panasonic in bed with the devil
 
comparing a completely animated piece to one shot live-action is like comparing drawing and sculpture. saying that one has merit over another is...odd. two entirely different media. as far as technological advances "killing" traditional methods...well...even with photography, film, animation etc. people still draw and paint, and other people still enjoy seeing what they come up with. IMHO there will always be a niche for every major form of communication, and a group of people who appreciate its subtleties.
 
jrv3034 said:
The only reason Final Fantasy did poorly was because the movie sucked, not because it was CG. Look at The Incredibles, and all the other Pixar movies. Huge box-office successes.
Click to expand...

This raises the issue of The Uncanny Valley, which is (in my opinion) part of the reason that characters in films like Final Fantasy and Polar Express freak us out, but the world heartily embraces the cute Disney / Pixar world. (Of course, Pixar stories are light years better also, but until The Uncanny Valley is no longer an issue it will be difficult if not impossible to replace actors with CG models).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
 
Zig_Zigman said:
and other cameras....

So I have a friend who is working with Bob Zemeckis on his new film. They are hooking up Cristian Slater, Angelina Jolie, Tony Hopkins et all with sensors, and just letting them act the scenes.

There are no cameras. No film. No videotape. No green screen. No dp's, no camera assistants, etc. Very minimal lighting. They are simply running the sensors into a databank, processing data, adding cgi and then Bob and his editor go to work in another room...

200 mill budget. They are ahead of schedule already just becuase they need no time to do set ups, worry about where the camera is, light actors....

The actors LOVE working like this, it's like theater. The unions hate it.

Coming soon to a theater near you.
Click to expand...





So?

Kev
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top