This may be disturbing to some...or not...whatever...

Pookie

Pookie

Veteran
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
As budgets get tighter, and computers get faster, we get more and more of this. Permits to shoot on real locations like the Kremlin, are probably not that easy to get.

Personally, I am not a fan of digital effects, but it can be very helpful, and I am in the process of shooting my first set of plates next week....

Budgets...
 
That was freaking amazing. Whoever did that did an amazing job. I found myself thinking "hmmm, cross between 24, Law and Order and CSI". Nice chroma-keying.
 
Last edited:
Damn, that's really good work, BUT...kind of takes some of the fun out of making a movie. It does push the actors to deliver their characters better in a way, because of the lack of reference to real locations, however, it's just a bummer to me that more and more films may be made like this and noone involved can get any emotional attachment with a "real" location, which probably fuels certain performances. But it's cheaper than shutting these places down for weeks...so it's economical.
 
This kind of stuff just pisses me off, like other said tho' easier than shutting something down. However, I go out of my way to try and get a real location, even if I have to shoot it on the down low, or even as far as writing the script around locations I know I can get. Whereas here they just imagine it, and it happens. Which I dunno. The whole way we make movies are different. Sometimes compromise can make a movie better than if we could always get what we wanted. For instance imagine a movie like casablanca made in todays world. There would probably be a lot less interior shots for one thing. I don't know - certain things about doing it "in real life" just make it so much more compelling to me. Rather than saying, "Okay we need a new york city street! Set up a green screen guys!" Almost seems like a cop-out when you know that thing really exists and can actually be shot in person.

I know WHY these things exist, television shows for one cannot afford to go to russia every week. I'm just saying... it's weird how 90% of the stuff we watch is digitally altered in some way.
 
the most recent example to me is Angels & Demons....filming in Vatican City, which had never been done before by an American crew to any real extent. As an actor, Tom Hanks HAD to make more for his character/performance. Regardless of whether or not you liked the film, the location had to play a part in the outcome of the film. It's amazing how an actor's perception of a character weighs so heavily on location...let alone the filmmakers.
 
Evan S said:
For instance imagine a movie like casablanca made in todays world. There would probably be a lot less interior shots for one thing.
Click to expand...

Casablanca actually used quite a bit of process photography, actors standing in front of a projected image. It was done a lot more in old movies than one would think. Seeing some of these films on DVD and hi def its becoming easier to spot it. I think this is just a tool and nothing that's going to destroy cinema. In fact, it may make some stories more feasible to make. The HBO series John Adams used this technology quite extensively to recreate places that have either disappeared or are impossible to film in or too expensive to recreate.
 
Replacing skylines and digital set extensions are one thing. But for Ugly Betty to walk down a side walk?! Maybe shows that take place in NY should be shot in NY.
 
Batutta said:
Casablanca actually used quite a bit of process photography, actors standing in front of a projected image. It was done a lot more in old movies than one would think. Seeing some of these films on DVD and hi def its becoming easier to spot it. I think this is just a tool and nothing that's going to destroy cinema. In fact, it may make some stories more feasible to make. The HBO series John Adams used this technology quite extensively to recreate places that have either disappeared or are impossible to film in or too expensive to recreate.
Click to expand...

No no, I get what you're saying. What I mean is, these things in casablanca are OBVIOUSLY fake. There is just something different about it, because it's done in-camera. Where as parts of this clip have the characters on a complete digital set. Where there is really nothing REAL to react to at all. Is what I am trying to say.

You know what I mean? I was always told in acting class that "Acting is reacting".

I should have used a better example than Casablanca. E.G. Gone With the Wind. The scene with all the soldiers, they had to really go out and capture that image
 
Evan S said:
No no, I get what you're saying. What I mean is, these things in casablanca are OBVIOUSLY fake. There is just something different about it, because it's done in-camera. Where as parts of this clip have the characters on a complete digital set. Where there is really nothing REAL to react to at all. Is what I am trying to say.

You know what I mean? I was always told in acting class that "Acting is reacting".
Click to expand...

There's some truth to that, but remember in theater a lot of it is pretending a location is around the actor too. I think where it gets the hardest for an actor is when he's acting to nothing, not even a person. As long as there is another person across from them I think an actor can deliver a truthful performance, it's just a little more work.
 
Completely agree with both sides of it...

I mean it makes it easier on so many levels, for crew, for budget, for the producers, etc. Yet it suffers for the actors...

I mean I've seen shows where their entire shooting takes place purely in two green screen stages with maybe a few set walls. How do you get the actors to feel like they are where they are? Do you show them pictures and hope they see it without being blinded by the green?
 
Yea they do a TON of this stuff in TV shows. I never buy it though, only in closeups normally do they fool me. I can always tell when there's something wrong in the perspectives of the shots and they all normally have some sort of odd looking digital camera move (and focus pulls) that aren't real looking at all. They get the job done though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top