Slashdot Mirror
Filmmakers Reviving Sci-fi By Going Old School
jjp9999 writes "The special effects arms race sci-fi films get stuck in has pulled the genre further and further from its roots of good storytelling and forward-thinking. The problem is that 'When you create elements of a shot entirely in a computer, you have to generate everything that physics and the natural world offers you from scratch There's a richness and texture when you're working with lenses and light that can't be replicated. The goal of special effects shouldn't necessarily be to look realistic, they should be works of art themselves and help create a mood or tell a story.' said filmmakers Derek Van Gorder and Otto Stockmeier. They hope to change this with their upcoming sci-fi film, 'C,' which will be shot entirely without CGI or green screens, opting instead for miniature models and creativity. They add that the sci-fi genre has gone wrong in other ways—getting itself stuck in too many stories of mankind's conflict with technology, and further from the idea of exploration and human advancement. 'In an era where science and technology are too often vilified, we believe that science-fiction should inspire us to surpass our limits and use the tools available to us to create a better future for our descendants,' they said."
The problem is that 'When you create elements of a shot entirely in a computer, you have to generate everything that physics and the natural world offers you from scratch
I don't see that as a problem, and the thing is, with GCI you can do things that are impossible, impractical, or incredibly dangerous without it.
I was impressed with Apollo 13. I don't know if they used models or CGI for the outside the capsule shots, but the weightless scenes were shot in the Vomit Comet".
The goal of special effects shouldn't necessarily be to look realistic, they should be works of art themselves and help create a mood or tell a story.
I disagree; unless you're shooting a cartoon, everything should be as realistic and beleivable as possible. And everything in the movie should strive to be a work of art in itself.
They hope to change this with their upcoming sci-fi film, 'C,' which will be shot entirely without CGI or green screens
Yeah, do that scene in Star Trek where Spock walks into the lift from one part of the ship and walks back out in another. Without a green screen they'd have had to have an acutual elevator.
I think it a bit ironic that a sci-fi movie would eschew real-world technology.
Free Martian Whores!
Moon didn't eschew CGI and other effects completely, but it *did* make use of more model work than most of the SF movies I've seen recently. I think it's one of the reasons why I liked it so much.
There's a certain something about model shots in movies that CGI just doesn't quite match. Possible the models are actually less "real looking" than the CGI in some way, but there's something undeniably real and tangible about a model shot that CGI can very rarely deliver.
Yey, another win for planning your process ahead of knowing where your process is going.
Without a script, how do they even know they don't want CGI. Maybe it'll happen not to need it - suddenly their "NO CGI!!!" isn't so meaningful anymore.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Fans of Firefly, the old Joss Wheadon Fox Sci-fi show that was fan-driven into a movie a la Star Trek TOS, will understand this argument. That was a (damn good) story driven show/movie with limited and low cost CGI, but still managed to innovative. I remember reading somewhere (OK don't kill me, but I did read it years ago) that the Serenity movie was the first to use a virtual camera style that moved around a lot giving an effect almost like a hand held camera. Have noticed that style of CGI in many movies over the last few years, and I suspect that CGI in general is not as expensive as George Lucas would have us believe. There is probably good software solutions out for that industry, pop in a model and manipulate the shot. Why not, "we have the technology..."
"If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
I'd like to see something shot at faster than 24fps. Having fast motion turn into nothing but a smear it getting kind of annoying.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Exactly. Pixar films are entirely CGI, and I don't hear anyone calling them soulless or lifeless. Not even the Cars films.
But hating on CGI is an unfortunate geek trope.
"Now if they can only re-animate Raymond Burr."
Hire Rosie O'Donnell, trim the excess body hair, and have at it.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I disagree that there's anything inherent to CGI that is less artistic than physical model building, and i also disagree that there is any practical effect that cannot be duplicated by a computer (given enough desire to do so).
i do agree wholeheartedly that the focus on special effects arms race comes at the expense of good storytelling and forward thinking, which is the true value of Sci-Fi. but how is vowing to use only practical effects not just another special effects gimmick?
these guys hearts seem to be in the right place. i wish them all the luck in the world. but i would implore them to make the best use of all the tools available to them in order to tell their story.
i could live a little longer in this prison
At Epcot there is a "ride" / exhibit called The Living Seas. To enter you ride an elevator down a distance that seems a couple hundred feet, then it opens up and you're surrounded by huge aquariums. The elevator is the kind with two sets of doors - one on each side of the elevator. You enter one side and go out the other. I could tell that it was fake - I think maybe I could see sunlight under the outside doors. I tried to convince my friend that it was just an illusion - bubbles would go up the glass sides of the elevator making it appear you were descending, it would shake and shimmy and come to an abrupt stop at the bottom, etc. However they just couldn't believe it was fake, even though to exit you just walked straight back outside another normal set of doors. Finally I proved it to them by slipping on the elevator to ride it back up (you were not supposed to exit that way). As soon as the doors leading inside the building closed, the doors leading outside opened to allow the next batch of people in.
My point is that even in-person a fake elevator can be an very convincing illusion. It is even more so in a movie, where they have total control over the camera angles, the actors are trained to enhance the illusion further, etc.
Better known as 318230.
From a "realism" perspective, the original Star Wars films are about as scientific as a cartoon, which is why the genre is generally called space opera and not science fiction. I have no problem with George Lucas messing around with Star Wars, as he wants to keep the movies "current" and sell more toys - if he pisses off his adult fans in the process, so be it. The movies aren't targeted at adults, they are targeted at 12 year old boys (for the most part) and have to stay relevant for that market to keep the merchandise bandwagon going. This is all about capitalism and making billions of dollars at the expense of art, but in this rare case the artist is making the money - if you don't like that, stop buying his stuff (like I did 20+ years ago).
Sci-fi seems to have gone a couple different directions lately. First you've got man vs machine and man vs alien - this is almost always CGI driven schlock like Cowboys and Aliens, Battle:Los Angeles, Transformers, I am Number Four (haven't seen it, but if Michael Bay is involved it goes here), etc. Then you've got the mind benders like Moon, The Adjustment Bureau, and Inception. A genre that popped up in the last few years is "let's rip off ET" where you get Super 8 and Paul.
Here are some of my personal peeves I hope they avoid:
20th century medicine or earlier used 200+ years in the future (cancer is still a scourge, "he's dead Jim" insti-death, etc).
Troll 2 quality monsters
Giant spaceships hovering over cities (they would crush the city)
Creatures that behave like they're in a computer game with a bad AI
Groaner names for anything - I started hating Avatar when they first uttered "Unobtanium." - not unwatchably bad, but it is essentially a Michael Bay-like action movie with a hippie theme. Independence Day wasn't unwatchably bad, either, and that was the CG pinnacle of its time (it was an action movie with wafer thin characters and almost no plot, which is why I disliked it, but many of my friends thought it was the best movie, ever, and saw it 10+ times in the theater).
Tossing in impossible things just because CG can do it or some 1960s art showed it. Avatar's floating mountains, for instance, which is based on 1960s art (or 1970s at the latest). Or Terra Nova's dinosaurs that keep attacking as they are MACHINE GUNNED (these things have brains the size of a pea, yes, but so does a turkey, and they still feel pain).
Here are some issues I see as a problem in the future, and may be good sci-fi issues:
A society that doesn't age, has machines that clear their arteries, etc - death is rare and usually accidental, so how is population controlled (birth control? gladiator combat? suicide?)
A society that doesn't need to work. Maybe a bunch of capitalists run everything and everywhere else is a slum, or maybe there is a Star Trek like society, or maybe everyone owns a robot that works for them.
People needing technology to do their jobs.
Discovering life on another planet, but it is vastly different and possibly inferior to our own (so how do we deal with it? what do we do with it? if we found Egyptian society of 4000 years ago, would we make contact and be gods to them?)
People that no longer need to bear children (vat grown babies - and we already have artificial uterus's for sharks, so I think this is an imminent issue) - is it really immoral (I don't think so, but the Catholic church may feel different)? Does society become hedonistic? Do Jesus, Allah, and Buddha join forces on a murderous rampage to redeem humanity?
Cybernetics, though I think there are many issues ignored in sci-fi, like powering them, and I think people are attached to their human parts - augmentation is no big deal, but, say lopping off your arm for a cyber arm would be.
Growing replacement anything in a lab (limbs, eyes, pets, people, etc).
Here are some things I don't have a problem with, but may or may not be possible or may have limited potential:
Warp drives (some like time bubb
Pixar films could be done on an etch-a-sketch and people would love them. It's because there's always a story FIRST and the CGI is there to serve the story, not the other way around. I swear, too many all CGI movies look like someone said "ooooh look how nice this hair simulation looks! Now, let's make a movie so we can show it off!"
Hating on CGI is not what's going on, hating on the abuse and overuse of CGI is the problem. What's the line from Jurassic Park? "Your scientists were so concerned over whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." Something like that...In the past, effects shots were time consuming and expensive so they were only used where absolutely needed in a story. Now, every damn scene has an effect because it's a relatively cheap way to jazz up a scene that sucks. It's annoying, because you can almost always spot it. For me it's the light, the "fake" light just never seems to match the ambient "real" light in the scene. It's good, don't get me wrong. If it was in an all CGI scene it would look great, but stick it in a the "real" world and it's just not right. I guess the uncanny valley applies to more than robots.
I've don't even know how many times i've posted this, but it always bears repeating: a crappy movie is still crappy in 3d/HD it just looks better. Same applies to CGI, no amount of it can save a bad story.
Turbolifts always moved at the speed of plot.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
>For your information, the most realistic Sci-Fi movie ever made, 2001: A Space Odyssey, did not used any CGI nor green screen.
For starters, Kubrick did his homework before shooting the movie. Along with teaming up with highly respected author (Clarke) he consulted with IBM (in early 60s their research team created a computer voice synthesizer which sang a song "Daisy"), anticipated contract workforce in LEO (Hilton on the Space Station) and (I read someplace) the Discovery spacecraft was designed by a aerospace consulting company in UK instead of movie studio model makers. He also had the characters (astronauts, Heywood Floyd and others) were kind of boring people (like most real engineers and astronauts) instead of flamboyant and expressive people like actors (compare the sequel 2010 to 2001 which was really painful for me to watch). Kubrick also consulted with fashion designers to see what they anticipate styles people would wear by 2001, that was a huge miss. But for techie things like glass cockpits, I say those consultants hit it right on. They missed the ipad by a few years (2001 had a similar wider and longer than the Apple product). For other things like procedures, 2001 portrayed tedious detail on spacewalk to replace AE35 unit and working computer based troubleshooting system, and realistically had mission control run simulations before actual space walk (in real life it would be much more tedious, only got so much time i the theatre). Unlike 2010 as other space movies where they just jump in the spaceship like a sports car and dash off to fix the problem.
However there was some major misses on prediction, i.e. Pan Am went bankrupt, USSR collapsed, Apple is a computer company (not a vinyl record company), and we never went back to moon. Because there was much work and planning of actual technology and people, the movie 2001 is highly admired by engineers. What I like about it is it is one of very few space movies that is not about alien space monsters and laser beam battles (which those plots have been overused like westerns). As other posters have said, it is not the CGI, it is lacking of story material which makes much of sci-fi suck these days.
In the 1990s at an engineers week banquet in San Francisco, a speaker (I cannot think of his name at the moment) talked about the tech in the movie 2001. In his possession is a frame for the HAL9000 which is one a just a few pieces of what is left of the props. Kubrick had everything destroyed to be sure there was not a sequel. Props made for 2010 were all done by model makers looking at the original movie. There was a book in early 70s about the movie, it had some photos of the stages. There was one letter by a young boy where him and some of his friends making a sequel with their 8mm, they sent some of their clips to Kubrick along with a letter about borrowing on of the 2001 spacesuits, "we are honest and will take good care of it."
Pan Am space shuttle was called the Orion and unlike the movie, the real thing is a capsule which has a dubious record so far.
mfwright@batnet.com
It would have been a bit funny, after a particular epic part, or moving dialog, if ship officers got into the tubolift and just stood there awkwardly, staring at the walls or floor, waiting to get to destination, while cheesy music plays. Extra points if it actually has to stop somewhere a long the way and pick up a red shit or something...