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."
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/
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.
You know they did that in the original series, right? Without green screens. They just rotated sets while the door was closed. One of the oldest tricks in the book AND it looks even more realistic.
"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."
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.
You underestimate the ingenuity of SFX artists. Take the elevator sequence in Men in Black, when J first arrives at the MiB headquarters proper. They walk into an elevator, the elevator descends, and they walk out, all in one travelling shot with no room for hiding transitions between sets with cuts. But they didn't build an elevator, it's just a room with a door at either end and some moving lights to give the illusion of movement. But even with that knowledge, go back and watch the scene, and try and convince your brain that the elevator is not moving.
Personally, I've seen very little CG that comes close to looking as good as even half-decent miniature work. As an example; to model a nice, real looking explosion in CG takes a phenomenal amount of effort with physics simulation of the debris, optical simulation of light filtering through the smoke, etc. With miniature effects, you put some dirt on a squib and use a higher frame rate. In-camera effects work a hell of a lot better than CG in almost all cases, because instead of having to simulate every physical process going on you can just use the actual physical processes going on. Of course eschewing CG entirely is silly, but it's definitely become overused to the point of "we'll do that in post" becoming a mantra, and "slap on some greebles" has been substituted for putting actual effort into designs.
The last decent science fiction film I saw was Contagion, and the only CG in that was on monitors. Moon also had some really nice miniature work and set design (though also some really glaring plot holes).
Finally, when you don't have to render your frames individually, you can greatly increase the framerate without a commensurate huge increase in time and budget. The best thing about cinemas installing stereo 3D projectors is that it also means that by default they've installed 48fps or 96fps 2D projectors.
I disagree with your disagreement. When you go in to see sci-fi (or horror, or a lot of other movies), you generally accept an unbelievable premise but expect that, given the premise, everything that follows should be believable. Willful suspension of disbelief. When you see a terrible, unrealistic special effect, it snaps you out of that "zone." I'd rather not see it at all than see it badly.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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.
Throughout the entire franchise, no matter the distance of the trip, the turbolift takes exactly the same length of time: the precise time needed for the passengers to complete their conversation.
Spock was by himself, so I'd say the turbolift was working exactly as designed.
Actually, how long they spent in the turbolift was determined by how much dialog needed to be delivered. It had nothing to do with plotting out realistic travel times.
Turbolifts always moved at the speed of plot.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.