Pirates Of the Caribbean World's End

[Scott Fritzshall]

How should I know? I'm not a visual fx expert. But then again, I wouldn't know how to do it in CGI either.

 

Davey Jones is just one example. Sometimes using CGI is inevitable. However, my point, is that I think film makers sometimes rely completely on CGI nowadays and barely consider using real special effects.

I didn't expect you to know, my point was that there really is no better way to do them. They tried. There's a huge Cinefex writeup of it about a year ago where they talk about their decision to go with a fully-CG Davy Jones, and it was most certainly not their first choice. They ended up doing it because nothing else was able to do what they needed it to and still look believable.

 

The Maelstrom is something that could only be done in CG; there is absolutely no conceivable way of doing that practically. They estimated that they were simulating ~15 billion gallons of water. You just can't fake that practically. If you want a huge building to blow up or fall down, you can make a miniature and have it look really convincing. Water, however, does not scale; even if they had managed to make a huge whirlpool in the biggest water tank they could find, it would still look like a miniature. Like it or not, CG water is a godsend for VFX artists.

 

And I still believe that film makers are becoming more and more reliant on it. If they weren't, then why did George Lucas decide to bluescreen a lot of what he could have built?

Because of what Michael said, and also because he is, more than anything, a technology salesman. He made the prequels all-CG to prove that he could, and to show off. I actually agree with you that they don't look that great, and I think that those films represent a lot of really poor decision-making in many aspects. But Lucas isn't representative of all filmmakers, and like I said before, a lot of younger filmmakers agree with your position, and don't want a ton of CG in their films.

[Daniel Smith]

Because unlike you, George **likes** the results. He likes what it looks like, and he likes the flexibility it allows in terms of having a bigger vision for the worlds he creates. And it's his movie, and his money.

 

What I was trying to point out is that everything in a studio picture is discussed and dissected ad infinitum, by various parties and various departments. You seem to think it's some kind of simple decision by one person (a director) to do everything a certain way. I'm telling you that's not the case. That doesn't mean that every decision regarding every shot is always the best one, but it should tell you that it's not simple, not random, and not done because it's "easy."

Look, Michael, take these comments with a grain of salt. Of course it's not easy. Of course CGI produces good results. Not even good, amazing.

 

However. With the HUGE increase of use of CGI in Hollywood cinema over the years, I think it's pretty evident that film makers ARE changing over to bluescreens and CGI.

 

No, I'm not saying that every decision is based on 'what is easiest', or 'what costs the least'. However, I am saying that I think in many cases, film makers DO use blue screens and CGI where they COULD have used real effects and real locations.

 

And I think with CGI getting better and better, more and more films are moving in that direction exponentially.

 

No, I'm not trying to attack these film makers. I'm just making a pretty valid point.

 

I didn't expect you to know, my point was that there really is no better way to do them. They tried. There's a huge Cinefex writeup of it about a year ago where they talk about their decision to go with a fully-CG Davy Jones, and it was most certainly not their first choice. They ended up doing it because nothing else was able to do what they needed it to and still look believable.

 

The Maelstrom is something that could only be done in CG; there is absolutely no conceivable way of doing that practically. They estimated that they were simulating ~15 billion gallons of water. You just can't fake that practically. If you want a huge building to blow up or fall down, you can make a miniature and have it look really convincing. Water, however, does not scale; even if they had managed to make a huge whirlpool in the biggest water tank they could find, it would still look like a miniature. Like it or not, CG water is a godsend for VFX artists.

Because of what Michael said, and also because he is, more than anything, a technology salesman. He made the prequels all-CG to prove that he could, and to show off. I actually agree with you that they don't look that great, and I think that those films represent a lot of really poor decision-making in many aspects. But Lucas isn't representative of all filmmakers, and like I said before, a lot of younger filmmakers agree with your position, and don't want a ton of CG in their films.

Well, as I said, many things ARE impractical to go using real sfx. However, I still think that in many cases, CGI is used when real effects could have been. I'm not specifically reffering to the whirpool.

 

I know Lucas doesn't represent all film makers, but I'm just using him as one example.

 

And I'm glad to hear that my generation won't enter the industry relying on computers to make their movies for them.

 

If it means anything I'm making an animated/real film sometime this year. And we plan to use a fair amount of CGI. However, that's because we physically cannot afford to shoot it with real effects. However, I'm personally going to make sure that we use real effects as much as we can.

 

Just to show that I'm not 'anti-CGI'.

Edited June 21, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Will Earl]

However, I still think that in many cases, CGI is used when real effects could have been.

 

Are CG effects being used more often in filmmaking? Yes.

 

Are CG effects being used where 'real' effects could have been used? No, I don't think that is the case.

 

I like Scott's way of putting it earlier, VFX are being used "less and more than you think" (I'm paraphrasing ofcourse).

[Daniel Smith]

Are CG effects being used where 'real' effects could have been used? No, I don't think that is the case.

No I think it is the case. Not all the time, but in many a case.

 

Compare Gladiator to 300.

 

Replicating CGI with real effects can be near impossible in many cases. So yes it restricts film makers. However, it's not the quantity of special effects, it's the quality.

 

The best way of illustrating that is to compare Casino Royale with Die Another Day. Die Another Day was a shocker in comparison to Casino Royale. And Casino Royale didn't use nearly as much CGI.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[William A Chapman Jr]

OT:

 

Dose any one know if AC did an artical on the second movie (deadmans chest) if so what issue?

[Trif Ovidiu]

As the way are going, At World's End it's the most successful movie of 2007, and it is the fifth top-grossing movie of all times, with a gross of $926,262,030.