Remote Control Film Making

[Solium]

We talk a lot about all these 3D clones and the blandness of animated films in general. But it also applies to live action films as well.

Read on:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends-that-make-every-movie-look-same.html

[akkushisu]

Ahh, Cracked is so hilarious! Everything they say in this article is true though. It seems to start with one film trying something innovative, then every other film has to jump on the hype bandwagon and apply the same style special effects, lens filters, and color correction ad nauseum. *rolls eyes*

It's not even just movies or animation either. This kind of mob mentality is just as prevalent in the music industry, too. Auto-tuning, for example - y'know, that effect that makes the singer sound like a robotic space yeti? About a decade ago, that was only commonplace in certain sub-genres of Electronic Dance Music. Nowadays, it's everywhere. Same principal as what the Cracked article is explaining - the industry sees a new toy and suddenly everyone's in line to have a turn playing with it.

Anyway, sorry to rant. Thanks for sharing the article, Solium. :)

[Solium]

This kind of mob mentality is just as prevalent in the music industry, too. Auto-tuning, for example - y'know, that effect that makes the singer sound like a robotic space yeti?

You know I always thought that was done because the singers couldn't sing. Then I heard a fairly new singer. She has a really beautiful singing voice, but when I heard a track on her CD it was god awful. Just like you said. robotic space yeti. Or as I like to say, sounds like the singer has a "cold". What a shame, even natural talent is being stifled and forced to plastic conformity.

[akkushisu]

Well, see, originally auto-tuning actually was used for its intended purpose. It's actually been in use in the industry for a good while now, you just never noticed it most of the time. It wasn't until some of the mainstream pop artists heard the more obscure dance tunes with heavy auto-tuning did it become a staple of modern music... or as I refer to it, an annoying novelty that'll go out of style as soon as the next big shiny innovation is unveiled to the masses. Again, sorry to rant but being a musician myself, it really frustrates me how something so innocent as a device that corrects the pitch of your voice could get bastardized to such cartoonish extremes.

Films are much the same way, really. When 3D animation was seen a viable alternative to movie and television production, it quickly became the "in" thing to use. Regardless of the format, I guess the return profit is all that's important to some in the entertainment business. Thankfully, there are some talented folks out there who don't put profits before content.

[Rodney]

Sometimes the tools dictate the results as well.
An example of this is when a product like After Effects releases a new feature that is easy to implement such as blur, fire effect, etc. For awhile, especially right after the release of a new feature, you'll see a lot of products with that new effect.

We all tend to like the new and novel but aren't very attuned to how well that will break down over time. The more popular will become classics... the example of the feature... while the vast majority will be considered dreck? The new and novel approach can wear out it's welcome pretty quickly.

If utterly compelled to use a novel effect or feature it's usually a good idea to push it further and add your own unique stamp to it. Even then it may remind everyone of the original effect. If unique enough the audience may forgive us. If not it may result in "Been there. Done that.", as the audience disappears.

[akkushisu]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Rodney. In fact, some of the films and music that attempt to blend the new effects with tried and true techniques do turn out really well. I don't want to sound like I hate every song with auto-tuning or every film in 3D or whatever else because I don't.

Personally, if I enjoy a film it doesn't matter what it looks like or what visual frills it showed off. The same goes for music, too. My only gripe is the mob mentality when it comes to the employ of such techniques. If done right, they can really add to the mood and atmosphere of a film and if done wrong or excessively, they tend to leave the audience asking: "Was that really necessary?"

[Solium]

I really give Peter Jackson a lot of credit for using miniatures so extensively in the Lord Of The Rings films. He combined both old movie techniques with new computer tools with astonishing results.

If only producers would see, its whats best for the shot not what the hottest tool on the market is.

[samuelvictorjones]

I really give Peter Jackson a lot of credit for using miniatures so extensively in the Lord Of The Rings films. He combined both old movie techniques with new computer tools with astonishing results.

If only producers would see, its whats best for the shot not what the hottest tool on the market is.

Agreed. When talking about films, many people will say "I didn't like that film, the CGI wasn't very good" when infact the CGI was incredible for where the technology currently is. They then cite it as feeling obviously computer renderred, and "not real". I tell them I agree with them, but the technology isn't quite there to make the lighting & physics match perfectly yet, even when it does, most people will get it wrong, & also that the ammount of extra features & documentaries explaining how computer effects are created means that they now automatically know something is not there when they see something that doesn't & could not exist in real life. Its astonishing, but the vast majority of people counteract with an argument that (depending on their age) either "Lord of the Rings" or "Jurassic Park" prove that it CAN be done well. They are amazed when I tell them that many of the effects they are thinking of were created with models, puppets & anamatronics, which they considerred "old fasionned" :D

As a film maker, I was interested, but read that list with a slightly different point of view. Numbers 5 to 4 are actaully the kind of things I actively take notice of when watching big budget or commercially successful films, then try to re-create in my own productions, to put them on a level playing field with bigger films when it comes to syndication & budget dvd sales. For example, a well lit & shot scene, filmed on a ?3000 Sony EX1 in my ?10,000 budget movie will easily compete with a scene from most million dollar budget films shot on an Arriflex setup worth more than my house, with the correct grading, editting & touching up. (Especially as many big budget films try to have a hand held look rather than using expensive cranes, dollys & steadicams! Double my budget if they are required.) If it stylistically matches the standards of big budget films (even if they are cliches) , more people will give it a chance than if it looks like it was made cheaply.

The REAL problem is lazy scriptwriting or bad acting. Nothing can do anything to fix this, no matter what budget you have, & these are where the real cliches come out to play ;) Of course, creativity always wins in the end, & new innovations are what drives progress forward. As the article says, an innovative technique in a succesful film soon becomes cliched when everyone follows suit, so I try to mix established "safe" ideas with new ones.

Point number 1 is the dramatic one. With today's technology, 3d can be stunning. Avatar is the obvious example, but one that blew me away was Corraline, especially with the lengths they had to go to shoot that in "real" 3d, due to the scales involved.

"Clash of the Titans" is such a sore point for me. I was involved in a very minor way, as an extra, who had several friends with bigger parts, so I also tagged along to costume fittings, special effects scenes etc. The general feeling when making the film (and in the months before shooting) was that it was going to be something special. Extras agencies were fighting over casting it, agents were desperately trying to get their stars in it, and the overall feeling in the industry was that it was going to be a great film. A proper epic, back to the days of the exciting Summer blockbuster, one film to dominate that year & be huge. Some great actors were being cast, including Sam Worthington who everyone was very excited about as although we hadn't heard of him we'd heard he was also the lead in the new Terminator movie & Avatar, both of which were slated to be huge. Of course the original source material meant this film should have been the remake to end all remakes, the epic to set the new benchmark, and it was being made in BRITAIN. I heard top people at Ray Knights, Casting Collective, Solomans & many others discussing it in such a manner, & no matter what film you were working on in the months preceeding it, everyone was talking about it.

Then the film was released. I saw it in the cinema & it was a damp squib, virtually NO plot, or acting, just big CG effects which were impressive looking but lead to nothing, and often made the real actors look out of place. I watched it in 2d, as no cinemas in my local area are capable of showing 3d. Infact, I didn't even know it was in 3d til I travelled on work to London and saw massive billboards advertising it as "The 3d Extravaganza of the Summer". "That's strange" I thought, knowing full well it had been shot in 2d. "I hope they didn't do a hatchet job & try & fake the 2d footage into 3d". Out of curiosity I watched it on my day off. I actually walked out halfway though with a severe headache, it looked SO bad. Granted, the CG renderred landscapes of course worked perfectly in 3d but the depth switching between the 3d cg layers & the forced 3d but really 3d layers felt like watching a moving version of one of those Red 3D viewfinder toys from the 80s, when the subject matter wasn't 3d in real life, Or as if the humans had somehow enterred Parappa the Rapper.

The film was NEVER intended to be in 3d, when designing, making, or shooting it. The conversion was a rush job after Avatar was so commercially successful in its release. (The release of "Clash" was also purposely delayed to allow for Sam Worthington to become a headlining name, associated with a great 3d film.) It also annoyed me that "Alice in Wonderland" was shot in 2D, but at least it was designed & intended by Tim Burton to be put together in 3D once composited, so the shots were planned to optimise rather than hamper the process with angles & perspecitves. It pretty much worked, but why it couldn't have been shot in 3d is beyond me.

3D RED cameras are now affordable to all but the poorest of film producers (like me for instance! lol). The first time I saw them was working on "Street Dance 3D" - the first British film shot entirely in 3D. Its not a very good film, (especially, I imagine, when compared to it's natural competitor the far higher budget "Step Up 3D") BUT the 3D looks phenominal. I believe you can buy a setup for around ?70k, or rent one for ?1k a week. I'm sure Clash or Alice could have afforded that :laughing:

[Solium]

The movie "300" set a really bad trend in films. Over reliance of CGI and absolutely no plot or characterization. But it was a hit. And yes I heard how studios "faked" 3D in order to cash in on the Avatar craze.

Getting back to old fashion film making and animation in particular.
I much prefer the way Mr. Bluth rotoscoped inanimate objects in The Secret Of NIMH. I much prefer the rotoscoped boat Mrs. Brisby rides in (Under the watermill) over the digital boat created for Disney's Little Mermaid (for Kiss The Girl).

The boat in NIMH felt organic and matched the style and movement of the hand drawn animation. The boat in the "Kiss The Girl" scene felt mechanical and stood out like a sore thumb.

I know even Mr. Bluth switched over to CGI for animating inanimate objects, but I just think its like mixing oil and water. There is no harmony between the two styles.

[samuelvictorjones]

I much prefer the way Mr. Bluth rotoscoped inanimate objects in The Secret Of NIMH. I much prefer the rotoscoped boat Mrs. Brisby rides in (Under the watermill) over the digital boat created for Disney's Little Mermaid (for Kiss The Girl).

The boat in NIMH felt organic and matched the style and movement of the hand drawn animation. The boat in the "Kiss The Girl" scene felt mechanical and stood out like a sore thumb.

I know even Mr. Bluth switched over to CGI for animating inanimate objects, but I just think its like mixing oil and water. There is no harmony between the two styles.

Yes, I've said this to Don in seminars. The 3d motion of 2d drawings in Nimh, American Tail, All Dogs & others look SO much better than using cell shaded cg model, or even worse, smooth shaded & lit 3d models. Personally I really like The Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast & Aladdin, but all of them have some pretty hideous CG that looks very badly out of place. Choose a style & stick to it people! You wouldn't expect one of the characters or objects in a pixar film to be a 2d drawing clashing with all the cg & messing up the lighting & colours. Don't do the same the other way.

Don agreed with me in general &expressed how CG & 2D can only be used together if the styles are matched perfectly. An extreme example that he raise is Titan AE, which of course was DESIGNED to have both styles at once in equal measure so is an exception, but Don said that he felt even with that film there were shots where he wasn't happy with the marriage for the two.

[Solium]

I love The Little Mermaid. Its as close to a Don Bluth film, Disney has ever done. ;-)

I agree some of the CGI in Titan AE worked in the film. But most of the time, it was two films in one where there was a clear distinction between a totally CGI scene and a 2D scene.

I remember seeing the preview for that film and at the time I had no idea Mr. Bluth was involved with the project! It looked nothing like a Don Bluth film. Not even the character designs.

It did remind me of Heavy Metal. All they had to do was add some gratuitous female nudity and lots of splattering of blood and it would have gone from a PG-13 bomb an into a "R" rated hit!

[samuelvictorjones]

Uh-oh don't let Don here you say the Little Mermaid looked like one of his, he's not to keen on it! :laughing: Mostly only because at the time there were new experimental Disney workers coming from Cal Arts who felt that using video source material as reference was somehow "cheating", & this affected the workflow & the performances. And he has a point - when on land, Erik & Arial don't move particularly believably, especially when compared to Ann Marie from All Dogs Go To Heaven (released in the same week I believe) who is a shining example of how to animate a believable human. However, the charm in the Little Mermaid has always been in its under water sections, & the characters of Sebastian, Flounder, Scuttle et al, which personally I think is done rather well.

I can see the connection between "Heavy Metal" & "Titan AE" in some senses. As a Brady might say - "I've never thought of it that way before!" :)

[Solium]

Uh-oh don't let Don here you say the Little Mermaid looked like one of his, he's not to keen on it! :laughing: Mostly only because at the time there were new experimental Disney workers coming from Cal Arts who felt that using video source material as reference was somehow "cheating", & this affected the workflow & the performances. And he has a point - when on land, Erik & Arial don't move particularly believably, especially when compared to Ann Marie from All Dogs Go To Heaven

Oh I totally agrees. The one weak link in The Little Mermaid was the human animation. I am sure it was the best they could do at the time. But you know Disney was never able to animate human characters as well as Don Bluth.

However as far as storyboarding, music, backgrounds, effects animation and likable characters, it really is, in my opinion a work very much influenced by Don Bluth and NIMH.

[samuelvictorjones]

Disney was never able to animate human characters as well as Don Bluth.

I know where you're coming from but thats a dangerous statement. Don very much admired a great many (especially earlier) Disney animators, he often speaks with wonder at the achievemnts of Milt Kahl, John Loundsbery, Fred Moore et al, as if they have a magical ability to just "do it right" everytime, & it was only when Disney became more about the shareholders & business [partners demanding more profits & faster production that quality at Disney went down.

By leaving and setting up his own company, Don was just looking to go back to the quality of the original Disney ideals & animation. And if you were referring to "Don Bluth" hte person rather than company, I think you'l find that most of the animation in those films wasn't done by Don, he was the Director, planning, project managing, doing the original storyboards, & over seeing at critiquing the animators. He's said recently that in some ways he wishes he hadn't got moved to directing, as he feels his own animation sufferred in the process as he had to concentrate his time on other areas. Animation & storyboarding are clearly Don's passions, but I think he wishes he had animated more sections in his career. He's spoken of making a conscious effort to pick at least one scene in every feature film to animate himself so he didn't get "too rusty". Of course, in Nimh he did more, and in Banjo, significantly more, as the staffs on those two were far smaller.

Thats not to say personally I don't rate Don's animation, because I REALLY do. I absolutely love watching him draw & then make them come to life. Seeing his animating in the recent worshp was really amazing & blew us all away how quickly & perfectly he can do it. But listen to him speaking in the seminars or his interviews & he is in wonder of many Disney animators. He does not hate Disney, by any standards. He recently strongly recomended that we all watch all the Disney animated features from Snow White through Jungle Book to study them as perfect examples of the ideals he's trying to instil in us.


However as far as storyboarding, music, backgrounds, effects animation and likable characters, it really is, in my opinion a work very much influenced by Don Bluth and NIMH.

Well, yes - literally! Its a commonly held belief that the quality of Disney features improving so vastly in that fast time period is directly related to the competition of Nimh, American Tail, & Land Before Time, all of which were critically largely sucessful, especially when compared to the Disney output of the time, & the latter two of which broke box office records for non-Disney animation. The Little Mermaid was the first Disney film in a long time which came close to matching the quality of older Disney films, and the Bluth films of the time.

I really feel that without Don's films, we wouldn't have had "Little Mermaid", "Beauty & the Beast", "Aladdin", & "Lion King", four succesful in pretty much every way for Disney, that essentially stopped the company fading into "just" theme parks and live action. Those films MUST have stuidied Don's films closely, in order to see where the benchmark was set for them to try & reach or exceed, both finiancially & artistically.

I don't like to quote Don as there's always a chance I may be paraphrasing or even misinterpretting what he said. To be honest, I think you'd personally get a lot out of joing "Don's CVlub" & listenning to him talk in the weekly seminars :) Without wanting to be presumptuous, & whilst I've not heard Don specifically praise any of those films (other than the animation the on anthropomorphic characters in Beast, which is, frankly, remarkable) he must be able to see the vast improvements in Disney's output of that time, & feel a slight warmth by the fact that he was, at the very least, indirectly responsible for another 10 years or so of the lifespan of a company that as a child, he loved so much.

[Solium]

I know where you're coming from but thats a dangerous statement. Don very much admired a great many (especially earlier) Disney animators.

Let me clarify. I meant the "Disney" after Don Bluth left. While they improved greatly in many areas of 2D animation their human characters never achieved the finesse of the Don Bluth films.

[samuelvictorjones]

Let me clarify. I meant the "Disney" after Don Bluth left. While they improved greatly in many areas of 2D animation their human characters never achieved the finesse of the Don Bluth films.

That's true. But sometimes the stylised movemt fits the characters - the floatiness of Belle vs the clumping of Gaston for example. Neither moves very realistically, but their alterred physics serve to accentuate the character of the character. Another example would be Aladdin, or Tarzan, neither of whom move particularly realistically at all, but when you concentrate on their faces, the flowing lines of action in their movements serve to tell you how they're feeling. Its certainly a different style, and one which often doesn't work, but sometimes does. I think a lot of the negative points come from Don's suggestion that they refused to use live model or other cartoons as reference, as if it were somehow "cheating", however perhaps some of the more creative/original ideas were born through this method too.

Directly after Don left Disney sucked for a while. Infact it started to suck before that, that's why he wanted to leave! Each subsequent film had positive things about it, but most didn't really work, until the Little Mermaid started a positive streak. For me, after The Lion King it all started to go a little down hill again (with the possible exception of Pocahontas, which, although massively historically innacurate, I felt was a decent film. It probably helped that John Pomeroy went back to Disney to work on that one. It's not really any of my business, but 've often wonderred Don's personal feelings on that film, being that he is related to the real Pocahontas!)

[Solium]

I lost interest after Lion King. (I'm not a huge fan of that film) So I never saw Pocahontas or Hunchback, etc. I always thought Pocahontas looked Asian! I did not see an American Indian in her at all. While she ranks as one of Disney's "hottest" babes I suppose, I found her very unappealing in design. Square and bulky.

As mentioned before I also do not like the "flighty" nature of their character animation. Even for the females it did not work for me. But that's a personal preference I guess. ;-) That's not to say I do not like stylized animation. Some of the best animation has come out of Japan over the years. It is certainly very stylized.

[samuelvictorjones]

I lost interest after Lion King. (I'm not a huge fan of that film)

Personally I loved it... until the characters openned their mouths. The openning with the realistic portrayal of the animals in their natural environment was beautiful. As soon as the monkey (?) smiles at Simba after lifting him, that suspension of disbelief is gone, and you're back to watching anthropomorphised Disney style characters again, & the characters have to win you over with their performances before you care about them. I always liked Pumon & Timba for the "comedy" performances, and enjoyed the film overal. I just wished it had been slightly more about the animals themselves.

Strangley enough, you could have said the same of "Land Before Time" - the Dinosaurs just being dinosaurs, roming the plains, flying in packs, hunting, eating etc is one of my favourite aspects, BUT watching the dinosaurs being born & how their parents instantly love them, and their personalities are formed straight away, makes them lovable from the second you see them.

My favourite moment early on in Cera being born, and straight away attacking her parents, but then wanting them to comfort her when she's hurt or scared. Cera's pride & bravado but internal softness which embarasses her reminds me a lot of my wife :laughing: When I told her this, she related that Cera had always been her favourite character in the film when she was young!


I always thought Pocahontas looked Asian! I did not see an American Indian in her at all. While she ranks as one of Disney's "hottest" babes I suppose, I found her very unappealing in design. Square and bulky.

I liked the different drawing style rather than the standard Disney Princess look which is pretty much the same but with different hair, clothes & skin colour. I found the same more chunky, square style with Lilo & her sister. I feel Disney should be applauded for trying to add some ethnicity to their characters rather than just colouring them differently (whilst she is adorable & beautifully animated, the little Indian girl in "Jungle Book" is a white girl with a tan & a red daubbed spot on her head, as can clearly be seen in the original Black & White model sheets someone posted recently, & I've often seen Aladdin & Jasmine's designs criticised as too Western, whilst the bad guys in the film are more overt, over exagerated stereotypes). However, I have little personal experience of people of Native American or Hawaiian decent, so I've no real idea if these characatures were accurate, innaccurate, or even offensive. I always assumed they were about correct, but its far from an area I'd be confident in proclaiming one way or another :)


Some of the best animation has come out of Japan over the years. It is certainly very stylized.
Oh absolutely. I love me some anime :)

[Solium]

I have a lot of issues with the Lion King. But that's just personal opinion so I won't say to much more, other than to say I agree with you the beginning was the most interesting part of the film.

I also agree the most interesting part of LBT was the opening 20 minutes or so. I was mesmerized. Totally loved it. Once it turned into a "kids" cartoon it dropped a notch. But I know that wasn't Mr. Bluth's fault.

Disney changed its style on a regular basis in the 90's. I just never liked that approach. Again just personal opinion. I am not saying what they did was wrong. Disney should be complimented for making that effort. Ive read some had issues with Aladdin. But I don't know why, Jasmin in particular was most certainly not an "American girl" with a tan.

The little girl in Jungle Book certainly had a Caucasian look to her. But at least they gave her a slightly pudgy nose from some angles. ;-)

I haven't seen Princess and the Frog. But I much prefer what they did with Tiana. She looks African American but she remains soft, round and cute in design. Again, I just prefer the roundness of classic cartoons.

[samuelvictorjones]

I also agree the most interesting part of LBT was the opening 20 minutes or so. I was mesmerized. Totally loved it. Once it turned into a "kids" cartoon it dropped a notch. But I know that wasn't Mr. Bluth's fault.

Whilst it does turn into a kids film of sorts, its still far loftier in themes than standard family film fare. Even as a small kid seeing it, I was of the opinion that it was a film about extinction, & that the "Great Valley" was essentially the Dinosaurs' equivalent of Heaven. Some people might think it sad that the little dinosaurs died, in my eyes at least, but to me, this was the happiest ending for them, as they would no longer be hungry, or lonely, & would not have to worry about what we all know historically wuld have laid ahead for them or their familes further down the line historically. Whether I enterpretted that as intended or not, the themes of friendship, loyalty, & the way the death of littlefoot's mother was handled throughout the length of the film was beautifully orchestrated. Speaking of which, of course the soundtrack was also of a very high standard.


But I don't know why, Jasmin in particular was most certainly not an "American girl" with a tan.
No, but she was far less "Turkish" than the "normal" citizens or the negativly portrayed characters. Aladdin himself alwayslooked like Tom Cruise to me! Personally I didn't find anything in the film offensive, other than the fact that the "A Whole New World" section is essentially one long metaphor for them sleeping together. Or thats how I saww it anyway, perhaps my mind is too dirty :laughing: There were plenty of racial stereotypes & jokes ("They'll cut off your hand if they don't like your face" I seem to remember?) but it was meant to be set in a fictional version of the area, hundreds of years ago. It actually no more offensive than most of the shtick Robin Williams does in his own standup & tv appearances nowadays, which, whilst about 30 years out of date & slightly cringeworthy, aren't really anything to complain about.


I haven't seen Princess and the Frog. But I much prefer what they did with Tiana. She looks African American but she remains soft, round and cute in design. Again, I just prefer the roundness of classic cartoons.

Personally I think Disney should be applauded for Tiana, she's a great Black/African American character whilst being recognisable as a Disney Princess. I hope Disney stop producing more Princesses in animation, but have no objection to them adding her to the list first. It makes it more representative, & she's a worthy character in her own right. I don't love the film, but I didn't hate it, and welcome her as a character.