Oblivion: Sky Tower Practical Effects

Oblivion is one of those Love it/Hate it type of movies, meaning that there are things that you can really like/love about the movie, and then there are things that arent so great. To get it out of the way, the not so great thing was the story, as it came off as weak and confusing to me.

However the redeeming factor of this movie (in my opinion at least) is the visuals. Everything looked so practical and realistic, even the CG and visual effects were very photo real compared to other Hollywood movies out there.

When I watched this BTS featurette about how they accomplished the Sky Tower in the movie, I was amazed at how practical they made it. They really wanted the actors to feel like they were really in that moment, rather than trying to interact with it via Green Screen set. They accomplished this look by capturing footage of the sky and clouds that they filmed at the top of a really high volcano. And then they took that footage and front projected it onto High Res Screens on the set.

This truly was a cool and very practical thing to do. It looks more real, the light from the footage helps illuminate more light into the set, and best of all, it would save VFX artists the headache of having to deal with green screen spill in the set, because that green would bounce around everywhere I imagine, and would be a nightmare to have to key out and make as real and clean as possible.

To see the Oblivion Sky Tower Featurette, check the video out here:

  

Do Ya Thang - Gorillaz

The Gorillaz is arguably one of the best bands to have ever graced my ears since birth. But aside form their music, they are a prime example of transmedia. What started out as a British rock band has transcended into comics, online games, and interactive holographic concerts! But what I want to talk about today is their Style-o (Stylo is one of their popular songs... This is a joke). Many times you'll find a blend of 2D and 3D animation, and practical effects in their music videos which always helps to blend the creepy, disgusting, and fantastical world of Gorillaz. "Do Ya Thang" was a collaboration between them and Andre 3000, to help promote Converse.

The video below is a making of the very same music video. Here you will see snippets of the production process. Everything from the storyboard, dressing the set, blocking the actors, and eventually modeling the band mates. It's interesting to see how paper comes to life not just through a green suit but the detail they put into designing even the skin of all the characters.

CG is (Not) Ruining Movies

I recently saw this video by the fine folks at RocketJump Film School (or Freddie Wong as some YouTubers might know him by) about using CG elements in films. A lot of people have said (and still do) that CG in live action movies just looks bad, and how it is better to shoot things practically (as in for real, captured in camera). But is this true?

In some aspects, yes CG doesn't always look great; it may look too animated or glossy and doesn't blend well. But that doesn't mean it's bad altogether. As Freddie points out in this video, the main reason we probably see bad CG and VFX is because the movies themselves are just bad altogether. But there are several movies that use VFX very effectively and people dont even realize it being CG elements. Things like adding cars to streets in a chase scene for example, majority of the cars in the scene are not real cars. They are CG cars that were rendered and utilized correctly in order to add to the story.

I think that the main point that Freddie is trying to make is that CG is simply a tool, a tool that is used to help enhance the story that a filmmaker is trying to tell. If that story is not good, then many other elements will start to look bad as well. The effects will call attention to themselves because the audience is not engaged enough in the story.

So in the end, what matters the most is having a wonderful story to tell to an audience, once you know you have a great story, use the tools you have at your disposal effectively; use the right mix of practical and visual effects in order to help tell your story and make it more engaging and more believable for your audience.

CGI vs Practical Effects

Being in a motion graphics and animation class, we kind of find ourselves in the center of a heated debate in the movie industry. Is it better to use computer generated effects, or practical effects. Fans also have a huge stake this debate as well, many claiming that the overuse of CGI can "ruin" movies. Thats one of the reasons disgruntled fans give when complaining about the Star Wars prequels, and why the internet was overjoyed to find out J. J. Abrams is using puppets for Episode VII.

But one of the biggest franchises to find itself in the center of this debate is The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies. 

One thing that movie nerds love about The Lord of the Rings trilogy is the amazing use of makeup and practical effects to produce a large amount of Orcs and other characters in the movies. Actors would have to sit in makeup for hours on end into in order to achieve these impressive effects.

Many fans were then disappointed when they realized that The Hobbit trilogy would be taking a more computer based approach to get the desired look for many of the characters. While they did utilize makeup for some close ups and other less action oriented scenes, there is a heavy use of motion capture and other CGI techniques in order to create many of the characters. 

Both techniques are extremely impressive to pull off, and how they are received by an audience comes down to personal preference. In my opinion, you get best end result when you combine the two, using practical effects when you can and falling back on CGI when practical effects are just no longer practical.

Some good ol' practical effects

These guys really knew how to make use of practical stunts and using camera tricks to make their effects. This famous scene from Safety Last was really done on a roof top. The hanging from the clock hands too were done by Harold Lloyd himself too. Its pretty crazy how back in the day they were so creative in how they made these shots work.
Buster Keaton, The Marx Brothers, and Charlie Chaplin who also made and invented various stunts and practical effect in their films.

Real Special Effects

If you're like me, you've probably been fairly overwhelmed the past few months by the daunting piece of technology that is After Effects. Sure, it's capable of creating spaceships and monsters and making it look like you're in cool Martin Scorsese movies, but it also has the power to make you look like you have absolutely no idea what you're doing (like when your stupid birds flap their wings but don't actually fly anywhere). It can be frustrating, but also really rewarding.

However - as some posts have pointed out in the past - there are ways to work around the frustrations of After Effects: one of those ways being to perform real special effects instead of using a computer to generate them. I've written posts about how many films (some that you'd never expect) utilize CGI in their post-production process, but this post is about exactly the opposite. There are many films out there - looking at you, Christopher Nolan - that use far less CGI than has become the norm, and instead decide to stick to more "practical" (yes, I put that in quotations for a reason) special effects. Here's a list of a few movies that really surprised me.

1. Inception. I knew that the infamous 'rotating hallway' scene was done without the use of CGI, but I had no idea that two other key scenes in the film were made this way as well. There's one point where Leo Decaprio stands in a dream-world Japanese house, when all of a sudden, water comes crashing through the windows. Turns out, they had giant water cannons outside of the windows, and actually blasted Leo with 3,000 to 4,000 gallons of water. Likewise, the cafe explosion was done with practical effects: the filmmakers put air cannons around the actors and blew up the set surrounding Leo and Ellen Page.

2. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. There's a scene in the movie where Tom Cruise's character climbs the Burj Khalifa - the highest man-made structure in the world. Obviously fake, right? Well, knowing Tom Cruise, maybe this one's actually somewhat believable. Instead of creating a fake tower, the filmmakers let a man with a net worth of 250 million dollars literally run down the side of building hundreds of feet off the ground. That's dedication, no matter how insane.

3. Skyfall. I don't know what it is with dudes playing spies/special agents, but they have a penchant for doing their own stunts. In the newest James Bond movie, Daniel Craig was actually on top of a speeding train, attached with nothing but a super thin wire. They also - this one really got me - actually crashed a subway train through a wall. Craig was added into the scene via greenscreen later (for obvious reasons, I think.) In fact, the only major special effects used in the movie were the blowing up of MI6 and the scene where Bond fights off a Komodo Dragon.

Unfortunately, if you're like me and overwhelmed with After Effects, you can't just say "screw CGI, let's go crash a real train through a wall." That's something that Hollywood can do, not a broke college student who steals cutlery from the dining hall. Practical effects are amazing: I think they'll always trump computer generated effects when it comes to looking realistic, because...they are. However, you have to take the good with the bad, and, like Daniel Craig, understand that you while you may be able to derail a subway train, you don't necessarily want to be there when it happens. That's where After Effects comes in.

To see these examples and more, visit check out the original posts from Cracked.com here and here.

Morph Effects Part II: The Old Fashioned Way

So my last post before Spring Break. What to talk about?

Earlier this semester I talked about some of the morphing effects that were done in Grimm. While today we use computer animation along with make up to convey the various character and creature morphs, filmmakers had to rely on other methods. Here are some of the most well know practical effect transformations.

1) The Werewolf Transformation (An American Werewolf in London) (1981)

Of the transformation morphs that I am able recollect and this point, this was one of the more difficult ones. Through a series of quick cuts, Academy Award winning Special Fx artist Rick Baker has new bits of make up applied to in each cut. Also body casts were made of the creature and had to be applied to actor David Naughton. The whole process to approximately 10 hours to shoot only a few second worth of footage.


2) The Wolfman (1941)

This transformation in the 1941 version of The Wolfman works effectively by using a combination of its editing and subtle changes in make up. First the filmmaker's apply little bits of Lon Chaney Jr.'s make up. Immediately afterwards the editors perform a soft cross dissolve to the next frames where the make up artist apply the next layer of werewolf make up. This process continues until we have a completed werewolf as seen in this clip.


3) Dr.Jekyll & Mr.Hyde (1931 version)

This particular effect for years was one of Hollywood's most guarded secrets, up  until the director's death. This transformation I think is by far one of the most interesting in it's application. When actor Fredrick March transformed into his Hyde persona, they switched the light in the scene to a red one. The actor already would have his make up on for his Hyde character but in regular light it could not be seen. When the light was switched to a red one slowly over time to reveal the actor's make up.

After Effects? What about good ol' Practical Effects?

 

What did we do before the wonders of After Effects and post production possibilities? Directors and film-makers alike used what's known as Practical Effects! Practical effects are basically special effects done in real life. So what that means is, if you want a head to explode, you need to find a way to make something look like a head, stuff it with blood and guts, and actually explode it in front of a camera.

It takes a certain amount of creativity and know-how to get some of these special effects done, but when they're done, man do they look good. There's something about practical effects that just leaves viewers with a lasting impression. After watching the stomach teeth scene from The Thing (#1 in the top 10 video above), I don't think it would look as disgusting and horrifying if it were done in post-production. While practical effects are becoming less and less common, I think they should still have a place in movies today.