Die Hard (the original)

[Marcel Birgelen]

I don't think you're getting my point. Back then, in those early, ground-breaking days of CGI, the crews planned the shots with discipline. They sweated all kinds of small, seemingly meaningless details in advance. They did that because they knew there was no room for do-overs. Even in the "analog" days with practical effects there was often just one chance to get the shot right. When the shots did work or successfully final render there was a big emotional pay-off and real sense of accomplishment.

Today the ethic is more about cranking out shots as fast as possible in standards good enough to get by. A modern big budget movie may have hundreds or even thousands of effects shots. But when things are done churn-and-burn style it does tend to show. The sense of realism can be easily lost when a production is rendering shots in terms of volume and speed rather than quality. There may not be any better proof of this than the artificial 2D>3D conversions we were seeing years ago following the success of Avatar (a native 3D movie). Some 2D>3D conversions were not all that bad, but a bunch of them were freaking garbage and an insult to movie-goers paying the $3 or more premium per ticket to watch a fake 3D movie.

I think I do get your point pretty well. I do agree with it, partly, but I think you're painting the situation a bit too black and white.

Like I said, all tools can be used for good and bad. For example, the fact that we now have 3D tracking and compositing software, allows us to focus on other things, rather than to adjust the camera for every single frame. Now, you could use this as a short-cut for "cut-and-paste" CGI effects without giving too much thought about the actual shot, but it the time you win with this can also be used for other, more meaningful things. The fact that there are so many hollow movies being made as of late, maybe signifies that the latter isn't the norm, but that doesn't mean it never happens, because there still is the occasional release of a pretty good movie, still full of CGI.

Regarding the 2D to 3D conversions... sure, most if not all of them were just a lazy cash-grab. Luckily, "3D" has mostly gone the way it has gone before... Wake me up once we can get perfect 3D without glasses.

There is nothing especially challenging in CGI anymore for movie productions, or even series TV. The computer systems and software have grown advanced enough to allow a lot of TV shows to do CGI and digital backlot work on a limited budget especially when they can farm out some of the grunt work to India or wherever. It's as if a dumbing-down of the industry has been taking place. Lord knows, it has been happening in other fields within the graphics industry. I see a lot of garbage quality work in the print industry. And the sign industry, at least here in the US, is utterly infected unqualified people passing themselves off as "graphic designers." It's no wonder so many cities and suburbs are adopting ever more strict, sweeping sign codes. We're causing the anti-signs backlash to happen by not giving enough of a damn about the quality of work we are producing. Again, at too many sign shops it's just a churn-and-burn attitude.

I'd say, both has happened. We've seen a "dumbing down" of SFX productions for "general consumption", but if you look at many high-profile releases, the CGI in them is often (not always) top-notch and nothing you can achieve by cutting corners left and right. That doesn't mean the movies that feature those CGI effects are any good plot-wise, but they're audio-visual spectacles, which couldn't have been achieved with technology of 20 or 30 years ago. But like I said: I want movies to have a meaningful plot. If I want special effects galore, I'd rather visit a theme park or watch some SFX-tech demo reels.

I didn't say that CGI has ruined Hollywood as we knew it. But churn-and-burn style CGI is just another example of how Hollywood studios are increasingly phoning it in rather than putting in a full, legit effort on any given project. Look how dependent Disney has become on Star Wars and Marvel ideas. They're rarely taking chances on anything new. And even if the movie isn't based on a previously existing piece of IP the script is going to be run through the Save the Cat formula machine.

I also didn't say you said it, or at least it wasn't my intention to imply this. I guess we generally agree on what has largely ruined Hollywood as we knew it. It doesn't help that half of it is now owned by Disney and WB is now owned by a large telecom company, rather than a large publishing and broadcasting corporation...

[Bobby Henderson]

Like I said, all tools can be used for good and bad. For example, the fact that we now have 3D tracking and compositing software, allows us to focus on other things, rather than to adjust the camera for every single frame. Now, you could use this as a short-cut for "cut-and-paste" CGI effects without giving too much thought about the actual shot, but it the time you win with this can also be used for other, more meaningful things.

The problem is the firms are rarely ever using the time saved in software advancements (like tracking) to spend on more meaningful things, such as conquering the uncanny valley in CG representations of people. They are using time saved as a means of speeding up the post production time line. They are not covering any new ground. They are not venturing into any uncharted territory. The firms are pretty much doing things that have been done before, only a bit faster and faster as hardware continues to improve. It is rare for these firms to go into any uncharted territory. This is further complicated by the fact that any movie project of significant size will have its digital post production workflow divided up among many firms -all of whom have to keep the output looking consistent. That and tight deadlines prevent a lot of chance taking.

30+ years ago firms like ILM had to create a lot of custom software in order to realize the CGI shots they wanted to make. Adobe Photoshop is one example of an application whose DNA traces back to custom software created at ILM. New advancements these days typically come via new features introduced in stock software, such as Nuke. That's how you get more realistic looking fire, smoke and water effects.

My biggest complaint with bad CGI is how objects and characters are animated. Too often the movement looks unnatural and unconvincing. Hardly better than an in-game "cinematic" from a game played on a console. They'll make the choice to speed things up and do things that completely defy the laws of physics because it looks cool. It's not as bad as the stupid bullshit common in bad action movies (Torque is a favorite example of laugh-inducing action moments). Over 40 years ago ILM had a math formula for calculating the increase in frame rate needed to photograph a model at a given scale to make it look more real. It's as if the effects firms of today have taken knowledge like that and thrown it in the trash bin. They don't think any of that shit matters. Just get the sequence done ASAP. Who cares if the end result looks like a cartoon?

I guess we generally agree on what has largely ruined Hollywood as we knew it. It doesn't help that half of it is now owned by Disney and WB is now owned by a large telecom company, rather than a large publishing and broadcasting corporation.

Movies (and IP in general) are being turned into a commodity with no more charm to it than gasoline or corn. The Wall Street guys are squeezing the "soul" (for the lack of a better word) out of movies. I've said it before that my movie buying habits have dropped off to zero. I can't remember the last movie I bought on Blu-ray and when I did so. It has probably been at least a couple years or more. I'll really hate it if commercial movie theaters disappear. The thing likely to be even more sad is much of the general public likely won't give a shit.

[Frank Cox]

I have the Space 1999 series on DVD and one of the best extra features that come with it is a look at the making and filming of the model spaceships and planets and whatnot.

A helluvalotta work went into making those models and figuring out how to make them move.

[Bobby Henderson]

I thought the ships in Space: 1999 looked pretty cool. The series ran from 1975 to 1977. I was in elementary school then; we were stationed in Arizona at the time. Then we moved to Japan. Over there the AFRTS TV station on the Marine Base played re-runs of Space: 1999 among other shows. One thing I appreciated about Japan is they had the coolest damned toys in their stores. That included stuff from American movies and TV shows. So they had these decent sized replicas of the ships from Space: 1999, complete with all kinds of detachable parts.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I can't think of stuff like Space: 1999 without stirring up a bit of melancholic irony. Back then, we really thought that by now we would've conquered at least large parts of our own solar system. Instead we focused on iPhones and other gadgets and even failed to make those work all the time. We've invested gazillions of dollars into something that's definitely not space...

Those miniature-based effects have worked pretty well, they’ve been the backbone of all special effects up until CGI became more of the norm during the 1990s. But even as of today, models are still being used. Realistic explosions still seem to work better when blowing real stuff up instead of doing the same thing digitally. Stuff like fire still is very hard to get look right in an all-digital set-up.

My biggest complaint with bad CGI is how objects and characters are animated. Too often the movement looks unnatural and unconvincing. Hardly better than an in-game "cinematic" from a game played on a console. They'll make the choice to speed things up and do things that completely defy the laws of physics because it looks cool. It's not as bad as the stupid bullshit common in bad action movies (Torque is a favorite example of laugh-inducing action moments). Over 40 years ago ILM had a math formula for calculating the increase in frame rate needed to photograph a model at a given scale to make it look more real. It's as if the effects firms of today have taken knowledge like that and thrown it in the trash bin. They don't think any of that shit matters. Just get the sequence done ASAP. Who cares if the end result looks like a cartoon?

Simulating humans seems to be a pretty daunting task to do. Humans have a very complex muscle system and we're seemingly aware of anything that's off. That's why it's easy to end-up in this uncanny valley. This also holds true for stuff like animatronics. It's far easier to present a "realistic" or "uncanny" animatronic of a cartoon character than that of a human or humanoid being. I think we ultimately will need something like AI/deep-learning based inputs, in order to get 3D animations of humans to be indistinguishable from the real thing. There is simply too much going on to animate this by hand.

While deepfakes aren't based on 3D renderings, but rather 2D overlays based on trained neural nets, what they can accomplish today is already pretty interesting. I recently watched this video, where they applied deepfake algorithms on-top of the Irishman. Yeah, it's applying a deepfake on already pretty advanced CGI, but the end-results look more convincing most of the time, than the original, at least to me.

Movies (and IP in general) are being turned into a commodity with no more charm to it than gasoline or corn. The Wall Street guys are squeezing the "soul" (for the lack of a better word) out of movies. I've said it before that my movie buying habits have dropped off to zero. I can't remember the last movie I bought on Blu-ray and when I did so. It has probably been at least a couple years or more. I'll really hate it if commercial movie theaters disappear. The thing likely to be even more sad is much of the general public likely won't give a shit.

Let's forget 2020 for a while, because it's hardly a referential year. But we humans always tend to look to the past with a bunch of a rosy colored glasses. I'm not denying that there is something deeply flawed in Hollywood, but it's not like the Hollywood of 20 or 30 years ago did churn out one masterpiece after the other. For Hollywood execs, movies always have been about making big bundles of cash, it only happens to be that those execs of yesteryear were willing to take more risks than those of today. The idea of movie franchises wasn't as deeply ingrained as it is today and original projects got more room to grow.

[Mike Blakesley]

I'll really hate it if commercial movie theaters disappear. The thing likely to be even more sad is much of the general public likely won't give a shit.

Yeah. That's the depressing part. I have thought about that too.... if we were to close our doors today, but keep the marquee lit up, a year from now half (or more) of the town would assume we were still open. Then when they found out we were closed, they would say how sad it was, and then say "I haven't been in there in 30 years."

[Marcel Birgelen]

Yeah. That's the depressing part. I have thought about that too.... if we were to close our doors today, but keep the marquee lit up, a year from now half (or more) of the town would assume we were still open. Then when they found out we were closed, they would say how sad it was, and then say "I haven't been in there in 30 years."

But realistically, was this really anything different, let's say 20 years or so ago? You obviously know your own community like no other, especially when you grew up there. I might be wrong here, but I've never lived under the impression that modern main-stream cinema reaches anything more than 50% of the population. My love for cinema grew when I was young, but it wasn't because of my parents, because they didn't and still don't care about cinema at all. I know quite a lot of people that haven't visited any cinema in decades. I guess it's the same with stuff like live rock and pop concerts, live stage performances. While there is a large market for them... well, in normal times, it's not like any of those reach the entire population.

I think it's important to stay in the people's minds though, especially if you're closed right now, but even if you're still open and people simply don't find you because of lack of stuff to see. Once people think you're just a distant memory, the truth will quickly follow the people's imagination...

[Bobby Henderson]

While deepfakes aren't based on 3D renderings, but rather 2D overlays based on trained neural nets, what they can accomplish today is already pretty interesting.

Here's the thing about deepfakes: the people working on the tech behind it are actually innovating something and working pretty hard at it. I recently saw a video where someone (or a team of people) recently re-worked a few scenes from Tron: Legacy, featuring the "young" CG-enhanced version of Jeff Bridges and his "Clu" character.

The version of Clu and the young Flynn in the 2010 movie couldn't quite get across the uncanny valley. In this recent project they used a bunch of the latest deep-fake techniques to render much more believable versions of the young Jeff Bridges. And they showed side by side comparisons of the 2010 movie footage compared to the new deep-fake version to show the level of improvement. These people very likely had the luxury of time to work and re-work the problem to yield better results.

The state of movie-making today does not leave room for things like extra time to make some element of a movie better, be it the CGI, sound mix or anything else in post production. The work mode is crank the shit out as fast as possible to standards just good enough to get by. There is no room to make things look great or "perfect."

I'm not denying that there is something deeply flawed in Hollywood, but it's not like the Hollywood of 20 or 30 years ago did churn out one masterpiece after the other. For Hollywood execs, movies always have been about making big bundles of cash, it only happens to be that those execs of yesteryear were willing to take more risks than those of today. The idea of movie franchises wasn't as deeply ingrained as it is today and original projects got more room to grow.

Even in the 1980's there was a lot of "schlock" quality movies along with the big event releases. There was also a wider variety and range of movies in between. The major studios today only seem to be interested in franchises, a big movie that can spawn endless numbers of sequels, spin-offs and then re-makes. Today perhaps the most difficult kind of movie to get green-lit is a mid-size budget project not based on any previous material. The big studios are just not interested. 30 years ago those kinds of movies paid the bills for movie studios.

It's no accident that a lot of respected filmmakers appear to be defecting from the traditional movie release model and setting up deals with outfits like Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc. They can make a 2 hour movie, a limited multi-part series or a long form series. There are no rules. While the production budgets aren't nearly as large the crews do have more freedom with what they do in the script and what they put on screen. They don't have to worry about the MPAA breathing down their necks threatening a NC-17 rating if there is too much nudity, simulated humping or graphic violence in their shows. In recent years I've seen things frequently on premium cable (HBO) or streaming platforms that would get an NC-17 rating if put into a theatrical release.

The notion that more and more of the "grown-up" quality drama shows are going direct to TV only puts movie theaters into an even more perilous situation.

[Mike Blakesley]

But realistically, was this really anything different, let's say 20 years or so ago? You obviously know your own community like no other, especially when you grew up there. I might be wrong here, but I've never lived under the impression that modern main-stream cinema reaches anything more than 50% of the population.

Well, you're right. That makes me feel better, strangely.

I've always thought people around here don't realize how lucky they are to not only have a theater in town, but a NICE theater. A lot of towns our size and larger don't have one at all, especially right now. So I don't really understand why we're not over-run with customers every weekend.