Blue screening to change the way films are done?
#1
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The land of chocolate
Posts: 6,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue screening to change the way films are done?
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E13780,00.html
ANGELINA Jolie's latest film, World of Tomorrow, is the first Hollywood film to be shot entirely without props and locations.
In a technological advance on the old back-projection system, the whole of World of Tomorrow was shot on a blue screen - that is, actors played their roles against a blank wall, leaving the background to be filled in later by computer programmers.
Filmed at Britain's Elstree Studios, all locations, scenery and even furniture were abandoned, except for a handful of props used as markers to show where Jolie and her co-stars, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow, should stand during the seven-day shoot.
Jolie plays a British pilot who comes to the aid of Law, another heroic airman, and a wisecracking New York reporter played by Paltrow. They investigate mysterious flying machines that threaten the 1939 World Fair in New York and their adventure takes them to the Himalayas for a dramatic showdown with an evil genius.
Jolie said she was indebted to blue screen. "I had just finished Tomb Raider 2 and making another such film in a similar way would have taken another year to shoot on location," she said.
The film's producer, Jon Avnet, who worked on movies such as Inspector Gadget and George of the Jungle, said the breakthrough lay in the realism.
"Back projection gave us Bedknobs and Broomsticks, which was Disney fun in the 1970s, but modern blue-screen fools the eye into thinking it's all shot on location," he said. "It halved our budget."
World of Tomorrow, which will be processed in Los Angeles before being released next year, may help save Hollywood from its own excesses. Increasingly, producers are trying to clamp down on the escalating costs of "event movies" that are pushing out low and medium-cost films.
The artists themselves, however, may not always be as enthusiastic as the accountants. Director Martin Scorsese refused to use blue screen when filming Gangs of New York, preferring instead to build an "authentic" 19th-century city in Italy.
Many consider the technology to be the death knell for traditional acting. Delia Salvi, who teaches film at the University of California Los Angeles, said: "Actors cannot give their best, talking to a marker like a lampshade ... Hollywood may be richer, but the audience may end up robbed."
The Australian
In a technological advance on the old back-projection system, the whole of World of Tomorrow was shot on a blue screen - that is, actors played their roles against a blank wall, leaving the background to be filled in later by computer programmers.
Filmed at Britain's Elstree Studios, all locations, scenery and even furniture were abandoned, except for a handful of props used as markers to show where Jolie and her co-stars, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow, should stand during the seven-day shoot.
Jolie plays a British pilot who comes to the aid of Law, another heroic airman, and a wisecracking New York reporter played by Paltrow. They investigate mysterious flying machines that threaten the 1939 World Fair in New York and their adventure takes them to the Himalayas for a dramatic showdown with an evil genius.
Jolie said she was indebted to blue screen. "I had just finished Tomb Raider 2 and making another such film in a similar way would have taken another year to shoot on location," she said.
The film's producer, Jon Avnet, who worked on movies such as Inspector Gadget and George of the Jungle, said the breakthrough lay in the realism.
"Back projection gave us Bedknobs and Broomsticks, which was Disney fun in the 1970s, but modern blue-screen fools the eye into thinking it's all shot on location," he said. "It halved our budget."
World of Tomorrow, which will be processed in Los Angeles before being released next year, may help save Hollywood from its own excesses. Increasingly, producers are trying to clamp down on the escalating costs of "event movies" that are pushing out low and medium-cost films.
The artists themselves, however, may not always be as enthusiastic as the accountants. Director Martin Scorsese refused to use blue screen when filming Gangs of New York, preferring instead to build an "authentic" 19th-century city in Italy.
Many consider the technology to be the death knell for traditional acting. Delia Salvi, who teaches film at the University of California Los Angeles, said: "Actors cannot give their best, talking to a marker like a lampshade ... Hollywood may be richer, but the audience may end up robbed."
The Australian
#2
DVD Talk Legend
George Lucas pretty much did this with the last two Star Wars films and we saw some really good actors give the worst performances of their careers. This may be a nice trick, but it won't be used as much as some executives hope it will.
#3
DVD Talk Limited Edition
The technology is stunning but it still does not work believably enough. Too often it lends that look of artificiality. Many older films that needed props etc., look so much more real. This dependance has plagued the film industry and is creating an illusory feeling in the theatre that is not an improvement. How many timeshave I watched scenes that are fun but have that "off" feeling as you can almost see the wires.
But it is a step to a technology filled with promise.
But it is a step to a technology filled with promise.
#4
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care how far technology goes, real things, be they matte paintings, models, and I guess we now have to consider sets and props, will always look better on screen than CGI. Golem is the one outstanding exception. Perhaps if WETA is doing the FX it may work.
Martin Scorsese
Martin Scorsese
#5
Maybe someday we won't have to even need Hollywood's actors.
#6
DVD Talk Legend
I'll take real scenery, building, people and props over blue screen and CGI characters any day.
The last 2 Star Wars and LOTRs are too claustrophobic, and give the feeling of watching something fake, cold and lacking emotion.
The last 2 Star Wars and LOTRs are too claustrophobic, and give the feeling of watching something fake, cold and lacking emotion.
#9
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Groucho
No props? Makes no sense. Let's say a character is smoking a cigarette. It's cheaper to have him pantomine and then CGI it in later? I don't think so.
No props? Makes no sense. Let's say a character is smoking a cigarette. It's cheaper to have him pantomine and then CGI it in later? I don't think so.
Honestly, I don't know how to feel about this. It's great to have the ability to create locations which would otherwise be impossible or very expensive. But in many cases it's too hard to sell the illusion of reality
#10
I'll take real scenery, building, people and props over blue screen and CGI characters any day
How about Final Fantasy?
How about Final Fantasy?
#11
DVD Talk Hero
It wasn't that good. The effects were good, but the movie bored me to death. It doesn't matter how many effects there are, the story still rules. If it's interesting and is told the right way then the movie will turn out to be good.
Compare Star Wars to other effects heavy movies. Star Wars with it's stone cold acting is close to horrible. The Matrix, LOTR and other effects heavy movies with good acting are very good.
Compare Star Wars to other effects heavy movies. Star Wars with it's stone cold acting is close to horrible. The Matrix, LOTR and other effects heavy movies with good acting are very good.
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Groucho
No props? Makes no sense. Let's say a character is smoking a cigarette. It's cheaper to have him pantomine and then CGI it in later? I don't think so.
No props? Makes no sense. Let's say a character is smoking a cigarette. It's cheaper to have him pantomine and then CGI it in later? I don't think so.
#13
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I think that few in hollywood have truly balanced this technology. CGI is great in a lot of things ie Golem/Matrix etc but there are still a lot of bugs to work out. Sometimes, heck a lot of times, they go overboard.
I think a good balance was actually achieved in Jurrasic Park. The dinosaurs looked fantastic in CGI but they still used robotics and puppets when they could. The mix between the two still holds up. at least I think so.
I think a good balance was actually achieved in Jurrasic Park. The dinosaurs looked fantastic in CGI but they still used robotics and puppets when they could. The mix between the two still holds up. at least I think so.
#14
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey I love a good SFX film as much as anybody else, but making actors work to an empty room is just asking too much. An occassional SFX scene is fine, but not an entire movie. These people need something they can react to, that lets them 'get into the characters'. Like somebody suggested earlier, I suspect this was part of the reason the performances in the last two SW films were so weak.
Hopefully it'll be a long time before serious filmakers embrace this process.
Hopefully it'll be a long time before serious filmakers embrace this process.