Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

    I saw in the thread about "cinematic masterpieces you hate" it started getting into a little back in forth between the older movie fans and some of the younger movie fans with more modern tastes in films and some of the older DDPers looking down on modern movies because their use of "bad" CGI it made me think of a point that always gets me when people talk about the superiority of older Hollywood productions is the fact that so many of them make use of ATROCIOUS sets and rear projection. You talk about about bad CGI taking you out of a movie how bout the fact that backgrounds that should appear 3-Dimensional look like a flat painted surface?

    I guess as someone not brought up on that stuff it all sticks out like a sore thumb for me and totally ruins my suspension of disbelief. That's why pretty much all my favorite black and white movies are Italian films.

  • #2
    Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

    Originally posted by Archduke View Post
    I saw in the thread about "cinematic masterpieces you hate" it started getting into a little back in forth between the older movie fans and some of the younger movie fans with more modern tastes in films and some of the older DDPers looking down on modern movies because their use of "bad" CGI it made me think of a point that always gets me when people talk about the superiority of older Hollywood productions is the fact that so many of them make use of ATROCIOUS sets and rear projection. You talk about about bad CGI taking you out of a movie how bout the fact that backgrounds that should appear 3-Dimensional look like a flat painted surface?

    I guess as someone not brought up on that stuff it all sticks out like a sore thumb for me and totally ruins my suspension of disbelief. That's why pretty much all my favorite black and white movies are Italian films.
    Hey, you're right about that and no one can complain. However...I get the impression your post is borne out of a desire to strike back for the CGI brigade, which is misplaced IMO. Objectively pointing out flaws is one thing, going tit for tat in defence of a film making techniques is bizarre.

    Another thing is all that stuff you refer to in background - not foreground as the bag CGI people complain about is. And that's a big difference. On top of that, those old techniques were the best they had at the time but with today's awesome CGI capabilites (Jurassic Park, Tron Legacy, District 9 etc) we feel cheated when we got obviously fake CGI as it ruins the experience and shows the film makers don't care enough (about us or their product) to make it look realistic. They may as well put a man in a rubber suit or show the strings holding the models in the air.

    The issue is not "CGI vs old school techniques". It's about poor film making techniques in general. People laud the CGI in Jurassic Park, and rightly so. Just like people moan when they can tell that the on-screen creature is a puppet. See, the main argument is not about CGI at all (though there is a related argument by people who want to see artists working with what is real) but it's about integrity and of film makers doing the best ad not showing contempt for their audience with obviously shoddy work.
    Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 01-25-2012, 06:19 AM.
    M.A.G.A.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

      we feel cheated when we got obviously fake CGI as it ruins the experience and shows the film makers don't care enough (about us or their product) to make it look realistic.
      I'm not sure it has anything to do with the film makers not caring.

      CGI is expensive, not all films can afford the top companies and sometimes a film gets stuck with guys who don't do a great job.

      Picking on CGI is a weak argument since it's an area where film makers (director's) have the least control and they have to rely on an FX company to work the magic. It's like blaming a Director because Keanu Reeves can't act.
      Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

        It has everything to do with them. It's their product. They know the work is substandard (and I'm including the mega budget films too). When they care, great results can happen with tiny budgets, like with District 9 and Moon. But most don't care and serve us slop. Eg: there is no excuse for the bad CGI T-Rex in Journey to the Centre of the Earth.

        Your second sentence is ridiculous.

        Identifying bad CGI is not weak, it's fair comment. Just like complaining about Keanu Reeves acting is fair game. (Though your analogy is off as no one would blame a director for an actor who comes with a project). Film makers have a lot of control, they see the test footage of the FX house, and they can work round it when the desired effect can't be realised (like with the original end sequence for The Thing, the opening attack in Jaws and a number of scenes with E.T.). Making a special effects extravaganza requires full attention to being able to deliver the results - the biggest concern during the making of Superman was whether they could make a man fly. That modern day film makers (and I'm pointing more at producers than directors - another reason why your Reeves analogy isoff) are happy to turn out obviousuly fake effects shows they don't care, because they feel audiences will lap it up regardless.

        And I stand by what I said to Archduke, I feel the same about any poor film making aspect when care is not taken, be it bad actors, bad practical effects, bad CGI or what-have-you. I'm not singling out CGI as Archduke implied. Iffy results when doing the best you can is fine but there's no excuse for negligence IMO.
        M.A.G.A.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

          I love movie sets!
          We just rewatched Groundhog day and loved showing our son that it's the same town square he saw at the Universal tour lot, and that you can see Marty McFly's clocktower (but decorated differently) and we were thinking it was likely the same downtown as It's a Wonderful Life. LOVE movie sets!
          I also love REAL locations.
          I was pretty bummed that Anonymous, among other problems, had CGI sets. They just didn't look real. I don't like video-game-looking movies and this wasn't that bad, but I like things to look real. Even Wizard of Oz has obvious movie sets-- (you can only go so far down the yellow brick road before you run into the backdrop) but it looks more solid than this CGI stuff.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

            THE BLACK NARCISSUS was all done on set. And it looks fantastic. As a matter of fact, I still don't believe it was all done on movie sets. But it was.

            ZODIAC had a huge amount of CGI and sets. In particular, the scene where they're working the cabbie homicide, all the background was CGI. When Cox goes to meet the Zodiac killer on a street corner, all the helicopters were CGI.

            As far as what's better than the other, if either is done badly, it'll take one out of the movie. Sometimes.

            HH

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

              I don't mind obvious sets and rear-projection in old movies. A lot of times, it adds to the charm. It implies that they had a story to tell and they weren't gonna let little-or-no-budget stop them from telling it.

              Complaining about the effects of a movie (unless that's the selling point and pretty much the only reason the movie exists) has always seemed to me like complaining about a gift just because of the wrapping it came in. Worse, sometimes it comes across as a symptom of constipation of the imagination.
              "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

              My YouTube channel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

                Originally posted by christopher jon View Post
                It's like blaming a Director because Keanu Reeves can't act.
                For the record, Keanu Reeves can act, and if he appears in a movie that's unsuitable for his style and range of acting it is the director's fault for doing a crappy job of casting.

                .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

                  I'm prepared to view art, or films on their own terms.

                  If it was made in the 1920s and it's say a film like METROPOLIS, then it's a superb film, regardless of age, and informed by art and other technical processes that existed at that time. But some things just age badly, like some people!

                  CGI will also date and seem unreal, it's not somehow immune to the things the original OP is struggling with, and OP, we all see film sets that don't always work, or date, or whatever, but doesn't it pay dividends to try and engage that film for what it achieved, is, how it was made, etc.

                  Esp. if you're a "film buff".
                  Last edited by The Road Warrior; 01-25-2012, 11:24 AM. Reason: typos
                  Forthcoming: The Annual, "I JUST GOT DUMPED" Valentine's Short Screenplay Writing Competition. Keep an eye on Writing Exercises.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

                    As someone who worked on the mentioned Tron Legacy, and currently working on one of this summers big action movies, I had to chime in.

                    I'm especially critical of FX in any movie, as it's my job, and as a film lover. But I don't think I'd categorize any use of CG as anyone "not caring".
                    On Tron for example, I worked on the hair for Clu 2.0. That hair was scrutinized PER STRAND. Even on his stubble, Steven Lisberger gave me notes for a follicle or two at a time! Obviously he cared. But yet, people still bashed the CG.

                    I think a lot of times, it has to do with budget issues, or time constraints. The whole model of "we want more, faster, and cheaper, in LESS time" is insane. The movie I'm working on comes out July 3rd, so we'll be working a good 6-7 days a week until June. I would imagine some things are going to slip through the cracks on that kind of schedule.

                    Really, one thing I notice the most about our end of the business, are there are way too many "cooks in the kitchen". Everybody up the chain wants to put their stamp on it, for better or worse.

                    I have to give a shout out to the folks who worked on X-Men: First Class. The fact that movie was written, shot, and went through post in a year, and came out as good as it did (loved most of that movie) was a nice surprise!

                    Ok, back to simming particles, and studying writing

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

                      The obviously constructed back lot sets pretending to be Greenwich Village streets that appear in Eyes Wide Shut pull me out of the movie every time, one of only a couple of flaws in an otherwise perfect film.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

                        Movie sets and rear projections can be bothering when they don't fit the tone of the movie. While they are obvious in many old flicks, I don't find them particularly distracting. Only if the scene is boring I'll start to consider the set, the lighting (like a car that's driving at night in a city but the windshield doesn't catch reflections.)

                        Sometimes, though, they can be made obvious for artistic purposes, like some rear projections I seem to remember in von Trier's "Europa" ("Zentropa" in the US, apparently.) Other examples could be "Dogville" or "Manderlay", where sets (mostly the lack of them) are used to create a very particular experience, close to a minimalist theatre performance (I hate to use the word "minimalist" in this vague sense, but can't think of another way to call it.)

                        As for CGI, it can be done well and it can be done without taste. As any other tool, it isn't bad in itself. But I agree that there's way too much silly camera movement that serves no purpose in some CGIed films, although probably younger viewers feel different about it because that's the kind of filmmaking they are growing with. You know for a fact you're getting old when you can't understand the tastes of the younger generations (damn...)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

                          I could never get into Missing in Action because the jungle they're wandering through in the very first scene is clearly a sound stage.
                          Chicks Who Script podcast

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

                            Originally posted by emily blake View Post
                            I could never get into Missing in Action because the jungle they're wandering through in the very first scene is clearly a sound stage.
                            Chuck Norris doesn't go to the jungle - the jungle comes to him. In the studio!
                            M.A.G.A.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is anyone else bothered by obvious sets in movies?

                              Come to think of it, Indiana Jones 4 had TERRIBLE, AWFUL, HORRIBLE sets. It actually looked like they filmed in an amusement park. One and Three look great -- you really feel like you're in a cave by the pyramids or under Venice or inside that place in Petra.

                              Ah, Venice...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X