Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   So movie writers can write something other than why civilization needs theaters. Because otherwise, they'd need to get a job   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Academy Award, Academy Award for Best Picture, 93rd Academy Awards, award shows, best directing, producer Harvey Weinstein, qualified films, Bob Hope  
•       •       •

580 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Apr 2021 at 5:35 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



62 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-16 4:55:07 PM  
Most of Best Movie Oscars are wrong. But then why does anyone give a shiat about who well anyone throws a ball around?
 
2021-04-16 5:40:35 PM  
of course i didnt rtfa but as a society, we need movie theaters more than we need the oscars

i mean where else are horny teens going to go finger each other? not their bedrooms, certainly not the oscars
 
2021-04-16 5:48:33 PM  
If they were actual, good-faith adjudications of quality and talent, sure. They're not. They're campaign arms races and a whole f*ck-ton of Hollywood politics.
 
2021-04-16 5:53:02 PM  
Well actual talent like VFX, cinematography deserves recognition. Acting, "Best Picture" is usually bullshiat.
 
2021-04-16 5:54:10 PM  

austerity101: If they were actual, good-faith adjudications of quality and talent, sure. They're not. They're campaign arms races and a whole f*ck-ton of Hollywood politics.


"I have nothing against Oscar. I know what he stands for and it's terrific. And I think when people used to hang around and pat each other on the back over a drink and dinner it was wonderful. But when it became an international hoopla, where careers lived and died on whether or not you did or didn't get an Oscar, then it got out of hand." -- George C. Scott
 
2021-04-16 6:15:07 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: austerity101: If they were actual, good-faith adjudications of quality and talent, sure. They're not. They're campaign arms races and a whole f*ck-ton of Hollywood politics.

"I have nothing against Oscar. I know what he stands for and it's terrific. And I think when people used to hang around and pat each other on the back over a drink and dinner it was wonderful. But when it became an international hoopla, where careers lived and died on whether or not you did or didn't get an Oscar, then it got out of hand." -- George C. Scott


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-16 6:15:51 PM  

Mugato: Well actual talent like VFX, cinematography deserves recognition. Acting, "Best Picture" is usually bullshiat.


Yes, we remember how you feel about Pulp Fiction.😉
 
2021-04-16 6:16:08 PM  
Holy crap... six comments in and I agree with all of them. This is a record for me.
 
2021-04-16 7:04:40 PM  
No matter what anyone tells you, no one "needs" to be an enclosed space surrounded by infected garbage people, and gouged for overpriced popcorn.
 
2021-04-16 7:05:19 PM  
*in an enclosed space
 
2021-04-16 7:13:53 PM  

Bslim: No matter what anyone tells you, no one "needs" to be an enclosed space surrounded by infected garbage people, and gouged for overpriced popcorn.


I've been to the movies several times this year. The theatres were virtually empty. Once there was a group of five people, a couple of couples, and me. Twice there were two people. Twice I was alone. The other times there were four or five. I felt safer there than I do at the grocery store or mall.
 
2021-04-16 7:16:51 PM  
The Oscars can be funny and unpredictable. I was shocked that "Parasite" won, laughing when they Farker up "Moonlight" winning the Oscar. And as for "The Shape of Water", I remember leaving the theater after seeing that movie, and I overheard one woman telling her friend, "I can't believe I watched a movie about a woman farking a fish!"
 
kab
2021-04-16 7:24:55 PM  

Bslim: No matter what anyone tells you, no one "needs" to be an enclosed space surrounded by infected garbage people, and gouged for overpriced popcorn.


I dont like public transportation either.
 
2021-04-16 7:28:47 PM  

The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse: Bith Set Me Up: austerity101: If they were actual, good-faith adjudications of quality and talent, sure. They're not. They're campaign arms races and a whole f*ck-ton of Hollywood politics.

"I have nothing against Oscar. I know what he stands for and it's terrific. And I think when people used to hang around and pat each other on the back over a drink and dinner it was wonderful. But when it became an international hoopla, where careers lived and died on whether or not you did or didn't get an Oscar, then it got out of hand." -- George C. Scott

[Fark user image 327x154]


And he stayed true to this conviction.

When he won Best Actor for Patton, he told the Academy to go fark themselves, and neither showed up nor accepted the award. It sits unclaimed in a vault somewhere.
 
2021-04-16 7:34:16 PM  
Parks Dept here had a summer program a couple years ago, showing movies outdoors in the park.  Why couldn't they make the necessary adjustments and do it again?
 
2021-04-16 7:43:33 PM  

Mugato: Most of Best Movie Oscars are wrong. But then why does anyone give a shiat about who well anyone throws a ball around?


Best movie is chosen by people who want wanky movies targeted at what they want to wank over.

Sometimes it's a movie people would want to watch. Mostly not
 
2021-04-16 7:55:59 PM  

skinink: The Oscars can be funny and unpredictable. I was shocked that "Parasite" won, laughing when they Farker up "Moonlight" winning the Oscar. And as for "The Shape of Water", I remember leaving the theater after seeing that movie, and I overheard one woman telling her friend, "I can't believe I watched a movie about a woman farking a fish!"


It felt like a dark and gritty remake of Splash with the gender roles reversed.
 
2021-04-16 7:57:58 PM  
I don't know if they matter necessarily. But they can be a potentially fun/interesting diversion to argue about like they've been for almost 100 years. Anyone who tries to put any more importance to them is, uh, misguided
 
2021-04-16 7:58:03 PM  
I enjoy the Globes.  Everyone is hammered, and there's at least a bit more objectivity.  It's the perspective of journalists around the world, not the incestuous back patting of industry insiders.
 
2021-04-16 8:07:19 PM  

Mugato: Well actual talent like VFX, cinematography deserves recognition. Acting, "Best Picture" is usually bullshiat.


I wouldn't' put vfx in any category at this point. Anyone can learn it, and the only thing about it that's praiseworthy is the software, and barely even that. Doesn't take a genius to get a nuke or Maya license and grind out iterations of a single 30 frame shot over three months.

What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?
 
2021-04-16 8:12:55 PM  

Ishkur: The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse: Bith Set Me Up: austerity101: If they were actual, good-faith adjudications of quality and talent, sure. They're not. They're campaign arms races and a whole f*ck-ton of Hollywood politics.

"I have nothing against Oscar. I know what he stands for and it's terrific. And I think when people used to hang around and pat each other on the back over a drink and dinner it was wonderful. But when it became an international hoopla, where careers lived and died on whether or not you did or didn't get an Oscar, then it got out of hand." -- George C. Scott

[Fark user image 327x154]

And he stayed true to this conviction.

When he won Best Actor for Patton, he told the Academy to go fark themselves, and neither showed up nor accepted the award. It sits unclaimed in a vault somewhere.


His producer, Frank McCarthy, accepted the award on his behalf:

George C. Scott winning Best Actor for "Patton"
Youtube 455lV52H7v4
 
2021-04-16 8:15:30 PM  
The Oscars have never been about moviegoers, actors, or the film industry. They've always been a giant circlejerk party for the ultra wealthy behind the scenes of the film industry. You don't win by actually being the best in a category, you win by kneeling down and paying proper respect to the couple dozen people who are the real money behind Hollywood. The Oscars are a big public show designed solely to be the time of the year for the movers and shakers in Hollywood to bow to their true kings and if they do it well the wealthy elite might bless them with a statue that signals their favor.

They don't give a fark what average people watching the Oscars think about the winning movies. The winners don't even matter. It's all about the acknowledgement of Hollywood royalty. Kiss the ring, get a statue from the King.
 
2021-04-16 8:45:40 PM  

Billy Liar: Parks Dept here had a summer program a couple years ago, showing movies outdoors in the park.  Why couldn't they make the necessary adjustments and do it again?


A couple of places were doing drive-in movies last summer.  I don't know if they will start up again when the weather is better.
 
2021-04-16 8:47:21 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Mugato: Well actual talent like VFX, cinematography deserves recognition. Acting, "Best Picture" is usually bullshiat.

I wouldn't' put vfx in any category at this point. Anyone can learn it, and the only thing about it that's praiseworthy is the software, and barely even that. Doesn't take a genius to get a nuke or Maya license and grind out iterations of a single 30 frame shot over three months.

What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?


Yeah, and any 3-year-old can paint the Mona Lisa.
 
2021-04-16 8:59:21 PM  

gunther_bumpass: What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?


I could be wrong, but I thought the human facial facsimile was the cutting edge stuff of the moment.  Like Leia in Rogue One, or Luke in Mandalorian.
 
2021-04-16 9:19:42 PM  
Taste is a subjective quantity.

That being said, everything about Hollywood awards is a giant circlejerk.
 
2021-04-16 10:11:17 PM  

haknudsen: Yeah, and any 3-year-old can paint the Mona Lisa.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-16 10:32:02 PM  

frestcrallen: gunther_bumpass: What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?

I could be wrong, but I thought the human facial facsimile was the cutting edge stuff of the moment.  Like Leia in Rogue One, or Luke in Mandalorian.


dude. Don't even start on that with me. You have no. farking. Clue.
 
2021-04-16 11:56:46 PM  

gunther_bumpass: dude. Don't even start on that with me. You have no. farking. Clue.


Well, I did preface my comment with "I could be wrong."  Apparently I was.

I'm not a gamer or a programmer.  For all I know, completely lifelike human depictions have been the norm for a long time.  As a filthy casual watching those aforementioned movies, the VFX seemed novel to me.
 
2021-04-17 12:48:54 AM  

frestcrallen: gunther_bumpass: What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?

I could be wrong, but I thought the human facial facsimile was the cutting edge stuff of the moment.  Like Leia in Rogue One, or Luke in Mandalorian.


Both had the same goals but used different processes to achieve the effect. And this type of visual effect has a ways to go before quality wise. It'll get better though.
 
2021-04-17 12:53:56 AM  

gunther_bumpass: Mugato: Well actual talent like VFX, cinematography deserves recognition. Acting, "Best Picture" is usually bullshiat.

I wouldn't' put vfx in any category at this point. Anyone can learn it, and the only thing about it that's praiseworthy is the software, and barely even that. Doesn't take a genius to get a nuke or Maya license and grind out iterations of a single 30 frame shot over three months.

What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?


Just like anyone can download a copy of Final Cut, Premiere, or (if they're a glutton for punishment) Avid. Same with hardware.

Making high end film/video has never been more accessible, yet it still takes a ton of skill with a solid team of artists to do it at the highest level.
 
2021-04-17 12:55:36 AM  

gunther_bumpass: What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?


Mocap, machinima, and AI -- visual effects that are so good you don't even notice how they use them.

There was a period in the late 90s and early 00s when fully CGI characters were rendered entirely in post production and the actors had nothing to act against or respond to (what Will Smith annoyingly called "yelling at a blue tennis ball on a stick"). A lot of franchises like Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Star Wars prequels, and aforementioned Men In Black all suffered from this limitation. If their cues weren't absolutely perfect, the actors looked out of place in the scene and the CGI looked faked and transposed.

It was Weta and Andy Serkis who solve the issue of CGI characters by alleviating the difficulties and responsibilities of the digital animators. Motion capture allowed actors to once again act against one another, and machinima allowed directors to see it in real time -- you could even include it in the dailies, which gave them the flexibility to reshoot scenes as needed.

Moreover, mocap tech had gotten so acute, accurate, and sophisticated that the digital animators no longer had to spend tedious hours animating a believable smile in a CGI character. The AI removed the need for all that -- when Andy Serkis smiles, the CGI character smiles, in real time. When Caesar emotes in Planet of the Apes, that is 95% Andy Serkis and 5% digital animators. The rest is the AI code mimicking his actions.

This is how a lot of superhero movies are made now. When Thor and Hulk fight, it's not all CGI. It's still Hemsworth and Ruffalo with some cue points, and the computer takes care of the rest. It saves wear and tear on the animators, and assists the actors with the scene. Looks like this:

Fark user imageView Full Size

None of this was possible 20 years ago. The tech was there, but not the computing power to render the tech in real time, so the director can review the scene and reshoot/retool on location as he sees fit.
 
2021-04-17 1:02:31 AM  

Ishkur: gunther_bumpass: What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?

Mocap, machinima, and AI -- visual effects that are so good you don't even notice how they use them.

There was a period in the late 90s and early 00s when fully CGI characters were rendered entirely in post production and the actors had nothing to act against or respond to (what Will Smith annoyingly called "yelling at a blue tennis ball on a stick"). A lot of franchises like Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Star Wars prequels, and aforementioned Men In Black all suffered from this limitation. If their cues weren't absolutely perfect, the actors looked out of place in the scene and the CGI looked faked and transposed.

It was Weta and Andy Serkis who solve the issue of CGI characters by alleviating the difficulties and responsibilities of the digital animators. Motion capture allowed actors to once again act against one another, and machinima allowed directors to see it in real time -- you could even include it in the dailies, which gave them the flexibility to reshoot scenes as needed.

Moreover, mocap tech had gotten so acute, accurate, and sophisticated that the digital animators no longer had to spend tedious hours animating a believable smile in a CGI character. The AI removed the need for all that -- when Andy Serkis smiles, the CGI character smiles, in real time. When Caesar emotes in Planet of the Apes, that is 95% Andy Serkis and 5% digital animators. The rest is the AI code mimicking his actions.

This is how a lot of superhero movies are made now. When Thor and Hulk fight, it's not all CGI. It's still Hemsworth and Ruffalo with some cue points, and the computer takes care of the rest. It saves wear and tear on the animators, and assists the actors with the scene. Looks like this:

[Fark user image image 850x565]
None of this was possible 20 years ago. The tech was there, but not the computing power to render the tech in real time, so the director can review the scene and reshoot/retool on location as he sees fit.


WETA deserved the Oscars they won. Period.
 
2021-04-17 1:07:26 AM  

gunther_bumpass: What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?


Oh, I forgot to also mention the latest one used for Mandalorian, and will probably be used for now on: Virtual set displays.

Fark user imageView Full Size


Rear view projection has been around for eons (the future war setting in The Terminator used it -- and yes, you can tell), but with the advent of flat screen and LCD technology -- especially in rounded, flexible, or warped displays -- we no longer need to use green screens. Instead of guessing what they're looking at when they gaze off to the horizon, we can film actors actually looking at something evocative and beautiful, so we can share their gaze.

This completely eliminates the need for location shooting. Add some conveyor belts and we are one step closer to having a holodeck. With virtual set displays that can change, update, and evolve in real time, anyone can now literally be anywhere. Even Delaware.

Just as long as they include foggy breath if they're in a cold climate. That's always been a peeve of mine: If you're in the arctic, I better see some air smoke coming out of your mouth (Golden Compass is a big offender of this).
 
2021-04-17 1:31:48 AM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Both had the same goals but used different processes to achieve the effect. And this type of visual effect has a ways to go before quality wise. It'll get better though.


So it's a competition thing among computer elites then.  I get it.  I wish full luck to whomever achieves nirvana first.  I wish I had your salaries.  As an end-viewer, I do get to enjoy the fruits of your labours, whoever the winner is, and I appreciate the work even if I'm not capable of understanding all its intricacies.

Ishkur: Virtual set displays


Amazing technological breakthrough for actors...they have real stuff to act against, instead of green screen or whatever other digital intermediary.  (I watched the Mandalorian doc.)
 
2021-04-17 1:34:00 AM  

Ishkur: gunther_bumpass: What was the last truly new visual effect? Bullet time?

Mocap, machinima, and AI -- visual effects that are so good you don't even notice how they use them.

There was a period in the late 90s and early 00s when fully CGI characters were rendered entirely in post production and the actors had nothing to act against or respond to (what Will Smith annoyingly called "yelling at a blue tennis ball on a stick"). A lot of franchises like Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Star Wars prequels, and aforementioned Men In Black all suffered from this limitation. If their cues weren't absolutely perfect, the actors looked out of place in the scene and the CGI looked faked and transposed.

It was Weta and Andy Serkis who solve the issue of CGI characters by alleviating the difficulties and responsibilities of the digital animators. Motion capture allowed actors to once again act against one another, and machinima allowed directors to see it in real time -- you could even include it in the dailies, which gave them the flexibility to reshoot scenes as needed.

Moreover, mocap tech had gotten so acute, accurate, and sophisticated that the digital animators no longer had to spend tedious hours animating a believable smile in a CGI character. The AI removed the need for all that -- when Andy Serkis smiles, the CGI character smiles, in real time. When Caesar emotes in Planet of the Apes, that is 95% Andy Serkis and 5% digital animators. The rest is the AI code mimicking his actions.

This is how a lot of superhero movies are made now. When Thor and Hulk fight, it's not all CGI. It's still Hemsworth and Ruffalo with some cue points, and the computer takes care of the rest. It saves wear and tear on the animators, and assists the actors with the scene. Looks like this:

[Fark user image image 850x565]
None of this was possible 20 years ago. The tech was there, but not the computing power to render the tech in real time, so the director can review the scene and reshoot/retool on location as he sees fit.


Sort of on topic, but it's downright amazing what's available to the average consumer these days. I remember when Apple bought Shake and later made it an extremely affordable $500. That was mind blowing at the time. Of course Apple let it die. But industry standard software becoming accessible to virtually anyone because of modern computing power has been awesome for anyone wanting to learn the business.

I just got an email the other day from Maxon touting their new C4D release and in it they mentioned Maxon Moves, which I wasn't that familiar with. It's basically an extension of C4D where you can use the Lidar in an iPhone to record facial motion and import into a C4D project. You can also use the rear iPhone camera for full body mocap.

I thought I'd give it a shot and in less than 5 minutes I had both a project with my face mesh up and running on my PC as well as another project with a full skeleton rig of my son doing a few dance moves. It was pretty crazy.
 
2021-04-17 1:49:40 AM  

frestcrallen: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Both had the same goals but used different processes to achieve the effect. And this type of visual effect has a ways to go before quality wise. It'll get better though.

So it's a competition thing among computer elites then.  I get it.  I wish full luck to whomever achieves nirvana first.  I wish I had your salaries.  As an end-viewer, I do get to enjoy the fruits of your labours, whoever the winner is, and I appreciate the work even if I'm not capable of understanding all its intricacies.


I wouldn't say it's a competition. If anything, budget probably played the biggest part of it. You have big budget feature film Rogue One vs. lower budget single episode of the tv series The Mandalorian.
 
2021-04-17 2:08:02 AM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I wouldn't say it's a competition. If anything, budget probably played the biggest part of it. You have big budget feature film Rogue One vs. lower budget single episode of the tv series The Mandalorian.


The point being:  it's still groundbreaking territory in terms of VFX, yes?  That's all I was saying in response to gunther_bumpass

Can't really make any general statements on here without having them exhaustively qualified.
 
2021-04-17 2:38:28 AM  

frestcrallen: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I wouldn't say it's a competition. If anything, budget probably played the biggest part of it. You have big budget feature film Rogue One vs. lower budget single episode of the tv series The Mandalorian.

The point being:  it's still groundbreaking territory in terms of VFX, yes?  That's all I was saying in response to gunther_bumpass

Can't really make any general statements on here without having them exhaustively qualified.


Ah yes, of course. I misunderstood what you were originally getting at.
 
2021-04-17 3:07:23 AM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I misunderstood what you were originally getting at.


Just another regular weekend for me then.
 
2021-04-17 3:21:16 AM  

Ishkur: This completely eliminates the need for location shooting. Add some conveyor belts and we are one step closer to having a holodeck. With virtual set displays that can change, update, and evolve in real time, anyone can now literally be anywhere. Even Delaware.


It ain't a real Holodeck unless it gains sentience and goes evil. Also, how to clean up all the semen.
 
2021-04-17 12:41:01 PM  

frestcrallen: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I wouldn't say it's a competition. If anything, budget probably played the biggest part of it. You have big budget feature film Rogue One vs. lower budget single episode of the tv series The Mandalorian.

The point being:  it's still groundbreaking territory in terms of VFX, yes?  That's all I was saying in response to gunther_bumpass

Can't really make any general statements on here without having them exhaustively qualified.


Yes, the led wall sets are interesting, but I'm not blown away by them. It cuts out a step in the comp process I guess, but I'm not really impressed with the end result. As far as facial animation goes - the deepfake solution has a long way to go. I thought the mixture of facial capture and animation on the faces in Ready Player One was successful, but that was a cartoon.

Leia and Tarkin were still in the uncanny valley, in my opinion.  And that was slightly because of the lookdev, a little on the animation side. This shiat is hard to do.

Animators, and often people directing them, tend to want to overanimate things. Look at a person's face the next time you have a conversation - no one is moving their lips perfectly to enunciate every sound. Less is more where realistic dialogue animation is concerned.
 
2021-04-17 1:25:35 PM  

gunther_bumpass: frestcrallen: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I wouldn't say it's a competition. If anything, budget probably played the biggest part of it. You have big budget feature film Rogue One vs. lower budget single episode of the tv series The Mandalorian.

The point being:  it's still groundbreaking territory in terms of VFX, yes?  That's all I was saying in response to gunther_bumpass

Can't really make any general statements on here without having them exhaustively qualified.

Yes, the led wall sets are interesting, but I'm not blown away by them. It cuts out a step in the comp process I guess, but I'm not really impressed with the end result. As far as facial animation goes - the deepfake solution has a long way to go. I thought the mixture of facial capture and animation on the faces in Ready Player One was successful, but that was a cartoon.

Leia and Tarkin were still in the uncanny valley, in my opinion.  And that was slightly because of the lookdev, a little on the animation side. This shiat is hard to do.

Animators, and often people directing them, tend to want to overanimate things. Look at a person's face the next time you have a conversation - no one is moving their lips perfectly to enunciate every sound. Less is more where realistic dialogue animation is concerned.


I think I'd rather see a little over- annunciation, than what they do with anime, where the characters are just flapping their mouths open and shut like little baby birds.

Human faces and bodies are so nuanced, that the uncanny valley thing in animation will probably never completely go away.
 
2021-04-17 1:26:34 PM  

Wendigogo: gunther_bumpass: frestcrallen: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I wouldn't say it's a competition. If anything, budget probably played the biggest part of it. You have big budget feature film Rogue One vs. lower budget single episode of the tv series The Mandalorian.

The point being:  it's still groundbreaking territory in terms of VFX, yes?  That's all I was saying in response to gunther_bumpass

Can't really make any general statements on here without having them exhaustively qualified.

Yes, the led wall sets are interesting, but I'm not blown away by them. It cuts out a step in the comp process I guess, but I'm not really impressed with the end result. As far as facial animation goes - the deepfake solution has a long way to go. I thought the mixture of facial capture and animation on the faces in Ready Player One was successful, but that was a cartoon.

Leia and Tarkin were still in the uncanny valley, in my opinion.  And that was slightly because of the lookdev, a little on the animation side. This shiat is hard to do.

Animators, and often people directing them, tend to want to overanimate things. Look at a person's face the next time you have a conversation - no one is moving their lips perfectly to enunciate every sound. Less is more where realistic dialogue animation is concerned.

I think I'd rather see a little over- annunciation, than what they do with anime, where the characters are just flapping their mouths open and shut like little baby birds.

Human faces and bodies are so nuanced, that the uncanny valley thing in animation will probably never completely go away.


Enunciation*


/facepalm
 
2021-04-17 2:55:34 PM  

Wendigogo: gunther_bumpass: frestcrallen: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I wouldn't say it's a competition. If anything, budget probably played the biggest part of it. You have big budget feature film Rogue One vs. lower budget single episode of the tv series The Mandalorian.

The point being:  it's still groundbreaking territory in terms of VFX, yes?  That's all I was saying in response to gunther_bumpass

Can't really make any general statements on here without having them exhaustively qualified.

Yes, the led wall sets are interesting, but I'm not blown away by them. It cuts out a step in the comp process I guess, but I'm not really impressed with the end result. As far as facial animation goes - the deepfake solution has a long way to go. I thought the mixture of facial capture and animation on the faces in Ready Player One was successful, but that was a cartoon.

Leia and Tarkin were still in the uncanny valley, in my opinion.  And that was slightly because of the lookdev, a little on the animation side. This shiat is hard to do.

Animators, and often people directing them, tend to want to overanimate things. Look at a person's face the next time you have a conversation - no one is moving their lips perfectly to enunciate every sound. Less is more where realistic dialogue animation is concerned.

I think I'd rather see a little over- annunciation, than what they do with anime, where the characters are just flapping their mouths open and shut like little baby birds.

Human faces and bodies are so nuanced, that the uncanny valley thing in animation will probably never completely go away.


I do this stuff for a living, so, I have opinions. When you really watch people in normal conversation - even actors - their faces and lips move mostly in a subtle manner. I just think many animators overdo it. Some of them come from the Pixar/Dreamworks School of the Raised Eyebrow. Real people don't move like that. 

When you get good facial capture data (which needs to be put on a decent rig) you get some microexpressions that really help sell the stuff you do on top of it. But when you make every vowel visible it makes it look like a cartoon. And jaw animation is overdone or simplified. Put your hand on your jaw. Say "Say a sentence". You get two jaw movements. Many animators would open the jaw four times. And that's just the beginning.

shiat's hard. There's a difference between animation and realistic animation. Don't bring that Disney shiat to me.
 
2021-04-17 3:26:34 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Yes, the led wall sets are interesting, but I'm not blown away by them. It cuts out a step in the comp process I guess, but I'm not really impressed with the end result.


Your personal feelings are irrelevant. You asked for tech breakthroughs since bullet time, and I provided you some.

Above all, the biggest change in visual effects is the process. In the past, all visual effects were rendered in post-production, often transposed poorly and clumsily, especially when actors had to interact with the CGI in some way. Today, a lot of visual effects are now made in pre-production since they can be used while filming, either in virtual set displays or as temp visuals rendered in real time on set.
 
2021-04-17 4:30:28 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Wendigogo: gunther_bumpass: frestcrallen: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: I wouldn't say it's a competition. If anything, budget probably played the biggest part of it. You have big budget feature film Rogue One vs. lower budget single episode of the tv series The Mandalorian.

The point being:  it's still groundbreaking territory in terms of VFX, yes?  That's all I was saying in response to gunther_bumpass

Can't really make any general statements on here without having them exhaustively qualified.

Yes, the led wall sets are interesting, but I'm not blown away by them. It cuts out a step in the comp process I guess, but I'm not really impressed with the end result. As far as facial animation goes - the deepfake solution has a long way to go. I thought the mixture of facial capture and animation on the faces in Ready Player One was successful, but that was a cartoon.

Leia and Tarkin were still in the uncanny valley, in my opinion.  And that was slightly because of the lookdev, a little on the animation side. This shiat is hard to do.

Animators, and often people directing them, tend to want to overanimate things. Look at a person's face the next time you have a conversation - no one is moving their lips perfectly to enunciate every sound. Less is more where realistic dialogue animation is concerned.

I think I'd rather see a little over- annunciation, than what they do with anime, where the characters are just flapping their mouths open and shut like little baby birds.

Human faces and bodies are so nuanced, that the uncanny valley thing in animation will probably never completely go away.

I do this stuff for a living, so, I have opinions. When you really watch people in normal conversation - even actors - their faces and lips move mostly in a subtle manner. I just think many animators overdo it. Some of them come from the Pixar/Dreamworks School of the Raised Eyebrow. Real people don't move like that. 

When you get good facial capture data (which needs to be put on a decent rig) you get some microexpressions that really help sell the stuff you do on top of it. But when you make every vowel visible it makes it look like a cartoon. And jaw animation is overdone or simplified. Put your hand on your jaw. Say "Say a sentence". You get two jaw movements. Many animators would open the jaw four times. And that's just the beginning.

shiat's hard. There's a difference between animation and realistic animation. Don't bring that Disney shiat to me.

Disney shiat....


I don't think Disney ever sought to be overly realistic. It's all very stylized and yes, at times, overwrought. The intent is to appeal to children, mostly. So the animation is all soft shapes, large eyes, etc.- eye candy for kids. And overly telegraphed movements and speech are part of that as well. Having been a Disney fan for decades and studying animation, I will say most of their films I've seen go to great pains to be accurate with speech. That is as realistic as they get. There's no uncanny valley, because they are exactly what they're intended to be, cartoons.

Shiat's hard...

I agree. That is why good VFX deserve the recognition when they've done a good job.
 
2021-04-17 5:15:07 PM  

Ishkur: gunther_bumpass: Yes, the led wall sets are interesting, but I'm not blown away by them. It cuts out a step in the comp process I guess, but I'm not really impressed with the end result.

Your personal feelings are irrelevant. You asked for tech breakthroughs since bullet time, and I provided you some.

Above all, the biggest change in visual effects is the process. In the past, all visual effects were rendered in post-production, often transposed poorly and clumsily, especially when actors had to interact with the CGI in some way. Today, a lot of visual effects are now made in pre-production since they can be used while filming, either in virtual set displays or as temp visuals rendered in real time on set.


Yeah, fine. Have you been on a set? Have you worked on literally every god damn movie mentioned in this thread? Then fark off. 

Virtual led backgrounds are pretty much the same thing as rear projection. This is a technique that goes back 100 years. But now it's electrical. We get little things, better muscle sims, better hair sims, but as a working vfx person, it's been pretty much the same for a long time.
 
2021-04-17 5:17:01 PM  

Wendigogo: I don't think Disney ever sought to be overly realistic. It's all very stylized and yes, at times, overwrought. The intent is to appeal to children, mostly. So the animation is all soft shapes, large eyes, etc.- eye candy for kids. And overly telegraphed movements and speech are part of that as well. Having been a Disney fan for decades and studying animation, I will say most of their films I've seen go to great pains to be accurate with speech. That is as realistic as they get. There's no uncanny valley, because they are exactly what they're intended to be, cartoons.

Shiat's hard...

I agree. That is why good VFX deserve the recognition when they've done a good job.


Eh. No more than a doctor or garbageman needs recognition. It's a job. 

The trouble is when you get cartoon animators making calls on realistic animation. Two different things.
 
2021-04-17 5:36:52 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Wendigogo: I don't think Disney ever sought to be overly realistic. It's all very stylized and yes, at times, overwrought. The intent is to appeal to children, mostly. So the animation is all soft shapes, large eyes, etc.- eye candy for kids. And overly telegraphed movements and speech are part of that as well. Having been a Disney fan for decades and studying animation, I will say most of their films I've seen go to great pains to be accurate with speech. That is as realistic as they get. There's no uncanny valley, because they are exactly what they're intended to be, cartoons.

Shiat's hard...

I agree. That is why good VFX deserve the recognition when they've done a good job.

Eh. No more than a doctor or garbageman needs recognition. It's a job. 

The trouble is when you get cartoon animators making calls on realistic animation. Two different things.


Needs recognition? No. Is it a good thing to take time to appreciate people for their exceptional or even masterful contributions? Yes.

There are doctors who receive awards all the time for their service. Easy example- Google Dr. Fauchi

I can't say much on the garbage collection front, but those guys (and probably some women) usually get paid well. At least where I live they do. And they deserve some recognition for literally dealing with our shiat on a daily basis.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.