Anyone else get fed up with their film near the end.?
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 6:48am
Post 1 of 36
Just want to know if by the end of making your film, eg: adding sound and doing the last little bits are you either fed up with it, or do you think it's crap?
I always get to a point when dubbing and think, oh no, the film is really bad, do you guys do that,? or do you show people your film as you are going along, getting feedback even before it's finished.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 7:17am
Post 2 of 36
I never really get fed up with them.
It's more, when i finished them and done whatever I do with them, like sending them to filmfestivals or uploading to FXHome and such. There's a bit of relif and like "finally it's done" but then again t here's often a deadline which makes you rush certain stuff you knew you could do better, especially in post-production which I could do forever. I never want to let go but at a certain point you have to even if you're not totally satisfied.
Then there's always times when I feel it didn't end up like I thought it would. But it never does. I often get that feeling you're talking about when the rough cut is done. When you got no sound done at all, no effects, color correction and the editing is really choppy. But then when you begin to online it, it slowly becomes better and better. And from looking at the first cut and you're feeling 'this is shit' till when you sit down and watch the final cut. the difference between those too are so huge, you end up thinking 'this is better then I expected', just because you compare it with that horrible first cut.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 8:05am
Post 3 of 36
I've had that feeling in the middle of a few projects in the past, and I've usually stopped producing them at that point. No point working on something when you know it's going to be poor.
However, if I finish something through to completion it's probably because I have a lot of faith in it, otherwise I wouldn't commit the time and effort.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 10:53am
Post 4 of 36
Yeah, if you work on something for very long, that's a feeling every filmmaker knows. The sudden "Ah damn, this is going to be shit" attack.
I've had that with every one of my longer projects. Obviously, that doesn't happen when you spend little time on your films, like a couple of months, weeks or even just an afternoon. But when you work for years on something, you will have the occasional nervous breakdown concerning your work. When you've seen everything 1000 times you start to only see the mistakes.
I usually show it to selected people to get some feedback, or working on something else for a while to get a fresh perspective.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 10:54am
Post 5 of 36
Thanks, I guess it's not just me then.
Do you guys have trouble with adding sound, when I film I kinda get an idea of what I want the music to be like, but when dubbing I don't have that music and again makes me feel like the film is bad.
What do you do when the music idea you had at the time of filming isn't right when editing?
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 10:55am
Post 6 of 36
I get the composer to do it again until it is right...
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 10:56am
Post 7 of 36
Poor overworked Robin.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 11:12am
Post 8 of 36
Being over-critical of your own work is something all people in a production industry suffer from, whether its filming, art, programing, writing, designing etc.
Thinking that what you've made is "crap", however, is a different matter.
Self-criticism is a form of improvement and motivation. You critique your own work, to ensure that what results is the very best it can be. Believing that what you've made is crap would indicate that what you've made actually is crap, since with your experience i'd expect you to know.
Anyone worth their salt in a production industry should be able to distinguish the difference between a benign desire to improve and the realisation that something is plain bad.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 11:35am
Post 9 of 36
I've been going through that exact thing these past couple of weeks. Of course, this is the first project of this magnitude I've tried, so I probably don't have the experience to speak to it with any authority. I started working on Basement Tails (our Hauntfest Entry) over two months ago. (As soon as the contest was announced.) It was originally just going to be a couple of greenscreen shots to test out some horror type effects. Then everyone jumped on board with ideas and it expanded out from what would have been a roughly one minute test clip to a full blown short film, about 14 minutes in length with a fully developed script, multiple actors, locations, etc. It really grew of its own accord and nearly out of my control.
Shooting was finally pretty much done last week (except a reshoot of a couple short bits we wound up doing yesterday) and I reached the point you described where I was editing away furiously, putting in sound effects and such, but still not up to the point of the all important music. I hit that wall and felt like I would simply never get the film to look like how I had seen it in my head originally. And I know that I won't. It's not going to be perfect and it's not going to look Hollywood quality, no matter how hard I try. But having a deadline to meet has been good. It's forced me to make choices and stick to them, while still allowing enough of a cushon to add in a few good bits, trim out some weak parts, and allow for creative lightening to strike and add in some nice effects.
In short, yes. I got to the point you described, but I determined that I'd come too far to abandon it and kept on pushing on. I think it's also taken a lot longer and had these unanticipated moments because it's been such a learning process. It's only my third film, but I've had to install and learn a number of new programs (e.g. Bryce and Audacity) and do things in post production which I'd never had to deal with before. I hope that one of the chief benefits of taking on this project will be the educational value and that next time things will go a bit more quickly and smoothly without the massive learning curve I've been fighting.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 12:12pm
Post 10 of 36
Yeah, what xcession talks about is one factor I've always had - by the time I finish a project, the learning curve of making it has usually put me beyond the accomplishment of the project itself. Quite often this makes you want to start over from scratch, but instead it should be seen as a natural evolution of your skills that can be utilised on the next project.
The main thing I worry about is getting to 'project 4', and still thinking that 'project 1' is good. When I finish a project I invariably think it's really cool, to some degree. But everything I've ever done, a few years later, looks rather poor to my eyes - due to my skills (hopefully) improving. That's a vital part of improving your techniques - if you look back on old projects and they still seem just as good, then you're in trouble.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 12:26pm
Post 11 of 36
All good points.
Can I ask you guys, do you give yourself a deadline to finish your film, someone mentioned above that they put a finish date to make them finish otherwise it will drag on, I do the same, I commit myself to finish something by a certain date.
Do you do that? is that a bad thing as you could have done it better if you took longer.!
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 1:11pm
Post 12 of 36
If you're doing it for the fun of it, it's not worth giving yourself a deadline. But if you intend to enter your movie to a festival on a predetermined date you have to prove yourself.
From my point of view whenever I start a new film I can see its final scene and the completed job. Ok there are times (many) that you have to alter, emit or delete scenes but if you believe in your project, stick to it till the end.
When I first started doing my first movies back in '68 (oh God that's long ago) I thought that my first film will be a challenge for Cecile B. DeMill, but as time goes by one realizes that you have to improve more in every way of this art.
Still today I have so many ideas and scripts, but when I sit down to do my preproduction breakdown my sense of maturity starts to disturb my inner feeling about the idea and more than once I had to abandon the idea and stat on a new one, which may end like the previous one.
And I agree too that the post production takes a lot of your time, but still this is part of the whole project and bear in mind that all this work depends on your energy, which has to be a positive one.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 1:20pm
Post 13 of 36
Hmmm thanks Hippa, I've seen some of your work, yuo have a lot of cgi elements in them, when you or (anyone else) starts a project do you think, oh must have a film with CGI or do you try to avoid it.
Since the day I found alamdv I've put cgi in every film i've made (simply because I couldn't do it before) but now I looking forward to shooting without any at all.
Is it a curse....or a help?
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 1:27pm
Post 14 of 36
I always think of a story I want to tell. Then I write it regardless of whats possible and what's not.
Then, when I come to think about how to actually do what I wrote, I decide wheter things will be real, CG, Matte or whatever - most likely according to my budget.
So no, trying to incorporate CG just because you CAN is a silly thing to do. Using CG because it's the only way to tell what you want to tell is the way...
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 1:42pm
Post 15 of 36
Yesterday when cg was'nt even thought of I made different kind of movies. But now since CG is only inches away from my eyes I admit I cannot do without it.
But still there are subjects and ideas that don't need any CG, apart from the logo and credits.
As I said before in the old days we used to look at Big movies with too desirable eyes for those polished and spectacular effects, which nowadays thanks to FXhome are at our disposal.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 3:00pm
Post 16 of 36
Solly, I didn't mean I have to shoot with CGI all the time, just I've always wanted to add this kind of stuff to my films so now i'm making up lost time, I can only think of 2 films you have done without cgi, rose and face 2 face, I might be wrong, but the point is I guess because we can use we do seem to make films with it.
We are lucky when you think about Hippa and others that would have gave their right arm to add effects years ago.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 3:07pm
Post 17 of 36
Heh, Rose is filled with CG - in fact, every single shot has some CG in it.
And Face to Face has roughly 40 Effect shots too, as far as I remember, maybe more.
In both cases, the effects were necessary to tell a story, as I said. In Rose, I had to create a set that wasn't there and in Face to Face, I had to add things to the background/take things away because of location problems - and in two cases to generate a shot I wanted.
I use effects all the time. Just like I use a location, costumes, props, light etc when I have to, to get the shot I want in telling the story I want.
I guess because we can use we do seem to make films with it.
Er.. wel... yes... obviously?
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 4:40pm
Post 18 of 36
*dings the 'but you do that too..' alarm*
I think it's a huge compliment and aid to sollthar's point that you weren't able to spot any CG in Rose or Face to Face B4. It highlights that there is infact a massive difference with filling in the holes which are impractical to do in reality and adding lots of very poor CG purely because you can.
I'm not above this myself, being largely into post-production most movies I have control over involve CG as a way to be self-ridiculing. The silly effects in Ninja Interrupted for example.
To bring this back on topic, when working on a larger project I normally drift into a phase when I am simply unable to judge the quality of my work. Xcession made an excellent and very true point about how creative people are self criticial and so I think it's healthy to have doubts about your work so that you strive to improve upon it.
In the past when I've become weary of my work I've looked to people I trust and in some cases admire for advice - you'll notice that er-no, Xcession, Tarn, Schwar, Waser and Sollthar have appeared in credits for my films before for this reason. Looking to friends for advice often allows you to step back from the editing and to watch your film more objectively in the company of others. This can be a breath of fresh air and revitalise you like a good shampoo.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 6:58pm
Post 19 of 36
Sorry, not seen face 2 face but from the style of it I thought there wold be any need for cgi.
So every film solly's made has cgi? goes to show just how much people use it now, which was my question in the first place.
has anyone got any plans to make a film without cgi? I know i'm asking on a forum that deals with effects, but I wonder how many people can say they are planning on making a film without any cgi, I'd like to say I am, but I feel a few gunshots and maybe a body falling from a block of flats will be used, (i'm remaking a film and before I used a dummy dressed up) am I lazy using cgi or is a case that I can control the scene better?
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 7:05pm
Post 20 of 36
Is it a curse....or a help?
That was your question, as far as I was aware...
goes to show just how much people use it now
Yeah, hopefully! Every tool in filmmaking is there to be used to help you make your film. People seem to have a random idea that CG is anything else then a prop, or makeup, or a costume. It's not. It's a mean to help you bring your images to the screen - especially for a low budget filmmaker who can't afford to do certain things as a practical effect on set. Or can't afford a big set of an ancient roman city etc.
So hopefully aspiring filmmakers will learn how to increase their storytelling by the use of CG/Visualeffects.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 7:15pm
Post 21 of 36
I agree again with Sollthar, though would like to address another point.
I'm massively tired of crazy old hacks and other numbskulls labelling post-production techniques such as CG based elements as 'Lazy'. If anyone would please explain how slaving over a computer for hours so as to achieve high quality modelling, lighting and compositing are in any way lazy then please do.
Just because something is more cost-effective or feasible for an amateur production does not suddenly mean it requires less effort or is lazy. It means that it's an intelligent way of realising the idea into film - which is what the whole process is meant to be about.
I don't think anyone should ever sit down and write a film based around either using CG or not. You should write a film based on what you'd like to visualise and achieve and then address the different factors of this by looking at the tools with which you can create them. To be defined by the tools you use is the same as being limited by them, which is criminal as really the tools exist to set you free.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 7:19pm
Post 22 of 36
Well said Hybrid
I don't think anyone should ever sit down and write a film based around either using CG or not.
Doing that would - again - be very silly. Writing something with "Oh I don't want to use CG!" in mind is as ridiculous as writing something with "Oh I want CG!" in mind. (Only exception is, if the decision is based on cost/time-factors.)
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 9:08pm
Post 23 of 36
First off I find it quite odd that your asking this question. No amount of effects could make things any better or worse because at the end of the day the core of an enjoyable film is down to the one thing people keep missing out. That one thing is the story. I can still watch old films right back to the original king kong and find them entertaining, Jason and the argonauts is also a great film. Although these films have dated effects i'd quite happily watch them if made by a low budget filmmaker amature or otherwise. Just because new techniques are availible doesn't mean you should run out and bang them in your movie. Write a good story, if an effect is required be it CG or otherwise find a suitible solution to doing it. If you base your movies around anything other than a good story you'll be missing out on some fundimental teachings and experiance. Basically you'll be doomed to the clip test syndrome, which does have it's place, but not in the sense of good story telling. But the thread does seem really random and odd to me.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 9:48pm
Post 24 of 36
Does anyone here approve of re-editing, as you were on a deadline when doing the 1st version?
I have re-edited one film 2 times, once when compositelab came out (because of better compositing) and another time to fix 3D backgrounds.
I might fix and re-release "Healing from Heaven", as I edited the whole thing in one night.
Plus, using CGI gives me freedom to take my films anywhere that I can imagine. The problem is the time and comitment it takes to achieve photorealism, if that is, in fact, what you are trying to achieve.
But if I can go on location to shoot, I will.
And if I can't bring actors, I can use fxhome's products to create the illusion.
All of these tools at our disposal, give us full flexibility to achieve, or come close to our vision. (Without the need of a $1000 budget)
There is hardly any need to have a studio funded picture anymore.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 10:03pm
Post 25 of 36
A rendition of what has been described happens to me almost all the time. I pretty much gave up on Splinter Cell when one of the characters got braces, the other I haven't been able to contact in months
, I wasn't able to drive up until now, and my parents condemned the project. After months more of stringing together shooting dates and having to break other plans to shoot, I kept asking myself, "Why am I even doing this? Because it's fun? Because alot of people at FXHome want to see it?" When I first started the project, I shot several scenes very quickly, and they wwere out of the cutting room by midnight at the end of the week. Everyone in my crew jumped up and down in excitement, we knew we would have the best SC fanfilm around as soon as we saw it. (At that time Zea and two other people planned on making SC movies, and we didn't want to be shown up; arrogant, I know
) So anyways, here I am, a year later, practically giving up. If things get easier, I'll open the project up again, but as for now; if I'm not having fun and cranking out the best possible product I can create (<<my reason for making movies), then why am I even trying?
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 10:07pm
Post 26 of 36
and cranking out the best possible product I can create
You mean other then the "this was just done very quickyl" stuff we're used to seeing from you? You mean... You can make actual movies? Where are they?
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 10:20pm
Post 27 of 36
Ben, you guys show talent in your quickies, but I've never seen a long term or even in between project. It seems you are insecure with your long ones and can always let everyone know that this one was a "quickie." I suggest reading Andreas's post, at some point you just have to let it go and release it or you would spend forever perfecting it. Usually one person can only do so much.
I like this thread, it has taught me that I am so not alone.
This is one of the reasons I dropped film as my main "hobby" (it's more than a hobby to me) and took up photography. I can produce a lot of photography, and there comes a point when I know the picture is done and I am happy with it the majority of the time. It's a great feeling. Me and my friend's do a 9 month film project almost every year, and I think this one is promising. We have genius writers and musicans, and I like the way the script is looking. I like having a deadline because it forces me to get it as perfect as possible.
I am by far my toughest critic.
Posted: Wed, 18th Oct 2006, 10:57pm
Post 28 of 36
Serpent wrote:Ben, you guys show talent in your quickies, but I've never seen a long term or even in between project.
Tarn's first post in this thread is like a carbon copy of what I think in regards to longer movies. Most of my movies are quickies because I don't have time for long term projects. The in-betweeners I've cranked out I haven't posted, just because they're more full of inside jokes and stuff, and guys here probably wouldn't "get" them. As for the few long term projects that I have
attempted, they get to the point wher eme and my bro are the only ones who are left wanting to work on the project at all; and seeing as neither of us act, the project fails. You win some and you lose some, I guess; but it seems like I'm due to win some. I really liked making Cover's Story because even though it was a sort of quick, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants movie, it got everyone together and focused on the project; the lack of which is what makes my regular attempts fail. (the baby, and such) Expect another corny music video from the Atomic team soon, along with another comedic sketch piece. Don't worry, though, they're a bit more thought-out and better-executed than the previous stuff.
Posted: Thu, 19th Oct 2006, 8:03am
Post 29 of 36
Again all good points, But I heard a pro once say use cgi as a last resort, and seeing as us on here are not as good as ILM then surley we should be saying the same "Only use as a last resort"
I'm just as guilty so i'm not pointing the finger, but how many times have you seen an amatuer film and the thing you notice the most is the cgi because it's not ... well very good
Going back to my dummy I used years ago to using a cgi person now, the dummy looks better and people won't say "shame about the cgi"
I can name loads of films including my own where something could have been done better without it.
While on the same subject, does anyone when shooting, think to themselves, "oh i'll sort that out on the computer" I do, and i'm finding myself saying more and more, I don't like it, i'd rather film it right than rely on post production.
Posted: Thu, 19th Oct 2006, 8:13am
Post 30 of 36
I agree totally with hybrid and sollthar regarding the use of CG - it's not something you should set out to use or not use, it's simply another tool, like lighting, or cameras, or actors, or props etc. It's important to appreciate that, so that you can use all your filmmaking tools appropriately to make a balanced and watchable film.
As for re-editing, I have done it quite a lot. Shadows was originally a normal colour movie that looked absolutely terrible due to having no lighting - a few years later I used the first version of Chromanator to re-grade it into the bizarre (but hopefully more interesting) version that's on this site. Similarly, I rejiggled Muffy & Jebediah 1 with vaguely improved effects after the first version.
However, it is also important to at some point say "that's enough", and move onto new projects. Stuff like Muffy & Jebediah simply doesn't chime with what I'm interesting in anymore - it was something I did as a 21 year old student.
These days, due to time constraints, I find myself primarily working on other people's productions - helping Axis of Evil out on Get Lost and Coalition of the Ring, for example. That way I get to work on a project through to completion, but without needing to be involved at every stage. EDIT:
b4, I'm not sure what you mean by 'CGI' exactly. You seem to be presuming that all CG is big showy spaceships, explosions and monsters. However, I can't really imagine me making a film that doesn't use digital techniques, simply because they're a part of my toolkit now. Even in a movie that doesn't have any "showy" effects, I'd almost certainly still do some intensive digital grading, selecting specific areas of shots to grade, and I'd probably also composite some shots to get what I wanted. I'm not talking big alien landscapes, but simple shots that can't be achieved 'in camera' for various reason (check out the opening shot of Andreas' excellent Amnesia for a superb example of intelligent compositing).
Whether to use CG or not is one issue. Whether you're capable of creating good CG or not is another issue entirely.
Posted: Thu, 19th Oct 2006, 9:14am
Post 31 of 36
The problem with CG, in the more stereotypical instances where its used for spaceships, characters, fantasy powers, weird locations and anything in the foreground of the picture, is that it is still too obviously CG to most audiences.
This kind of CG always falls at the first hurdle for me - "do i believe what i'm watching?".
Techniques have improved dramatically over the last decade and there are some CG examples where i've been completely fooled (willingly, obviously) like Gollum. But for the most part, CG is a double-edged sword because everyone in the audience (but for the particularly young/stupid members) will instantly know its CG.
Subconsciously, this has a huge impact on the viewer. Rather bizarrely, I actually caught my brain doing this the other day: the mere existance of any piece of foreground CG in a scene instantly switched my brain into a kind of lower-IQ mode, where without knowing why, i care less about everything i'm seeing because the plot, the people, everything, is that tiny bit less tangible and personal, than if everything were live action.
The brain is a mind-blowing phenomena of evolution, but is taken for granted by too many in the CG profession. It is the fact that humans are able to judge and calculate literally billions of parameters about their environment and everything around them, based purely on a glimpse of an expression, or the movements of an animal, or the flicker of a light, that makes foreground CG so completely, infinitely flawed.
CG developers have only been able, so far, to mimic a 1000th of the requisit factors in real life vision (if that), so no foreground CG is capable of getting it adequately accurate yet. Long story short, no foreground CG is believable enough for any audience, so should not be relied upon by any film maker.
Background CG is another matter though. Buildings, weird effects, environments, landscapes, muzzle flashes, colours, grading etc: these things are given generally less attention by the brain. We're incapable of working out whether the sky really WAS that blue during shooting, obviously.
Its for these reasons that i'm still a fan of costumes, sets, pryotechnics and animatronics. At least you know it is real and you could actually touch it. I can't explain why it makes a difference to me, but i think the point is that somehow, at some level, everything becomes more real, more identifyable, more plausible, despite how completely un-real it is because i know it existed.
Note: I've deliberately avoided the fact that some CG is unbelievable because it depicts a scene/animal/situation which we know is not physically possible in this universe. But even in those cases, i think real-life sets and animatronics are still a rung higher on the "Ladder Of Suspended Disbelief". I'd venture to suggest that in many cases, even a scene which we know cannot exist, will be subconsciously accepted better by the mind if it is a set, than if it is CG.
Posted: Thu, 19th Oct 2006, 12:05pm
Post 32 of 36
I'm just as guilty
What is it with you and guilt...? :I
Going back to my dummy I used years ago to using a cgi person now, the dummy looks better and people won't say "shame about the cgi"
That's a good example. If you use CG for something that could be done BETTER without CG with something that lies within your possibilities, then you're making a mistake going for CG. Simple as that.
There's loads of things though that are NOT going to work UNLESS you use CG - as I have mentioned before. I'll make an example...
Simple film reality for many amateur filmmakers: A gun shootout.
A - Use blanks, do it all on set... Means costs for a real gun, costs for blanks, costs for squibs, costs for ricochets etc etc probably ending up at around 2'000 $ if it's a small shootout. Plus there's safety and noise problems on set, as blanks are dangerous and loud.
B - Film it with replicas and try to solve it through sound, eg not showing that the guns actually don't work... Replicas are cheap, so you're at 100 $, but it will most likely not be very exciting.
C - Shoot with replicas and add muzzle/ricochets in post... 100$ replicas plus 200$ and a 90$ Stock CD from NCC (
) and some hours in front of the pc. 400$, no safety problems, no noise problems and it will look okay, if even not as good as solution A.
D- scrap the gunfight and change my whole script, even though I want it.
Now, obviously solution A would be my favorite. But then again, who has 2000$ for guns and stuff and who can shoot at a location with blanks waking everyone up in the range of 10 miles?
So naturally, most indie low budget filmmakers will choose solution C... With good reason
You seem to throw everything CG related into one basket b4, which is a simplistic thing to do. I can't quite grasp why the concept of different Elements in visual effects seems so hard for you to understand and appreciate...
"oh i'll sort that out on the computer"
Yep, very familiar thought. There's reasons to do something in post. See above example. I could name 1000s more where CG is the most effective solution indiefilmers have
But I heard a pro once say use cgi as a last resort
Pro's say lots of things. Most likely - if he's a pro - he is used to working on films where they HAVE the amount of money to do something other then CG. Which is mostly completely out of the question for Indiefilmmakers.
What "Pros" say doesn't necessarily apply to everyone, or yet be completely bullet-proof
Posted: Thu, 19th Oct 2006, 2:28pm
Post 33 of 36
I've read this thread a few times and almost replied once or twice, but I keep changing my mind about what I think.
As I see it, the writing of a script should have nothing to do with CGI. It's only when you come to planning the film that you can then decide whether to use CGI or not, or whether to think of something else entirely.
Having said that, I don't see anything wrong with selecting your subject so as to minimise costs - the excellent film "Swimming With Sharks" was written as 3 characters in 2 rooms to minimise the budget (as heard on the really funny commentary).
I don't think CGI should be about spectacle either, that's the story's job (if it's even there at all). In Pirates of the Caribbean 2, it was, which is why it was poor. The CGI in Layer Cake isn't even noticable for the most part (such as the warehouse at the end, where they added hundreds of packing crates). Incidentally, Matthew Vaughan was talking in an interview about pros in the (british) film industry being very good at saying things can't be done.
Posted: Thu, 19th Oct 2006, 4:31pm
Post 34 of 36
Thanks guys, it's been an interesting read, good to know what you guys do in the same situation.
Sorry, yes I do tend to think of cgi as big spaceships mostly insted of smaller visual effects.
One last question relating to the first post.
I'd love to know if anyone has finished a film and didn't like it? I know you guys have said sometimes you think it's bad as your getting close to the end, but how many of you think it is bad when it's finished? if yes what was the film and why?
Or do you see it through rose tinted glasses? and every film you finish is wonderful.
Posted: Thu, 19th Oct 2006, 10:21pm
Post 35 of 36
I have that phase when I'm working on something for too long, but I've never yet finished a film and thought it was crap.
Usually, at the premiere, when you have hundreds of people cheering to your film, I feel utterly fulfilled and enjoy the film as a part of the audience for the first time since I've seen it. It's odd, but I watch the film differently then even though I know it by heart.
Then, as Tarn said a few posts above, time passes, I get even better and my view of the film changes again. But there's a few films I can still look back and enjoy to watch, even though I could do loads better on the technical side - for example "Rose", which is still one of my films I enjoy most.
Mostly, I can't stand watching "older" stuff from myself though really.
Posted: Fri, 20th Oct 2006, 1:31pm
Post 36 of 36
I have to also agree with Excession's views concerning the "organics" of the visual medium...
One of the reason's I appreciated Apollo 13 was because Ron Howard refused to impliment a completely CGI world in regards to spacecraft and foreground elements. Quite a bit of what was filmed continued to use motion control, physical models and "traditional" methods of film making in the sense of the word.
I appreciate and love the work done for the LotR trilogy as well as Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars but I've often caught myself- even in the theater- viewing such things for the first time and saying "Wow- they really got the inflection captured on Yoda's grimace" or "The new fur algorithim on that lion is really good!"
Personally, in my own work- from a hobby point of view it's a labor of love. Exasperated at times, let down by a disappointing element here or there but never enough to fall out of love with it, it can be almost considered it's own "life" in most grandiose of terminology.
Writers are often taught "Don't be afraid to kill off your children" in order to make the story tighter, more effricient or to make far better clarity.
Frustration and a "damn the torpedoes full stop ahead" mentality is often garnered because we've hit a point in our work where the improvement is often the exclusion of something or the need to "let go" of some element we simply no longer can fine tune or make any better without readdressing it entirely.
Certainly, it's happened to me- not only in my hobbies but in professional work as well. More than once have I blown something up or squibbed an entire scene and thought "Oy, Geez- that looks like Uber-Crap" even to the applause and accolades of the stuntmen, onlookers and director. Later "in the wash" though- it has it's own "perfect imperfection"- because it was organic, unpredictable, vibrant...
If we question the quality of our work- it's one thing.
If we question the validity of our work... Well then, it's another thing and there's a problem.
Simply two cents worth...