You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Panic Attack! (was Amazing!?)

Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 3:09am

Post 1 of 57

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Rating: +1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk

Have any of you seen this!?

This is seriously some of the best effects work I've ever seen.

Last edited Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 5:52pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 3:41am

Post 2 of 57

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, within a week of putting that on Youtube the director was receiving offers from Hollywood studios. It is impressive stuff.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 6:01am

Post 3 of 57

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Umm, good motion tracking, but rigging/animation/lighting is all bland and obviously CG/fake to me.

Kind of stupid-looking, really. Mechs that don't look real with subpar compositing. Looks like any of the thousands of other DVXUser visual effects tests I see across the internet. Maybe worse.

EDIT:

The shot of the black smoke pluming out of the building at 2:09 is pretty legit. But short of that, the rest seems like Boujou-tracked (read: easy/automatic) zoomy-pan camerawork that just sort of shows off bad composites. wink
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 6:24am

Post 4 of 57

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

I thought it was cool and your not going to ruin it for me. smile
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 8:01am

Post 5 of 57

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -3

ben3308 wrote:

Umm, good motion tracking, but rigging/animation/lighting is all bland and obviously CG/fake to me.

Kind of stupid-looking, really. Mechs that don't look real with subpar compositing. Looks like any of the thousands of other DVXUser visual effects tests I see across the internet. Maybe worse.

EDIT:

The shot of the black smoke pluming out of the building at 2:09 is pretty legit. But short of that, the rest seems like Boujou-tracked (read: easy/automatic) zoomy-pan camerawork that just sort of shows off bad composites. wink
I had a feeling you would run it down and find faults with it like you do with everything, but i don't think it really matters what you think because every major hollywood company like fox, universal and sony liked it so much they all offered the maker a 7 figure number to make a hollywood film. So seriously lets see you do better than that video or even get offered a directors role in hollywood
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 8:51am

Post 6 of 57

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

I definitely agree with Ben here. It's decent, but not spectacular. I think the what we're seeing here is the studios seeing a formula that is accessible and marketable to audiences, and they're trying to jump on the newest "hot item". And, again, there are better FX films (and FAR better non-FX films) on YT and vimeo that are much more deserving of dev deals in my eyes, but would simply be harder to market and sell than a mindless/cheesy giant robot blockbuster.

Plus, the great John Murphy score really helps to drive the piece, and a lot of credit to the film has to be paid to the music. Many don't realize how high a well-placed piece of music can elevate a scene or a short - it can easily transform a very mediocre sequence into a (seemingly) above average one, as in this particular instance.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 9:37am

Post 7 of 57

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Read about it in the newspapers. Cool effects. Some great shots. Can't say I'd want to watch a feature of this though, but Iwish the guy good luck with his money. smile
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 10:15am

Post 8 of 57

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

That was pretty bad-ass but then I'm thinking... Solthar! dude! come on man, I know for a damned fact that you can come up with some way better renders' than that dude.
Tell me I'm wrong.

I dare you... I double dog dare you!
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 10:18am

Post 9 of 57

Viking

Force: 130 | Joined: 21st Nov 2004 | Posts: 64

Windows User

Member

Rating: -3

videofxuniverse wrote:


I had a feeling you would run it down and find faults with it like you do with everything, but i don't think it really matters what you think because every major hollywood company like fox, universal and sony liked it so much they all offered the maker a 7 figure number to make a hollywood film. So seriously lets see you do better than that video or even get offered a directors role in hollywood
Don't you know by now that no one is better at making films than Atomic, Hell didn't you ever watch the Atomic Batman? Who else could have dressed a young kid in a trash bag cape and pull off such a great film, and when the joker's makeup started falling off, did that stop them? Hell no, they kept right on shooting and fixed it in post with a little green color.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 12:04pm

Post 10 of 57

B3N

Force: 3081 | Joined: 26th Feb 2006 | Posts: 1534

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Jeez, lay off Ben3308 guys, This is what people in the media profession do, nothings ever perfect so there's always flaws going to be found whether you like it or not, you just have to put up with it and learn from them. You guys are new to the website and some off you new to the world of film making, I'd love to see you create "perfection" for the first time in history.

As for the video, I saw this and watched it like twice, it was okay, very nicely motion tracked, especially when we see the huge mechs on the womans camcorder. As Ben said though, the lighting was very weak and I can't help but think that the "pollution" was added just so he could have an easier time with lack off detail on the models because when we get to the flying shots off the ships crashing and stuff they do look a little bland and fake to me.

I loved the smoke effects however and some off the explosions. Great piece off work altogether, even if it is flawed. best off luck to the guy though! smile
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 12:21pm

Post 11 of 57

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

B3N wrote:

Jeez, lay off Ben3308 guys, This is what people in the media profession do, nothings ever perfect so there's always flaws going to be found whether you like it or not, you just have to put up with it and learn from them.
But there is a difference between constantly putting everything down and deliberatly finding flaws all the time rather than sitting back and just enjoying something. You have to remember the man who made this video didn't have a multi million budget and a team of fx artists behind him, he did it for fun on a small budget and software any person can get hold of. He didn't know or intend to get a massive interest from film companies but its what happened. I am sure universal didnt watch it and pick out any flaws they could find they knew he had potential to go somewhere.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 12:32pm

Post 12 of 57

B3N

Force: 3081 | Joined: 26th Feb 2006 | Posts: 1534

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah, but pretty much every film in the FXhome cinema was done on no budget or limited budget, they have flaws which we're allowed to point out, huge budget films have flaws which we're allowed to point out, and you guys are kinda saying that just because this guys been recognised by some film companies means that it must be flawless.

Admittedly Ben3308 does flaw a lot off stuff but sometimes he's right.

I don't know about you lot but I'd quite like to see this guys earlier work. smile
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 2:36pm

Post 13 of 57

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Personally I didn't find this too special. I watched like the first two minutes before I quit, now maybe it gets better but I didn't see these robots as looking real... I didn't see what made this "amazing" and maybe I am just too picky. It was good though, the motion tracking was good. The robots were animated well, and the effects looked decent enough. I don't know if this guy should instantly get hollywood attention for this though... I think there are some more deserving people out there. Anyway I am off to try to watch the whole thing and lay off of ben, if he didn't point out the flaws I was going to anyway... PS I think Ben has done some stuff (not as effects heavy) that equals this quality.

EDIT: Ok I just watched the whole thing through and just have one more complaint... I don't think I would call this amazing for one more reason, lack of story. A bunch of robots from no where blow up a town, there is like no story there. And it did look pretty good but as you saw the robots closer it was more obvious that it was CG for lack of detail as someone already mentioned. Anyway just my opinion.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 5:25pm

Post 14 of 57

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I'm totally with B3N on this. This whole website (besides the commercial value for the FXhome company) is about critiquing each others films to learn. There is a huge difference from critique and insulting. There was nothing insulting in Ben's comment, and I agree, the models didn't have that much detail. I actually thought it was good for the most part, maybe even better than in a lot of big budget films, and I will never be able to produce 3D visual effects like that. This website is not for patting people on the back and saying good job, hears a reward. That's mommy and daddies job. And to be honest, it would probably be best if they didn't do that because I know a lot of people who can't take un-biased criticism because they just want to feel good about themselves without actually doing any work.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 5:36pm

Post 15 of 57

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Given that it's only a couple of people doing the VFX - this is a nifty little project. Certainly not the best amateur/independent effects I've seen or the most imaginative. But it's a cool little sequence all the same.

That it has apparently received offers from Hollywood studios does very little to raise my opinion of Hollywood. Is this really the example of young creativity that deserves a budget to make a movie?
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 5:38pm

Post 16 of 57

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

What the hell, guys? I just don't find this amazing. Because I am not a visual effects person, it takes more for me to feel 'wowed' by stuff. I only mention the downsides of this test because it's pretty obvious everyone already knows the upsides.

I do not criticize other things to elevate myself, nor do I think the best there is. As for the 'well let's see you do better' argument - come on. I'm not in visual effects, and I never will be. That's not what I'm good at, nor what will 'get me noticed'.

My point with outlining the flaws is that it's not unimpressive, just something I've seen users like Hybrid-Halo or Rawree on this very forum do the same - if not better - on. I do everything I can to enjoy almost every film and short I watched, and if you doubt that you can go through numerous threads where I've given accolades to movies like Fred Claus, et al that I found the 'good' in.

That being said, it's kind of unacceptable to just out-and-out attack me. So I have a difference of opinion, big deal. It's not like I'm trying to be malicious or anything, I mean I backed up why I didn't like it. I see people leaving my university every few months to go work some job in Hollywood, that doesn't mean I think they're the best or anything. It just means they got noticed. And maybe that's something to keep in mind. In my opinion - and this is only my opinion - a director's role in Hollywood should be offered to those who know how to work with actors, not those who can coordinate visual effects with a mild degree of verisimilitude. There's a difference there, to me.

EDIT:

I lol'ed at the title change. biggrin
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 6:01pm

Post 17 of 57

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Don't you know by now that no one is better at making films than Atomic, Hell didn't you ever watch the Atomic Batman? Who else could have dressed a young kid in a trash bag cape and pull off such a great film, and when the joker's makeup started falling off, did that stop them? Hell no, they kept right on shooting and fixed it in post with a little green color.
I couldn't help but laugh at this post. It's not that you guys aren't great at making films... but this is just the most kiss ass post I've ever read on here. No disrespect Viking I get what you were saying I just found this hilarious.

And to jump into the conversation I didn't actuallying think it was "amazing!" (hence the title change!) I just thought it was really really cool. I'm not a special effects person. Practical effects yes, special no. But I still think this was an extremely well made short especially for $300, I'm guessing most of that went to screaming actors?

He also shoudn't have gotten offered to direct a major studio film... This is definitely a effects showcase and has little directing going on. I still do think it's awesome though.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 6:45pm

Post 18 of 57

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Really amazing effects. I thought. But Sollthar's in Attack on Igneos (that was Sollthar, right? I forgot) were as good, though they weren't all animated. I think it was better than decent.

Dudes, don't attack ben. If there weren't people around to criticize flaws, films would never improve. Also, ben's not always criticizing, and he's certainly not too harsh. Just because you don't happen to agree doesn't mean you have to get all huffy and PO'd.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 7:47pm

Post 19 of 57

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Reborn777 wrote:

Don't you know by now that no one is better at making films than Atomic, Hell didn't you ever watch the Atomic Batman? Who else could have dressed a young kid in a trash bag cape and pull off such a great film, and when the joker's makeup started falling off, did that stop them? Hell no, they kept right on shooting and fixed it in post with a little green color.
I couldn't help but laugh at this post. It's not that you guys aren't great at making films... but this is just the most kiss ass post I've ever read on here. No disrespect Viking I get what you were saying I just found this hilarious.
Sarcasm detection fail, anybody?

Also, I think this short is great. The effects are up to scratch with a lot of much higher budget films and shows. They surpass, for example, some of the effects work on really high-profile shows like Doctor Who or Torchwood. That's not to say anything bad about either of those shows, because I love them both - but I think that the effects on show here are superb. Oh, and I loved the Odessa Staircase / Battleship Potemkin reference.

And I think that the direction shown here was pretty spiffing. I don't understand how you guys can say things like this "has little directing going on"... That just makes me think that you don't properly understand what it actually is that a director does....

In all, pretty enjoyable, and I can understand why a studio exec has snapped this guy up. I think he'll have a pretty decent career ahead of him.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 8:40pm

Post 20 of 57

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

This is an amazing achievement anyway you look at it and by the way... Ben wasn't dogging the guys works. He was merely stating the obvious, and that happens to be, for those of you that missed it, that the animation of the mecha looking bots as they're walking was well... animated for lack of a better word. As in more could have been done with them as well as their design because it did look a little weak. Also, the guy kept using the same smoke stock for a couple of shots which is also just as obvious as the lighting and compositing being a little off. Plus that shaky cam thing got on my nerves a long time ago.

By saying the above... it doesn't mean that I think that the short sucked. It's just pointing out the areas just as Ben did, that need "a little" work and that is all because the guy did an amazing job either way, although not perfect. And no one is saying that the guy has to be perfect... that Sam Raimi guy sure isn't expecting as much either because that's who hired him.

And not to blow up his head but I still think that Solthar and some of the other guys on this site could do 20 million times better because they actually pay attention to design lighting and compositing.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 8:40pm

Post 21 of 57

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

I'm with ben. I didn't see the film but if he didn't like it, that's his problem. Just because he's a naturally a pessimist (You don't mind do you Ben) don't jump on for it. And videoFXuniverse (mouthful), probably what happened was some big name caster saw the video, was in a good mood and looked into it. Alot of ben's films were done in 48 hours, lets see you do something that good in 48 hours. hugegrin
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 8:46pm

Post 22 of 57

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

It took the guy about a year to finish that short.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 9:16pm

Post 23 of 57

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I meant Ben's videos that were done in 48 hours...I find them amazing...

Last edited Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 9:19pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 9:16pm

Post 24 of 57

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Why is this turning into a "who could do / deserves better" debate? The guy made a video, got noticed and now gets money to make a film. I'm happy for him and go back to minding my own business and hope he'll spit something out I'll have fun to see some day. smile
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 9:19pm

Post 25 of 57

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This was pretty cool, but nothing outside of the realm of what you can regularly see posted on here or DVXuser. Still happy for the guy, hope he can fulfill and substantiate the opportunity he's been given.

Although anyone who thinks this is 'better' than any of the hundreds of other comparable short films and effects tests on the Internet are high- this guy got lucky, that's all. It's still cool, but nothing spectacular- it's luck.

My only major complaint is that the best aspect of the film is the music, which is not only copyrighted (which makes his effort far less impressive and cheapened, at least for me) but carries the rest of the production. Had the creator stuck with something less ominous or genius rhythmically, I don't think the short would've worked- which makes the easily-recognizable John Murphy score make the whole thing less genuine.

That's kind of what surprises me the most; that something with copyrighted material in it would draw such intrigue for originality by studios. smile

And as for the comments on our movies- get over yourselves. Ben might be nice about it, but I don't mind not dancing around it: You want to talk comparatively, put your money where your mouth is. I'm happy with the movies we've made, they're not the best in the world and we know that- but I'm proud of them. (And tend to think they're most all better than. this little effects test- as are a number of notable Fxhomers' movies on here.)

You want to talk 'let's see you do better', well that's just silly and petty and pointless an has nothing to do with this thread, but if you must: Let's see you do better. Get 5 of your movies in the all-time top 25 in the Fxhome Cinema in 6 months and come talk to me. wink

Last edited Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 9:31pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 9:27pm

Post 26 of 57

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pretty sweet stuff if you ask me. The fact that it was made for 300 bucks doesn't impress me since anything is possible if you can find the right people willing to work for free (heck I did Carpe Diem for about 50 bucks), but the effects work does. The robots looked bland at first but it got really good as it went on. The explosions on the buildings were really and the nuclear blast at the end was just awesome!

I still don't get how he got a directing job out of that. I mean it's cool and all, but there's no directing involved. If they gave him a special effects related job it'd make more sense. But hey, I'm happy for him. I'll be waiting for the actual movie. Hope it doesn't turn out like District 9--talk about depressing.
Posted: Sun, 20th Dec 2009, 11:33pm

Post 27 of 57

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I still don't get how he got a directing job out of that. I mean it's cool and all, but there's no directing involved.
What, so they just pointed a camera randomly and hoped that some of the shots would look ok? Or did the actors all adlib and just all decide to run at once? And I suppose that the VFX guy just got to do what he liked, and nobody was at the helm to tie it all together? And the editor just chose whatever shots he wanted? crazy

MVPstar stole my name wrote:

And as for the comments on our movies- get over yourselves. Ben might be nice about it, but I don't mind not dancing around it: You want to talk comparatively, put your money where your mouth is ... Let's see you do better. Get 5 of your movies in the all-time top 25 in the Fxhome Cinema in 6 months and come talk to me. wink
Don't be an ass, Atom. Trust me mate - once you're out there making real stuff, which I don't doubt that you will do one day - but once you're out there, you'll look back at comments like that and cringe. At least, I hope you will. Otherwise you'll find it pretty freaking difficult to hold down jobs in an industry that thrives on interpersonal skills and generally not spouting arrogant nonsense.

And sticking a smiley at the end doesn't make it all OK...
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 1:45am

Post 28 of 57

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I guess what I meant is that this was more like an effects test than a short film. I don't see why the studios would pay him 30 million dollars to make a feature length film about robots destroying a city. Usually short films that get turned into movies (9, District 9) have a story and a concept. They establish something that could expend into a feature. Robots destroying Montevideo isn't enough (at least not to me) to get studios going crazy over.

That's why I said there was no 'directing' involved. All this was were shots of a city with CG Robots composited in them with people running screaming. True the effects were pretty good, but are you serious? When Micheal Bay does it you guys call him an A-hole, but that dude does it and you're defending him?
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 3:01am

Post 29 of 57

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hey man, I had multiple people insult my ability/movies with little to no basis or grounds to do so, in a thread I hadn't even posted in. That's assy. I have a reasonable right to respond to bullshit like that, do I not?

I don't mind being a bit of an ass to someone who clearly went outta there way to do the same before me. I don't think that substantiates negative ratings, but I didn't give them to myself so it isn't my call to make. And if it does, that's fine by me, I can afford them as collateral to say what I want to say.

People think it's okay to degrade someone's work as unworthy of a certain marker of quality or ability; it isn't. Not for me or anyone else. With stuff like this, especially this effects video, it all comes down to timing, chance, and luck. Someone wants to compare our work to that because of it's accolades, that's fine. I'll turn it back on them- as I did with that coy little smiley in my previous post. I'm not trying to be cocky here, I'm trying to show how petty and ridiculous that kind of unnecessitated dick-measuring talk is. You have this acheivement, well then I have that. You're going to get this, well I'm going to get that. It's silly.

There's a high road and a low road; I took the side road.
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 3:01am

Post 30 of 57

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You guys don't get it. With Hollywood, it has nothing to do with story any more. It's all about PUBLICITY. That's right, the very thing we are doing right now is the exact reason why he was given $30 million. A lot of people asked me if I had seen this today and what I thought about it. It is it's own advertisement.
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 3:03am

Post 31 of 57

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I find this bickering and negging down-right dumb. So people disagree with you. Let it slide. I'm not the greatest example but really guys... I rarely throw out negative ratings. If you don't like what someone said there are better ways then negative ratings to get the point across.

Last edited Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 3:10am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 8:06am

Post 32 of 57

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Just for the record, I'd agree with Atom in wondering how this is great "directing". It's awesome, but only because of the visual effects, not really the directing. Even I could tell people to run left or right, or tell the cameraman to point the camera up or down. Hardly worth any Hollywood buzz.
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 8:50am

Post 33 of 57

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

A short film that blends solid story, directing, and VFX together is 405. Originally done in 2000, some of the effects are dated, but they still hold up relatively well today. Considering this was "viral" before the days of Youtube, the views appear low, but that movie must have been downloaded and viewed millions of times before ever hitting YT.

(And it did lead to work in TV and film for at least one of the guys involved)

EDIT: Same guy also made World Builder, which was linked to on these forums a while back (by Serpent, if I remember correctly).
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 9:52am

Post 34 of 57

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Some bizarre posts in this topic. Those of you that randomly launched into an attack on Atom and ben3308 should be ashamed.

As for the short film itself - I'm in agreement with Ben. I saw this awhile back, before the Hollywood deal and hype, and enjoyed it, but thought the compositing and VFX quality was extremely variable. Crucially, though, the short has a definite style that is quite appealing.

It's fun stuff. I look forward to seeing what the guy does with the opportunity.

Oh, and on the 'directing' topic: I'm not sure everyone here understands what 'directing' actually is. Which is understandable when you come from a do-everything-yourself amateur background. Professionally, though, 'directing' essentially means guiding a project to completion so that it has a successful end result (whether that end result is a technical test, an arthouse story or a bland commercial blockbuster is another issue entirely).
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 5:28pm

Post 35 of 57

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

'directing' essentially means guiding a project to completion so that it has a successful end result
I would argue that that's mostly what a producer does overall, and that the director is the one who sees it through completion by striking a careful balance between style, substance, and effectiveness of the storytelling. The director is the storyteller and the cinematographer/sound people/art direction along with the actors are smaller parts of the story. The director puts their vision into it, producers make sure things get purchased, people get paid, the movie gets done and that it gets done on time.

Yeah, people like Clint Eastwood consistently make a point of guiding the budget and time on their films, but that may just be Clint being an old man and kind of a hardass, and not him doing obligatory directorial jobs. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 7:05pm

Post 36 of 57

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

producers make sure things get purchased, people get paid, the movie gets done and that it gets done on time.
Ha, if that were only the case. Some producers have a hell of a lot more pull than that. I used to think the same thing as you until I moved out here and started working on a few sets. I've seen producers over step directors a good amount.
Posted: Mon, 21st Dec 2009, 9:14pm

Post 37 of 57

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Even I could tell people to run left or right, or tell the cameraman to point the camera up or down. Hardly worth any Hollywood buzz.
By that token, there's NOTHING important about any directors.

I mean, sure, Psycho was great - but anyone could have told Janet Leigh to scream, and where the camera should point, right? wink

The fact of the matter is, this guy has made a short that is better than what 99.9% of people here can do, if only for the fact that he's seen it through to a successful finish. I'm not saying that he's more talented than anyone else - just that he's managed to get a film out there that's caused a stir, which nobody else here really has.

The director puts their vision into it, producers make sure things get purchased, people get paid, the movie gets done and that it gets done on time.
I agree with CX3, totally. You just need to join the facebook group 'Edit Suite Stories' to read how truly appalling some producer's decisions can be - and because they're often the ones highest up in the company/production, very often what they say goes...
Posted: Tue, 22nd Dec 2009, 8:31am

Post 38 of 57

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I don't think anyone's doubting the power or pull of a producer, I just think Ben was highlighting- as I will reinforce- that a lot of the movement, money, power and decision-making the results in getting a project to completion is not only the prerogative of a producer, but the responsibility too. This, of course, just supplementing the idea that it is not solely a director's job to bring a project to completion.

And I never said there was little directing in this, I don't know where those who have been backing me up on that point got it from- I didn't say it.

Although, really, I would argue that there is less traditional directing in this, or at least more open-form, because it is less structured to be a narrative piece- and more along the lines of proper orchestration from the eye of, say, an art director or a visual effects supervisor.

It's not that the project doesn't incorporate 'directing'; it clearly does. It's that, in most people's minds and for most people's money- mine included- I need to see some direction of acting, really clearly and proper, to really cement in my mind that the person making it is a 'director'.

It's not a clarification or misuse of the term, it's just what I think people here expect a studio to pick up on when finding a director: a knack for working with or coordinating the performances of actors. Obviously there are many more facets to and types of directors; just saying.

From an orchestration point-of-view I can entirely see why this guy was given money. I may not agree with it- and it'd be short-sighted, silly, and untrue to treat this like it's a masterpiece or even that far above other visual effects work on YouTube or Vimeo (it isn't, let's be honest)- but I understand why it was picked, and hope the guy can deliver.

The fact of the matter is, this guy has made a short that is better than what 99.9% of people here can do, if only for the fact that he's seen it through to a successful finish.
Hrrrmmmmm, no. Seeing something to completion and a stir isn't a marker of being better- even if you make the disclaimer that that's what you mean by '99.9% better'. You know better than to say that.

In the end this was a matter of good timing and good luck; to ignore either of those things would be foolish. Even the best of us at marketing and hyping work to draw exposure (wink) couldn't anticipate or expect the kind of exposure this guy's got. No, it's a matter of luck, really, in the end.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Dec 2009, 9:20am

Post 39 of 57

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atoms wrote:

Hrrrmmmmm, no. Seeing something to completion and a stir isn't a marker of being better- even if you make the disclaimer that that's what you mean by '99.9% better'. You know better than to say that.
I think Arktic was referring to the financial/project success of the product, not the artistic success. As a product with which to sell himself as a viable director for larger projects, this guy has clearly done 'better' than most of us. smile

ben3308 wrote:

I would argue that that's mostly what a producer does overall, and that the director is the one who sees it through completion by striking a careful balance between style, substance, and effectiveness of the storytelling.
In some cases perhaps. But bear in mind that directing isn't always about storytelling or 'vision' - there are many types of projects that require minimal storytelling (commercials, for example).

90% of directors are just hired to get the job done, particularly in TV, for example. Artistic vision has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Directors with proper artistic freedom are far fewer than those that are there to get the job done and the product sucessfully finished. It's just that we only ever realy hear about the former.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Dec 2009, 12:57pm

Post 40 of 57

swintonmaximilian

Force: 1970 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 527

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Just watched this, thought it was pretty bland and uninteresting. The quality of the vfx work does vary considerably, some of it looks pretty good, some of it doesn't.

The idea isn't interesting or in any way original, so it's perfect for a Hollywood investment.

I really hate the argument that this film is beyond criticism because of it's Hollywood attention, and the attacks on Ben3308 and Atom were ridiculous and, like Tarn said, shameful.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Dec 2009, 7:15pm

Post 41 of 57

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Amazing how much pastiche is in this piece.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Dec 2009, 11:05pm

Post 42 of 57

RigomrtsFX

Force: 1516 | Joined: 14th Apr 2006 | Posts: 267

VisionLab User

Gold Member

Panic Attack! From You Tube to the big screen

Congratulations to Fede Alvarez, who‘s landed a contract to direct a full-length sci-fi epic after posting his short Ataque de Pánico! (Panic Attack!) on You Tube. Ataque de Pánico! is an impressive proof-of-concept VFX piece showing robots attacking Montevideo in Uruguay. The new movie will be shot in Uruguay and Argentina, with Sam Raimi as one of the producers.


i am pretty sure they will find Ben3308 and Atom next
they do good work now ben is what Hollywood needs they are out of fresh ideas
and are looking high and low for something good

ben was just telling it like it no need to beat him down
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 2:23am

Post 43 of 57

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I just watched it and find it very well done. Incredible tracking, effects etc. But I can figure it out. The crouds were some kind of massive/cinema 4D/ greenscreen mix. The blasts /fire was probably stock footage. Some of the buildings were pictures (I think), and robots were some well done 3D models. Amazing, yes, but predictable.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 4:12am

Post 44 of 57

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Agent: I don't think you can really use stock footage to cause the specific explosion of a building. Unless it's done really well, which is pretty much the crux of this debate. Whether it's good or not. And predictable? Who cares? So, I'm sure, were 99% of the VFX in Avatar and LOTR. Does that degrade their quality? No.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 4:31am

Post 45 of 57

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I would argue Richard, that most people care- and that yes- predictability and derivative storytelling is perhaps one of the biggest plagues to movies of today and that both absolutely degrade the quality of a film in different degrees for different movies.

Certainly Avatar was a good movie, but it was fairly obviously degraded from what could have been a legendary and iconic movie on more than an effects level due to how predictable and elementary the story and script were.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 5:05am

Post 46 of 57

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

But I was talking specifically about visual effects, when knowing how they're done doesn't degrade their quality in and of itself, unless by knowing that you see a flaw.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 5:14am

Post 47 of 57

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Mmmmmmm, not sure I agree there, either. Part of the wonder to visual effects for me has always been in them being more complex than my offhand understanding. From the time I was a kid til even now.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 9:21am

Post 48 of 57

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

No one is saying that the short was bad... at least I hope that they are not saying that. It was actually rather very good and the guy did a good job, not a perfect job but a good one non the less. To say that the guy doesn't deserve to get the contract and the money is what's wrong. The folks that have not been noticed or approached by a huge company even though they feel that their work is better are the ones that are hating the guy right now... that's what's also wrong.

To say that the guy doesn't deserve a directing contract because the short was all effects driven and that they could do the same or better is wrong and very selfish. It takes tons of work "directing" to get an effects shot done correctly. If it was as easy as some of the folks that are demeaning the guys work think and say it is... how come their little tests and shorts lack in lighting compositing editing and sound and aren't color corrected so that their effects and or stock footage match their raw footage? Hmmm?

Yes there are flaws in the guys work that are very obvious to those of us that actually take a very good and close look. Compositing lighting and his use of stock footage which he used a few to many times, over and over without bothering to try and change their appearance. Just because we notice these flaws doesn't mean that someone else didn't notice all of the good and hard work that the guy put in to his short... somebody noticed, so it paid off for him in the long run so just leave it at that.

I apologize to Solthar and anyone else that works in 3D for saying in my first and or second post that I think that they can do better than this guy. I see now how badly that sounds no matter how good my intentions were at the time because I made it sound like a pissing contest. Sorry guys, I didn't mean to come across as a jerk.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 1:52pm

Post 49 of 57

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

But I was talking specifically about visual effects, when knowing how they're done doesn't degrade their quality in and of itself, unless by knowing that you see a flaw.
I disagree as well with that. I remember watching some neat videos on youtube a couple times, but I noticed a couple of shots were free videos I had seen elsewhere. For me that ruined it because I could see it was nothing special. The same with some movies in the Cinema. Stereotype lightsaber clashes show that author just stuck a any old preset in and didn't take the time to do something to make it stand out. Maybe that's just my take on it...
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 1:55pm

Post 50 of 57

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

But, then, those examples are both describing flaws, as Terminal acknowledged. If you recognise stock footage from another source then chances are it has been used very subtly.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 2:57pm

Post 51 of 57

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Agent 702 wrote:

Terminal Velocity wrote:

But I was talking specifically about visual effects, when knowing how they're done doesn't degrade their quality in and of itself, unless by knowing that you see a flaw.
I disagree as well with that. I remember watching some neat videos on youtube a couple times, but I noticed a couple of shots were free videos I had seen elsewhere. For me that ruined it because I could see it was nothing special. The same with some movies in the Cinema. Stereotype lightsaber clashes show that author just stuck a any old preset in and didn't take the time to do something to make it stand out. Maybe that's just my take on it...
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. You're talking about effects that are "bad" or have been used before. I'm talking about fx that are good, but we know how it was probably done. For example: Davy Jones. We know how it was probably done, mo-cap and stuff, but does that mean he's crap? No, he was amazing. In fact, we can admire it more in a way because they used something old, but with an unprecedented level of quality. You see what I'm saying?

So about lightsaber clashes--I could make one and put it in a short film. You know how I did it; I used Effectslab. Does that make it worse? No.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 6:14pm

Post 52 of 57

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I get your point Richard, but i'm not talking about effects that are bad. The reason the technique worked with Davy Jones was because it was something new. Nobody had done something like davi jones before with the same level of realism. Same with the lightsabers. I know you did it with effects lab ,(P.S. the preset I was refering to was this one)but if the clashes are something I haven't seen before, it looks, to me, alot better. And I don't recognize any stock footage in Panic attack wink
Posted: Wed, 23rd Dec 2009, 6:46pm

Post 53 of 57

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The thing that started this was you saying the Panic Attack effects were good but predictable, thus putting "predictable" in a seemingly derogatory context. I then replied by saying that predictability did not degrade the quality of the effect.

Then you said a stereotype lightsaber clash was bad, or else badly applied. I replied by saying that I was not referring to bad/stereotypical effects, but the technique used. And now you're saying you aren't talking about bad effects, but fx that have been overused, when that wasn't what we were talking about at all. I'm confused. razz

My main point is that just because you know how it was done, that doesn't make it low-quality. I'm not talking about whether you've seen it before. You originally said "I think I know how each effect was done" in a way that seemed derisory. Somehow you managed to switch to "I don't like fx I've seen before" which is an entirely different matter.
Posted: Fri, 5th Mar 2010, 4:42pm

Post 54 of 57

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

This no-VFX version makes for some interesting viewing:

Posted: Fri, 5th Mar 2010, 4:45pm

Post 55 of 57

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +3

Hahaha, the kid suddenly becoming aware of the majesty of bridges is the best thing. smile
Posted: Fri, 5th Mar 2010, 4:53pm

Post 56 of 57

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Hehehe, brilliant. I hadn't watched it with that in mind. That is indeed hilarious. I might have to vote for you as most inspiring FXhomer for that post alone.
Posted: Fri, 5th Mar 2010, 6:20pm

Post 57 of 57

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I think there's some candy up on that bridge.