Mean Green
I guess footage like this shouldn't make me like movies less, but it does.
Comments: 57 | Views: 12,759 | Time: 03:58
Comments
That is really really cool.
makes me like them more
movies are visual story telling
the better to tell the story
movies are visual story telling
the better to tell the story
It should make everyone like movies less. There was a time when sets were constructed and locations were scouted and things in films seemed real because they were. And there are still people who make movies that way and we should be supporting them. Because this shit is wack, for lack of a better term.
kitsch said:
It should make everyone like movies less. There was a time when sets were constructed and locations were scouted and things in films seemed real because they were. And there are still people who make movies that way and we should be supporting them. Because this shit is wack, for lack of a better term.
It should make everyone like movies less. There was a time when sets were constructed and locations were scouted and things in films seemed real because they were. And there are still people who make movies that way and we should be supporting them. Because this shit is wack, for lack of a better term.
i can see the argument for a movie, but these seemed mostly to be tv shows, where they have to pump out a 30 min/hour show evey week
you cannot expect them to freaking fly to the kremlin just to get that one shot
I wish the green screen was never invented... that way we could still be watching westerns and bonanza
Why the hell would they have to green screen a girl walking down a residential street? I understand doing it for some of the more exotic locations, but some of these seem like a waste of money.
In television news terminology, there is a phrase called 'a dog lick' - meaning an effect is used simple because it's there... me thinks some of these fall into that category...
I liked how the girl (and probably others) just so happened to walk right under the shade of an adjacent building, providing lighting eerily similar to that of an enclosed room where everything else is sun lit. Thanks for ruining every movie for me, Fazed, I'll be spotting things like this forever.
If they shot every scene on location it would get pretty expensive what with all the certifications and the permits and the who and the what not, but I agree that green screens are lame.
Yeah, The green screening is the cheap solution. Fuck, I can green screen something for like $50. Trying to actually get filiming permits requires a shit load more
cmthe4th said:
Why the hell would they have to green screen a girl walking down a residential street? I understand doing it for some of the more exotic locations, but some of these seem like a waste of money.
Why the hell would they have to green screen a girl walking down a residential street? I understand doing it for some of the more exotic locations, but some of these seem like a waste of money.
Because they can do that scene and a half dozen other scenes like it in a day or two without having to move their shit from location to location.
Zoidberg said:
i can see the argument for a movie, but these seemed mostly to be tv shows, where they have to pump out a 30 min/hour show evey week
you cannot expect them to freaking fly to the kremlin just to get that one shot
i can see the argument for a movie, but these seemed mostly to be tv shows, where they have to pump out a 30 min/hour show evey week
you cannot expect them to freaking fly to the kremlin just to get that one shot
Not to mention TV shows might not have the budget for that kind of globehopping. But perhaps not coincidentally, all the shows I recognized on that reel are pretty terrible.
So I guess Fenway Park is the ultimate place to shoot an action film.
Most of those are so well done, I wouldn't have figured they'd been greenscreened. That, and the fact that so many were completely run of the mill locations.
OMG! They didn't really film that scene on Venus from Defying Gravity on Venus? WTF? I feel robbed!!!
hahaha.. ugly betty?? really???
If you can't tell the difference does it really matter?
To all of you who said that this post ruined movies for you... That means you't didn't know... you couldn't tell... so why does it matter?
Don't complain that the background is fake. The whole thing is fake. It's a movie. Would learning that your favorite hero is just an actor and actually doesn't know kung fu ruin the movie? I don't think so.
To all of you who said that this post ruined movies for you... That means you't didn't know... you couldn't tell... so why does it matter?
Don't complain that the background is fake. The whole thing is fake. It's a movie. Would learning that your favorite hero is just an actor and actually doesn't know kung fu ruin the movie? I don't think so.
I think it's idiotic:
1) for anyone to not like something because of a technique used to make it. Even moreso anyone who tells other people why they shouldn't like it or support it. Don't tell me not to like something and then go ahead and say the reason why is that it's "wack." Most of the footage looked fine, and if the actor can handle it, what the fuck does it matter if it's shot on site or in a studio? Do you like shitty things? Do you like spending more money on everything? Do you like hindering artistic output?
I'm a musician with very little money and no access to free studio time who's been rejected for grant money time and time again. If making music wasn't getting gradually easier and easier to do and accomplish in the privacy of my own home using my own computer, I would never have any output ever.
2) for anyone to conclude that a new way of doing thing is bad because it's synthetic. If it looks synthetic fine. A lot of those looked seamless. I don't give two shits if a canvas was painted with fine brush strokes or sprayed digitally by a robot. The end result and the context is what matters, not the gear used to do it.
1) for anyone to not like something because of a technique used to make it. Even moreso anyone who tells other people why they shouldn't like it or support it. Don't tell me not to like something and then go ahead and say the reason why is that it's "wack." Most of the footage looked fine, and if the actor can handle it, what the fuck does it matter if it's shot on site or in a studio? Do you like shitty things? Do you like spending more money on everything? Do you like hindering artistic output?
I'm a musician with very little money and no access to free studio time who's been rejected for grant money time and time again. If making music wasn't getting gradually easier and easier to do and accomplish in the privacy of my own home using my own computer, I would never have any output ever.
2) for anyone to conclude that a new way of doing thing is bad because it's synthetic. If it looks synthetic fine. A lot of those looked seamless. I don't give two shits if a canvas was painted with fine brush strokes or sprayed digitally by a robot. The end result and the context is what matters, not the gear used to do it.
djfreshie said:
I think it's idiotic:
1) for anyone to not like something because of a technique used to make it. Even moreso anyone who tells other people why they shouldn't like it or support it. Don't tell me not to like something and then go ahead and say the reason why is that it's "wack." Most of the footage looked fine, and if the actor can handle it, what the fuck does it matter if it's shot on site or in a studio? Do you like shitty things? Do you like spending more money on everything? Do you like hindering artistic output?
I'm a musician with very little money and no access to free studio time who's been rejected for grant money time and time again. If making music wasn't getting gradually easier and easier to do and accomplish in the privacy of my own home using my own computer, I would never have any output ever.
2) for anyone to conclude that a new way of doing thing is bad because it's synthetic. If it looks synthetic fine. A lot of those looked seamless. I don't give two shits if a canvas was painted with fine brush strokes or sprayed digitally by a robot. The end result and the context is what matters, not the gear used to do it.
I think it's idiotic:
1) for anyone to not like something because of a technique used to make it. Even moreso anyone who tells other people why they shouldn't like it or support it. Don't tell me not to like something and then go ahead and say the reason why is that it's "wack." Most of the footage looked fine, and if the actor can handle it, what the fuck does it matter if it's shot on site or in a studio? Do you like shitty things? Do you like spending more money on everything? Do you like hindering artistic output?
I'm a musician with very little money and no access to free studio time who's been rejected for grant money time and time again. If making music wasn't getting gradually easier and easier to do and accomplish in the privacy of my own home using my own computer, I would never have any output ever.
2) for anyone to conclude that a new way of doing thing is bad because it's synthetic. If it looks synthetic fine. A lot of those looked seamless. I don't give two shits if a canvas was painted with fine brush strokes or sprayed digitally by a robot. The end result and the context is what matters, not the gear used to do it.
what f your mother applied her lipstick with my dick instead of a standard lipstick tube?
think about THAT
djfreshie said:
I think it's idiotic:
I don't give two shits if a canvas was painted with fine brush strokes or sprayed digitally by a robot. The end result and the context is what matters, not the gear used to do it.
I think it's idiotic:
I don't give two shits if a canvas was painted with fine brush strokes or sprayed digitally by a robot. The end result and the context is what matters, not the gear used to do it.
So what you're saying is you like chicken mcnuggets.
Hence, every song on the radio sounds like the same demo of some crappy pirated software, complete with vocoder fixed vocals, fake drums, overdubbed instruments and a distinct metronome (tic tic), keeping everything completely boring (to me at least).
The problem with a cheap technique (like greenscreening a brief clip of a city) is that everyone uses it and everything will look/sound the same. Just gives more kudos to those who chose the traditional path, which to those who really appreciate the art can notice and enjoy even more now that it's a rare thing. Case in point, No Country for Old Men was shot on location, giving them the freedom to look over a cliff, and actually continue and film what was beyond the cliff.
Now, I'm not saying that Ugly Betty needs to raise millions of dollars and drop the green screen, but saying that the means are always justified by the ends, to me, implies that the money spent filming an actual location is better spent on superficial things like more and more and more CGI.
Look at the Lord of the Rings. That was shot largely on location. It's beautiful. It made millions of dollars because people felt it looked real. Look at Percy and the Gay Witch Dragon of Mount Whatever. That movie probably totally sucks, and I'm 100% sure it was filmed completely in green screen without even checking.
The problem with a cheap technique (like greenscreening a brief clip of a city) is that everyone uses it and everything will look/sound the same. Just gives more kudos to those who chose the traditional path, which to those who really appreciate the art can notice and enjoy even more now that it's a rare thing. Case in point, No Country for Old Men was shot on location, giving them the freedom to look over a cliff, and actually continue and film what was beyond the cliff.
Now, I'm not saying that Ugly Betty needs to raise millions of dollars and drop the green screen, but saying that the means are always justified by the ends, to me, implies that the money spent filming an actual location is better spent on superficial things like more and more and more CGI.
Look at the Lord of the Rings. That was shot largely on location. It's beautiful. It made millions of dollars because people felt it looked real. Look at Percy and the Gay Witch Dragon of Mount Whatever. That movie probably totally sucks, and I'm 100% sure it was filmed completely in green screen without even checking.
ObjectZero said:
what f your mother applied her lipstick with my dick instead of a standard lipstick tube?
think about THAT
what f your mother applied her lipstick with my dick instead of a standard lipstick tube?
think about THAT
What if YOUR mother stuck with the topic instead of servicing the armed services?
You're probably already thinking about THAT.
Deathcap said:
Yeah, The green screening is the cheap solution. Fuck, I can green screen something for like $50. Trying to actually get filiming permits requires a shit load more
Yeah, The green screening is the cheap solution. Fuck, I can green screen something for like $50. Trying to actually get filiming permits requires a shit load more
Especially filming things that are set in major cities.
I can't imagine the CSI series can afford running permits for three cities. All their budget is already spent on making ultra-fake looking GUIs for analysis programs.
Uh, I never said I blindly like synthetic things. But feel free to ad hominem whatever you want brother, it'll get you really far.
djfreshie said:
Uh, I never said I blindly like synthetic things. But feel free to ad hominem whatever you want brother, it'll get you really far.
Uh, I never said I blindly like synthetic things. But feel free to ad hominem whatever you want brother, it'll get you really far.
But obviously I like McNuggets. Who doesn't?
derelicthobo said:
Hence, every song on the radio sounds like the same demo of some crappy pirated software, complete with vocoder fixed vocals, fake drums, overdubbed instruments and a distinct metronome (tic tic), keeping everything completely boring (to me at least).
The problem with a cheap technique (like greenscreening a brief clip of a city) is that everyone uses it and everything will look/sound the same. Just gives more kudos to those who chose the traditional path, which to those who really appreciate the art can notice and enjoy even more now that it's a rare thing. Case in point, No Country for Old Men was shot on location, giving them the freedom to look over a cliff, and actually continue and film what was beyond the cliff.
Now, I'm not saying that Ugly Betty needs to raise millions of dollars and drop the green screen, but saying that the means are always justified by the ends, to me, implies that the money spent filming an actual location is better spent on superficial things like more and more and more CGI.
Hence, every song on the radio sounds like the same demo of some crappy pirated software, complete with vocoder fixed vocals, fake drums, overdubbed instruments and a distinct metronome (tic tic), keeping everything completely boring (to me at least).
The problem with a cheap technique (like greenscreening a brief clip of a city) is that everyone uses it and everything will look/sound the same. Just gives more kudos to those who chose the traditional path, which to those who really appreciate the art can notice and enjoy even more now that it's a rare thing. Case in point, No Country for Old Men was shot on location, giving them the freedom to look over a cliff, and actually continue and film what was beyond the cliff.
Now, I'm not saying that Ugly Betty needs to raise millions of dollars and drop the green screen, but saying that the means are always justified by the ends, to me, implies that the money spent filming an actual location is better spent on superficial things like more and more and more CGI.
1) Not all music sounds the same. Music on the radio sounds the same because of the medium, and the way some usic used to be processed strictly for radio. Back when radio was the thing, labels had 2 separate masters made: one mixed for private consumption, and one mixed to account for radio decibel levels. Vocoder, Synth Drums...all that depends on the producer and band and songwriters who are free to make that choice and you are free to dismiss it or consume it. There is WAY more actual good music out there than there ever has been before and if you are only finding overprocessed mainstream stuff, you aren't trying very hard at all.
2) Lord of the Rings looked alright, but in my mind those were all pitifully dull movies. If every movie was judged on looks alone - if ALL art were judged on aesthetic value only - then we would have a surplus of pitifully dull but beautiful things, like a party full of supermodels.
And you've brought up zero examples where a film shot on location did not look very good at all. There are probably a substantial number of films that may have had good content but looked horrid; Thos films might have been improved by CGI.
Just because some movies use CGI badly, and some use locations well...man, you can't hate on the technology, it's how it's used.
Doesn't make me like movies less or more -- I don't finish a movie (or a television show) and think that I should like what I've seen a little less or a little more based on the knowledge of how it was filmed. Effects are effects. Effects have been used since the dawn of cinema. What the fuck do you think editing is? Editing allows filmmakers to string together scenes that were otherwise not shot together -- to juxtapose two scenes to get a reaction out of the audience.
I don't understand how someone could be OKAY with editing but not okay with green-screen effects. And if you're not okay with editing, you shouldn't even be discussing film.
I don't understand how someone could be OKAY with editing but not okay with green-screen effects. And if you're not okay with editing, you shouldn't even be discussing film.
Chromakey (green/blue screen) != CGI
CGI is often more expensive than shooting on location. It takes teams of digital artists months to come up with all the CGI stuff.
Chromakey is often just shooting background plates and syncing it up with foreground actors, which is cheaper than taking an entire crew out onto location. That does not mean they didn't shoot the plates on location, however. Just not the talent.
I can understand using chromakey for things where no one's going to notice or care. But when you have the budget, it's almost always better to shoot everything on location to preserve the inherent realism in that.
The thing I hate is when CGI is used unnecessarily. Not only is it a waste of money, but it looks like shit. CGI should only be used to do something digitally that could not be done practically or via other optical means. Digital imagery is a great tool, but you sacrifice a lot of realism with it. So if what you want on the screen can be done realistically, it doesn't make sense to use CGI.
CGI is often more expensive than shooting on location. It takes teams of digital artists months to come up with all the CGI stuff.
Chromakey is often just shooting background plates and syncing it up with foreground actors, which is cheaper than taking an entire crew out onto location. That does not mean they didn't shoot the plates on location, however. Just not the talent.
I can understand using chromakey for things where no one's going to notice or care. But when you have the budget, it's almost always better to shoot everything on location to preserve the inherent realism in that.
The thing I hate is when CGI is used unnecessarily. Not only is it a waste of money, but it looks like shit. CGI should only be used to do something digitally that could not be done practically or via other optical means. Digital imagery is a great tool, but you sacrifice a lot of realism with it. So if what you want on the screen can be done realistically, it doesn't make sense to use CGI.
No <i>wonder</i> why acting has gone to shit. They have nothing to work with. Sabotaging quality for ease, people stop going to movies so they'd have to pump up the graphics. Soon after, story lines are non-existent, middle America is obese, and everyone's IQ drops ten points.
They should have filmed Avatar on location and actually employed real Na'vi.
mediaphile said:
The thing I hate is when CGI is used unnecessarily. Not only is it a waste of money, but it looks like shit. CGI should only be used to do something digitally that could not be done practically or via other optical means. Digital imagery is a great tool, but you sacrifice a lot of realism with it. So if what you want on the screen can be done realistically, it doesn't make sense to use CGI.
The thing I hate is when CGI is used unnecessarily. Not only is it a waste of money, but it looks like shit. CGI should only be used to do something digitally that could not be done practically or via other optical means. Digital imagery is a great tool, but you sacrifice a lot of realism with it. So if what you want on the screen can be done realistically, it doesn't make sense to use CGI.
Exactly. There was a maxim among the old gods of animation that was like "never animate what you can do in real life".
On the other hand digital effects are becoming more inexpensive and easy to do, which opens the door for amateurs/indie filmmakers to have good looking effects on the cheap.
I'm blown away that green screens really work that well.
Amazing technology.
Amazing technology.
I liked the video.
Wow... so they can edit a blue or green wall into just about any location shoot now?
Dudes, I don't give a shit about the video. I just really like the song.
Anyone know what it is?
Anyone know what it is?
Speaking of dog lick, it's like this video was only put here so people could suddenly form opinions about green screening.
can this be used to make it look like I'm at work?
You retards not liking the CGI backgrounds-- matte paintings have been in films forever. It's the same damn thing.
I'm okay with green screens but I much prefer puppet creatures to CGI ones.
eAS y m Id GeT said:
You retards not liking the CGI backgrounds-- matte paintings have been in films forever. It's the same damn thing.
You retards not liking the CGI backgrounds-- matte paintings have been in films forever. It's the same damn thing.
Well, like I said, this isn't CGI, it's chroma keying using separately shot plates.
OOOOOOoooooooOOOOOO! I guess I messed with the wrong PA.
I kid.
I kid.
kitsch said:
It should make everyone like movies less. There was a time when sets were constructed and locations were scouted and things in films seemed real because they were. And there are still people who make movies that way and we should be supporting them. Because this shit is wack, for lack of a better term.
It should make everyone like movies less. There was a time when sets were constructed and locations were scouted and things in films seemed real because they were. And there are still people who make movies that way and we should be supporting them. Because this shit is wack, for lack of a better term.
Yeah, there was also a time where people used painted backgrounds, that didn't look very real at all.
the vid was great, the comments hilarious, I give the whole shebang, and fazed and A plus. Would participate again.
I much prefer puppet creatures to CGI ones.
Very much so.
Swiss Miss said:
I'm okay with green screens but I much prefer puppet creatures to CGI ones.
I'm okay with green screens but I much prefer puppet creatures to CGI ones.
Anyone who disagrees with this statement is required to watch 'Little Shop of Horrors' (the color one, not the original). Henson workshop fucking PWNS any CG out there.
That's the company that Ryan Wieber works for. As in Ryan vs Dorkman.
http://www.ryanvsdorkman.com/
http://www.ryanvsdorkman.com/
arothman said:
Anyone who disagrees with this statement is required to watch 'Little Shop of Horrors' (the color one, not the original). Henson workshop fucking PWNS any CG out there.
Anyone who disagrees with this statement is required to watch 'Little Shop of Horrors' (the color one, not the original). Henson workshop fucking PWNS any CG out there.
And Alien/Aliens.
This smells like a SpunOne social experiment. If the caption had been "who knew? this shit is happening all the time and its AWESOME!" I'll bet the tone of the comments would have been completely different.
But Spun is more erudite than that.
But Spun is more erudite than that.
you got something one your nose
this video needs more dragon stabbing.
Unfortunately, once the 70's were over, things really went downhill. (Possibly NSFW.)
Comments: 36 | Views: 13,489 | Time: 10:00
The praying mantis has to win the award for the bug most horrifying if they were as big as people. They're also pretty neat pets!
Comments: 33 | Views: 9,355 | Time: 01:08
You may have heard the folks in the east are getting a little more snow than usual. Word is, there's more coming tonight.
Comments: 42 | Views: 11,676 | Time: 00:28
This is almost certainly better than the original song.
Comments: 16 | Views: 7,490 | Time: 02:34
I thought I had it all figured out, until the bees...
Comments: 27 | Views: 20,247 | Time: 01:56
When your car begins to slide down a hill, jumping out is probably not the best thing to do.
Comments: 52 | Views: 18,439 | Time: 00:35
This is what a bunch of kids trying to shoot down an RC plane looks like... from the plane's perspective.
Comments: 25 | Views: 13,956 | Time: 04:57
When your girlfriend denies being the source of your missing food, it's time to try and catch her on video. Prepare to never feel safe again. Of course, it'll probably turn out to be a viral for night vision cameras some stupid website.
Comments: 91 | Views: 18,220 | Time: 05:51