Computer generated imagery)

I'm not 100% sure about that.

I think CGI is ineffective for foreground shots involving humans and close up stuff. Filming real people/sets and painting in the backgrounds can be very effective.

Here are four videos I posted elsewhere about the making of Boardwalk Empire (to me, one of the best TV series ever made). The 4 minute ones are probably the best as they are made as promos by the digital FX company Brainstorm Digital

They make it look very easy!

Short: 4 minutes.



Medium: 8 minutes;

Long: 90 minutes:
From watching that we have surely just seen the end of thousands of more jobs, killed off by technology. All those extras, set designers, make up artists, costume designers, grips, engineers, even lighting and cameramen that normally need to be hired, taken to the location, accommodated, fed and otherwise looked after, no longer necessary.

A small crew and cast to film the up close work and then leave it to the blokes in the graphics studios to do the rest at a fraction of the cost.
 
From watching that we have surely just seen the end of thousands of more jobs, killed off by technology. All those extras, set designers, make up artists, costume designers, grips, engineers, even lighting and cameramen that normally need to be hired, taken to the location, accommodated, fed and otherwise looked after, no longer necessary.

A small crew and cast to film the up close work and then leave it to the blokes in the graphics studios to do the rest at a fraction of the cost.

Watch the credits for any film using animation or a lot of CGI and see just how many people are required to do it - feckin thousands by the look of it...
 
Watch the credits for any film using animation or a lot of CGI and see just how many people are required to do it - feckin thousands by the look of it...
Sure, of course, but still cheaper and more convenient than doing it in actuality in expensive locations. And once again its thousands of blokes with a very narrow skillset called Ng or Rama, working from Manila or Bangalore, while the well-paid jobs they destroy are in London or New York.

Fair play to 'em, but we can see how once again technology will not be driving prosperity for the masses in the West.
 
Sure, of course, but still cheaper and more convenient than doing it in actuality in expensive locations. And once again its thousands of blokes with a very narrow skillset called Ng or Rama, working from Manila or Bangalore, while the well-paid jobs they destroy are in London or New York.

Fair play to 'em, but we can see how once again technology will not be driving prosperity for the masses in the West.


If you don't know how the industry works, don't post your imaginings as if they were truth.
 
Watch the credits for any film using animation or a lot of CGI and see just how many people are required to do it - feckin thousands by the look of it...

Some of those credits roll for longer than the film itself.

I chuckle at some of the names, as well.

Chief wrangler.

Best boy.

Focus puller.

Foley artist.

Grip.

and all the others. And they each have Executive Assistants, Deputy Assistants and Junior Sub-Assistants.

There aren't that many people in the world.
 
From watching that we have surely just seen the end of thousands of more jobs, killed off by technology. All those extras, set designers, make up artists, costume designers, grips, engineers, even lighting and cameramen that normally need to be hired, taken to the location, accommodated, fed and otherwise looked after, no longer necessary.

A small crew and cast to film the up close work and then leave it to the blokes in the graphics studios to do the rest at a fraction of the cost.

Again, I'm not 100% convinced.

Having watched some old film/tv stuff during lockdown the programmes seemed to be made on a shoestring for pennies with a very small team. I imagine a lot of the back office and technical grunts didn't get a mention back then (whereas everyone gets mentioned nowadays for career purposes, thanks to the union).

I watched a Marvel movie recently (never saw any before lockdown as I thought they were kids films) and the credits took about ten minutes to roll (you have to wait to the end for the final thirty second clip). I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than ten thousand people credited and uncredited (studio staff, cleaners, admin etc).

I think the skills required to create the depth and breadth of modern movies will more than make up for the odd carpenter getting the tin tack.
 
No need to be so pompous mate, we're having a bit of a chat here, if you know more than me feel free to enlighten me and set me straight, don't just jump on your high horse.



crop_Screenshot_20201120-143308_2.jpg
 
There's a flick on the usual sites of Kiera Knightly performing, but a cursory inspection reveals far too many tattoos to be her.

I would have thought that the appearance or absence of Keira Knightley's scary teeth would be enough to put the matter beyond any doubt.
 

View attachment 522059

Thank you, that is very interesting and I am pleased to see so many bright young things in gainful employment and in London too, that's terrific.

But my point, and it's only a mild point, not one designed to wind anyone up, is that again the technology is benefiting those who are high-skilled already and almost certainly well educated. The people who won't be benefiting are the chippies, gaffers, costume ladies, cooks, drivers, sparks, scaffolders etc that one sees on a set on location (I am not completely unaware of the business having been involved in a very fringe capacity 20 odd years ago on some TV ad production and being shocked at how many people were employed for so long on producing a couple of 30-second ads).

Furthermore the jobs are in London today, but as someone who has seen a huge volume of middle-income work in my own business disappear offshore to the Philippines and Bangladesh can we be sure it will all still be done in London in 10 years time?

Again, I am asking these things in a spirit of genuine curiosity, it's an interesting thread, I am enjoying it, I am not trying to piss anyone off or annoy people, I would definitely like to learn more from people who know about the topic under discussion.
 
Some of those credits roll for longer than the film itself.

I chuckle at some of the names, as well.

Chief wrangler.

Best boy.

Focus puller.

Foley artist.

Grip.

and all the others. And they each have Executive Assistants, Deputy Assistants and Junior Sub-Assistants.

There aren't that many people in the world.
 
From watching that we have surely just seen the end of thousands of more jobs, killed off by technology. All those extras, set designers, make up artists, costume designers, grips, engineers, even lighting and cameramen that normally need to be hired, taken to the location, accommodated, fed and otherwise looked after, no longer necessary.

A small crew and cast to film the up close work and then leave it to the blokes in the graphics studios to do the rest at a fraction of the cost.

Spoken with all your usual embarrassing ignorance, this time in the field of CGI.
 

ches

LE
I'm not 100% sure about that.

I think CGI is ineffective for foreground shots involving humans and close up stuff. Filming real people/sets and painting in the backgrounds can be very effective.

Here are four videos I posted elsewhere about the making of Boardwalk Empire (to me, one of the best TV series ever made). The 4 minute ones are probably the best as they are made as promos by the digital FX company Brainstorm Digital

They make it look very easy!

Short: 4 minutes.



Medium: 8 minutes;

Long: 90 minutes:


I'll second this post. CGI has been pushing a lot of creative boundaries for a number of years now. Civpops general awareness of it was mainly down to Titanic & the excellent scenes they used followed by the LOTR trilogy & the star wars revamps.
LOTR was using a software engine able to create random movements within crowds of characters hacking & slashing lumps out of each other. You be hard pushed in some fight scenes to tell which was live action, which wasn't.

A by product of my professional life in the design industry is CGI from digital building & infrastructure models. The imagery we're able to produce in house is right up there for 'realism' as for the most part designers & 3D 'artists' are using graphics engines that power the latest games. Take Unreal for example, its been out for years but is continually updated & just gets better with each release. I can train someone to apply realistic weather effects to a moving or still scene in a matter of short hours. The results are staggering for very little outlay. Some clients cant believe they're not watching movie of real places & people.
 
From watching that we have surely just seen the end of thousands of more jobs, killed off by technology. All those extras, set designers, make up artists, costume designers, grips, engineers, even lighting and cameramen that normally need to be hired, taken to the location, accommodated, fed and otherwise looked after, no longer necessary.

A small crew and cast to film the up close work and then leave it to the blokes in the graphics studios to do the rest at a fraction of the cost.

The crews come into their own on the sound stages. Many, many people.

I got a lot of work as an extra on the first of the 'Kingsman' franchise ('38th Mercenary' and 'Fireman' - I'd send you a link to my IMDB page but there's cock-all on it).

That project involved 2 of the main hangars at Warner Bros, Leavesden: the chippys and set designers turned one into the night club (main part of the set) and the reverse sides of the nightclub 'walls' formed part of the interior of the church for the massacre and for the tunnels under the Secret Mountain Base and the cell block.

The other sound stage was the Secret Runway in the Secret Mountain Base, full of Secret Mercenaries (ex-squaddies for the vast majority as the 'resting' drama students would not stop looking at the camera and insisting that any hats were worn as far back as possible as how else were they going to get noticed?!).

The exec jet* and the Rapier unit were real because the live action needed to have people enter and leave a real airframe and Mark Strong needed to be seen to 'fly' a plane. The Rapier crew needed to be seen to **** about professionally bring the thing into action.

None of that could be generated with green screen - it had to be live action. Same as the interior shots of the nightclub and also for us Mercs chasing hither and yon down the tunnels.

Of those examples, much was also enhanced post-production: the aircraft lift which took the jet down from the runway, the hangar interior, etc. And the exploding heads at the end. Obvs.

So, no, sound stage work involves an awful lot of people - a 'small crew and cast' will not do it for blockbuster-style films.

*the jet had a storyline more interesting than the film, tbh.
 
Last edited:

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
One film I liked much more than I expected to, was "Midway" - heavy on CGI to produce ships, aircraft, storms of flak, et cetera.

While some of the sequences felt like watching the director playing "Call of Duty: World of War", they actually made the naval scenes look respectably realistic, enough that at the time disbelief was suspended (it was in the shooty bits that you noticed how often aircraft got hit in the left wing and had it break off in a ball of flame...)
 
Have been watching The Crown. I'm aware most things nowadays use some element of CGI in their takes.
Watching S4 E7 I noticed a scene where Princess Margaret was in an aircraft just landed on the Island of Mustique.
I've been there. What I sawe in the background did not reflect anything I recall so- I resorted to google Earth (long time since I was there).
Google Earth backs up my opinion so- being the OCD tw@t I am with certain things I cross referenced from the film to google earth, and I noticed in the film...

The runway is lined with trees, maybe 30 or so different types of trees but- the exact same trees appear multiple times- even from slightly different angles though, and in different scenes. There does not seem to be a pattern I can deduce but- they are definately the same trees, and used in multiple scenes. Having spotted this its sort of ruined my experience of watching it.

Is this common in films or- is Netflix actually quite low on sophistication when it comes to productions? Its the first time I've ever paid attention to it.

Edit: Caveat- I'm not actually an avid film / series watcher so this is relatively new to me.

I don’t think you could say that Netflix is low on sophistication, at least so far as The Crown is concerned. It was apparently one of the most expensive TV productions ever. I think I’m right in saying that season 1 cost north of $100m to make. For starters, all the military and naval uniforms appear 100% genuine. I can’t imagine how much Gieves & Thieves charge for an Admiral of the Fleet’s dress uniform, or the Guards tunics with the gold wire cuffs and collars.

We got a 4K TV earlier this year, and Netflix broadcasts the Crown in 4K. The title sequence is absolutely stunning, but obviously either CGI or some very clever actual filming of molten gold.

In general, I think they’ve done a very good job, but there’s a few things not quite right. Gillian Anderson’s hair looks too long. Right style, but too much of it. Olivia Colman however makes up for it.

We’re not as far ahead as you are, we’re on S4 E4, so I’ll watch out for Mustique trees when we get there :)
 
I don’t think you could say that Netflix is low on sophistication, at least so far as The Crown is concerned. It was apparently one of the most expensive TV productions ever. I think I’m right in saying that season 1 cost north of $100m to make. For starters, all the military and naval uniforms appear 100% genuine. I can’t imagine how much Gieves & Thieves charge for an Admiral of the Fleet’s dress uniform, or the Guards tunics with the gold wire cuffs and collars.

We got a 4K TV earlier this year, and Netflix broadcasts the Crown in 4K. The title sequence is absolutely stunning, but obviously either CGI or some very clever actual filming of molten gold.

In general, I think they’ve done a very good job, but there’s a few things not quite right. Gillian Anderson’s hair looks too long. Right style, but too much of it. Olivia Colman however makes up for it.

We’re not as far ahead as you are, we’re on S4 E4, so I’ll watch out for Mustique trees when we get there :)
Slightly off-topic but seeing as you have brought it up, The Crown is in many ways a load of bollocks but still hugely enjoyable (marred for me only by reminding SWMBO every five minutes that it is not a documentary and just because the actors say or do something doesn't necessarily mean that's how it was in real life).

The CGI is superb at recreating London and elsewhere in different eras, mind you the Michael Fagan scenes didn't look CGI so presumably those grotty blocks of flats do actually still exist somewhere. But as you rightly point out it is the costumes and the cast who are the delights. Gillian Anderson's head tilting Maggie with the basso profundo voice is dreadful and the continually lurching Prince Charles is a bit odd but the other cast members, particularly Charles Dance and Calire Foy are superb, with Erin Doherty carrying off a brilliant Princess Anne.

But far and away the best piece of casting must be Emma Corrin as Diana. When I first saw the publicity shots of her I was astonished the producers would choose someone who looked so unlike Diana and couldn't see what they saw in her. In reality she steals the show, absolutely nails the younger Diana to a tee, it's almost uncanny how she carries it off. I must say I have been mightily impressed by her.

Only got two more episodes of Season 4 to go and despite the Daily Mail's howls of execration I still look forward to them.
 
I watched a Marvel movie recently (never saw any before lockdown as I thought they were kids films) and the credits took about ten minutes to roll (you have to wait to the end for the final thirty second clip). I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than ten thousand people credited and uncredited (studio staff, cleaners, admin etc).

Bad form to quote yourself but it's only for reference.

I watched the film Logan a few days ago and at the end of the credits it said "The production and distribution of this film employed over 15,000 people".
 
Top