Tested: Who needs messy, sticky fake blood in the movies when you can add clean and easy digital blood in post-production? Who needs hundreds of decaying zombie faces when you can add them to the background with CGI? These days, computer generated effects are often cheaper to add to movies than elaborate makeup and props. But as LiveScience illuminates in a recent story, there are still special effects and makeup artists out there doing their thing, and they use a combination of new technologies and creative homebrew solutions to make our movies look real.
14 comments:
I really like this article because the film and theater worlds are very quick to turn and rely on the latest technology. I hope there will always be artists with the creative "homebrew" solutions. even with a cast (including extras) of over 100 people, hand done make-up must really make a difference. I know when I saw, Oz The Great and Powerful the wicked witch's make up was actually done using CGIs and it looked terrible. Her face was just a sickly green and it was very two dimensional which was really disappointing. The attention to the hand done detail, for example turning a silicone covered model upside down is noticed and the make up makes the character so much more believable and interesting to watch.
Right now, the general agreement is that CGI never looks as real as the real thing -- makeup, fake blood, and so forth -- but I wonder if there will ever be a day where CGI is so advanced that it looks exactly like the real thing. If it ever comes, that day is still off in the far distance, but it's definitely an interesting thought -- how far will our technology have advanced in the next ten years, or the next one hundred?
Neat article -- I definitely like the notion of combining CGI effects and old-school techniques to create movie magic! I think sometimes we rely too much on the new technology. It's cheaper and easier…but man, it really doesn't look as good yet! I really enjoyed the new Tron movie…except the 'digital makeup' used on Jeff Bridges to make him young again. That one little thing completely took me out of the movie. It was just so distracting! Why didn't they just use real makeup? I'm sure there was a good reason (or maybe not), but it was really frustrating. I haven't seen Oz The Great and Powerful, but it sounds like a similar situation. When CGI effects are done really well, I have to admit that they are great. I just hope that people don't get lazy and use it for everything without taking the time to really make it look fabulous. Take Terminator II for example -- this is way in the early stages of CGI and it still holds up today because it was used sparingly and done very carefully.
I always wondered about how they melded technology and real effects especially because getting digital effects to look as good as the real thing is often so difficult. But it's pretty clear that if you can get CGI to look like the real thing, it is much cheaper and easier to use for large effects. What's super cool about this, I think, is when they use both in a movie together. It means that the CGI has to live up to the real thing, because putting them side by side means you will notice any inconsistencies. I also am really interested in this because often the combination of CGI movements and robots is often paired with real movement and robots (ie. flying and...robots). I hope that at some point I can work on both sides of a production because I'd like to see how they make things mesh.
I got really interested in makeup and prosthetics this summer after watching SiFi's Face Off, and Glenn Hetrick has addressed the CGI vs real-makeup several times. With the growth of technology over the past few years, several films have turned to CGI instead of makeup artists, and I think the demand for the makeup industry decreased. What I thought was interesting about Face Off was that it brought this "dying" art to the public eye, and many people who did not know much about makeup and prosthetic design before are now interested in going into that profession. I agree with the comments above in that CGI still doesn't look "real" enough to me, so I would much rather look at an actual makeup/prosthetic. It is unfortunate how cheap the technology is because filmmakers are trading quality for money. Someday, CGI will advance to the point where the quality increases, and there will be no more need for makeup designers. I hope that I don't see this in my lifetime (but I'm sure I will) because I don't think makeup/prosthetic art should be shut in a museum.
I heard about the 3D printing of the aston martin a couple of days after seeing the movie and I was incredibly relieved. When I saw sky fall i was mortified to see such a beautiful classic car be destroyed and could only imagine what the dollar cost of what it would be to destroy an actual aston martin. The movie Death race had 4 porsche 9-11's and they ripped them apart and outfitted them for the movie and then blew up 2 of them. When I heard about hem 3D printing a car for the movie i was beyond impressed.
I do hope that we never advance to a stage where CGI post production work can replace make up artists completely. I am sure that some old school folks will always hold out and go the make-up route, but it would be sad to push people out of employment, to make way for more technology. It would be great rather to see the two work together to ensure equal satisfactions and rewards. If this is possible? Maybe not.
I really don't think that special effects artists are in any danger whether they deal in computer generation or makeup. The movie industry is always looking for the next best thing and both fields are advancing tremendously. I would like to say though that 50,000 gallons of fake blood just seems a little excessive. I haven't seen the movie but I cant imagine it was really that necessary to have that much blood.
I love the idea that old and new technology is coming together to create effects. I love makeup and everything it can do to to a person's face, and the idea of CGI taking out that art form is terrifying. I think it's so great that makeup is still a better way to execute effects, and that the level of detail and the effort that goes into makeup actually really pays off. Maybe one day CGI iwll officially take over, but the technology just isn't there yet.
I understand the value of both techniques: CGI being cheaper, and possibly more effective, and makeup being more interactive and better at capturing reality. Personally, I prefer the real deal. While CGI blood is much more affordable, it is difficult to capture the blood-like aspects of it, even when using a physical mixture. Many movies use CGI for really unique things that could not be replicated in a physical form, either because of size or having to move. Some great examples include movie monsters that ned to interact with characters, such as non-human-esque aliens and dragons. However, for a look that could be achieved not only easier, but more realistically with makeup, the makeup should be used.
The article makes some good points about the use of digital effects and real effects. If the budget allows for the real effect then it should be used. Not only does the real effect look far more believable than the CGI effect it also gives the actor something to react to. When an actor has something tangible to react to their performance tends to be a great deal more believable than when they are told to imagine the everything.
I do find the merging of technology and real effects in modern film quite intresting. It's not a new thing to use miniatures in film (the original Star Wars films took advantage of this) but to use 3D printing technologies to replicate actually props in small scale is genius.
Wow, cool article. I didn't know the Aston Martin was just a 3d printed scale model. It seems that every week I hear about new applications for 3d printing technology. It definitely seems like the sky is the limit. Also interesting is that although the industry readily adopting new technology, they still rely on very basic effects, such as fake stage blood. I think that the resources and tools available to these artists is just expanding, not changing.
While I understand the appeal of just using CGI effects that can be added in afterward. Even with advances in technology, I don't think makeup artists are in any real danger. There will always be a need for them and I would imagine actors would prefer not working with CGI makeup effects just because it would be easier to react to a person covered in "real" fake blood. I would be interested in seeing how special effects and CGI could work together in creating some really cool effects in the future. The part about the 3-D printed car is also really interested. I'm sure this could make the lives of model makers much easier, but on the other hand it might take away from their art. Like in most things, we just need to figure out a good balance between new technology and old school techniques.
The way that we use technology and CGI in movies is fantastic, but for some things actually making things can't be beat. The way that they printed the car is really cool, and it reminded me a lot of the article about model cars from last week and how models, when shot correctly, can look completely realistic. It was really interesting to read about the face casting process after taking the props mini, because we actually cast our faces and made prosthetics. That trick about inverting the face for the upside down mask seems like such a great idea. As cool as CGI is, I'm really glad that it's not perfect and that there is still a need for people to create facial prosthetics and various other special effects.
Post a Comment