io9.gizmodo.com: In a movie like Avengers: Endgame, you’re dealing in worlds, characters, and costumes that are all built from visual effects, to the point where even the office building from the Captain America vs. Captain America fight was all-digital. Sometimes, it’s nice to celebrate the moments that were real.
19 comments:
I love this! Ever since Avatar (the one with the blue people) CGI has really taken off and has been increasingly taking over the film industry. There are still some practical things but often times a rig is built to then implement CGI later. It is sort of sad but also understandable. CGI allows for things that physics and the real world do not. However, practicals make things so much better when you can use them. That’s why I love that they celebrated this rat. That whole sequence could have been done CGI and no one would really know the difference, but it wasn’t, and I love that. On the other hand, it is also fun to think that the rat, since it was a real rat was the real reason the everything ended up being okay. I don’t think it was Loki, but I also don’t want to believe that the rat was 1 in 14 million either. Nonetheless, the rat pushed things forward and it wasn’t just some CGI foolery either.
I think this article is very funny. I love that endgame, which hardly has a single moment that isn't CGI, took the time to train a rat. I think the fact that this is such a hubbub is kinda sad, because it means in person special effects, something that is so important in theatre and honestly really cool, will probably never be trusted in movies again. It reminds me of the sadness that I feel when I realize some stage sets are being replaced by screens. Technology is amazing but I wish entertainment didn't rely on it so much. Theres something so exciting about having something real and tangible in a show or movie. I love love love that an "acting rat" even exists. That phrase alone brings me joy. I hope that he has a bright future of incredible roles, he truly deserves it. Cheers to my new favorite rat!
This is so cool. I really don’t know what to fully think of it but it is still really cool. I mean with a movie like Endgame where I imagine there probably wasn’t a sequence of 4-5 min in the entire film where there were no visual effects they decided to use an actually trained rat. This is one of those things that I think can almost only be explained as a bet between producing members. But that being said to go through with it and find a rat to train for a scene is crazy to me. I really never would have thought that animals of that kind could or were used as trained “talent” for films. I guess I really only thought about dogs, cats, maybe the occasional barn yard animal but a rat? And now the ideas that this rat could be the extension of a character like Loki? I hope they somehow manage to incorporate more of these animal transformations into future films just to see how far they can go.
You have got to love the little things like this. So much we find in cinema that everything is done digitally now. We saw with the remake of The Lion King how much effort was put into the digital effects of each animal. The overall response I saw from this was…. well, not positive. There was a complaint of the animation having a lack of life. On the flip side of that coin, you also had the preview for Cats come out and the reaction was how over-realistic it was and also how poorly it was done.
With all of that, it is heartening to see that something so small was done live action. I do not know much if anything about the Avengers series, but the idea that the article poses of a rat setting in motion the events to the defeat of Thanos is highly amusing and honestly makes me want to watch the series.
This is a hilariously absurd article. The idea of having a trained rat on set seems so superfluous and something that could easily be added in post production. This is probably true also because the digital screen that the rat interacts with is likely CGI. This means that visual effects artists would have had to trace around the rat to put the CGI screen in place and make it look seamless. It is good though that they were able to use the footage in the final film, otherwise they might have used additional time and resources to remove the rat. This would be on top of the time and resources they spent training a rat on set. It's these kinds of small decisions that are important to consider because they add up. I'm sure on the biggest film ever made, this was not a decision requiring lots of consideration, but it is something that people like us who work on things with a smaller budget would have to consider when making choices.
I love when things like this come out of big movie productions like Avengers. I think it is great when producers can realize when the real thing is going to be better than something they could create on a computer. It seems like these are becoming few and far between, but there are still some people out there who are insisting on having the real thing over a CGI one. Up until recently, it has seemed like the biggest divide between theater and film has been the ability to use CGI or not, but that is quickly changing as well. With the increase in media we are seeing recently, it is blurring the line between real, live theater and computerized films more and more. I think this is generally a good thing for our industry, but we have to be careful to hold onto the essence of what makes theater so special, and that is the fact that it is all real, and it is happening in front of real audiences. That distinction can not be lost, or we will lose way more than a live rat in the Avengers.
To be honest, I completely forgot that there was a rat in the movie. Whenever I watch movies, I always remember the details that I personally liked, so naturally the rat was forgotten as soon as it was shown on screen. With that being said, I find it absolutely hilarious that the visual effects producer and the visual effects supervisor had a bet about which rat would win; the real one or the fake one. I think that's why I forgot about it. The rat looked real, and was real, so therefore I didn't remember it. That isn't to say that's a bad thing. I believe it's actually a good thing. I usually can tell when things are CGI, especially animals, so if the rat was a visual effect, I would have noticed it and remembered it. But I would have remembered it because it would have been stupid to CGI a rat. In a movie filled with CGI effects, a rat wouldn't have made much of a difference, but for me it would have drawn the line with being absurd. I think that it was a good thing that they found a real rat who could play the part. Even if it was an unremarkable and forgettable scene, it could have been a lot worse if it wasn't real.
A “practical acting rat”—what an interesting phrase, one that I never really expected to hear. I know there’s other “acting” animals, like dogs or cats that can be trained for appearances in film, but a rat? I didn’t know a rat was capable of following human instruction. Anyways, I feel like the rat in this case is a metaphor for something bigger in the industry—the usage of practical effects at large as opposed to total replacement by CGI. I have always been a stickler for practical effects, because I feel like there is something to say for the real live thing being in the room with the actors and in front of the camera. With CGI, I feel like there can’t be as genuine of a performance, or as genuine of an interaction between the actor and whatever prop or costume or anything that is inserted in post-production. I’ve heard stories about actors having an idea about what their costume will look like (for example, something tight and rigid) and having it be light and flowy when in CGI. There becomes a disjointed relationship between the performance in those cases. Anyways, I’m thankful for this acting rat, because I feel that it served as a reminder that even the smallest practical effect can make a huge difference. I also find it absolutely hilarious that the practical rat was the result of a bet!
It’s amazing that one of the only things that wasn’t CGI in Marvel’s Avengers Endgame was a rat that we only saw on screen for less than a minute. I think its hilarious that the decision to use a live rat in the film was based off of a bet between the visual effects supervisor and one of the producers. In a world where almost all of these huge action films are done entirely using CGI, It’s pretty cool that the makers of Endgame were able to bring in a trained live rat for such a small scene. As much as CGI allows movie makers to create virtually anything, there is something timeless about live actors (or in this case rats) performing in front of a camera. Hopefully this inspires other to continue to not just rely on CGI to make all of the effects in movies.
This is absolutely insane. Most of this movie, including the set locations, the costumes, makeup and hair, special effects, props, and whole characters, are entirely made up of CGI. I can bet all my money that each Marvel movie a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has used CGI, especially for smaller things. The fact that this rat, who did save the universe, only took up less than ten seconds of screen time, and was an actual rat, is just hilarious to me. I find it so funny that they got an actual rat on the set of Avengers: Endgame, took the time to set up this one location for the rat, and who knows how many takes they did of filming the rat walking across the car dashboard, and still liked it enough to keep it non-animated. After being able to design Thanos from full CGI, I believe the Russo brothers are just making a joke about everything that have done and continue to do for this movie.
This was absolutely hilarious, and in a lot of ways, pretty surprising. I think it’s interesting that we now live in a time where it’s more probable to have a CGI rat rather than a trained one to act out a scene. Considering Marvel’s impressive track record with CGI, I think anybody would expect such a small (albeit crucial) scene in the grand scheme of things to be digitally created. It’s such a cool little fun fact to know that a real rat really made it into Avengers: Endgame. (I also LOVED that Loki fan theory!)
I’m very interested to see the path that CGI will take us in the future of the movie industry. Are we really at a point that realistically creating a digital rat is easier than training a real one? Are things that we currently consider easier to just do eventually going to be easier to just CGI? Or rather, are things we currently think of as really hard to CGI going to eventually be standard?
In the meantime, I think we can all just enjoy the fact that the literal main villain of the movie is CGI and a rat that was in one small scene isn’t.
Like the majority before me, I think this is really incredible. I think animals(and their trainers) in the TV/Film/Theatre industries need much more recognition for their work. The fact that this rat was "professionally trained" is mind-boggling to me. My dog does not even come when I call him. This dynamic is also incredibly interesting and something that is often not addressed or not recognized in the eye of the public, but when animals are necessary, they are usually incredibly necessary, and they usually shift a large part of the normal process (depending on the situation). The debate of CGI versus real rat is such a testament to the current state of filmmaking, and its a really cool time to step back and look at because we have all this new technology flooding in and its so exciting and shiny and new, but sometimes (most of the time) if you really look at the core of a piece, the "old-fashioned" ways usually work just as well, if not more successfully.
I'm very proud of this rat and I love him. We're used to seeing cats and dogs being trained for the screen, no! Not this time! I would very much like to know this rat's name! He deserves an Oscar! In all seriousness, this is very interesting. I'm not completely against CGI, but I don't see the point when you have access to the real thing. What's the point? The real thin will almost always look more natural, so you might as well! As cool as Thanos looks, you can tell he's not really there. This little rat really shows us that you can still take the time to do things in a way that makes them look best. In a movie where everything is computer generated, this little guy is the true hero.
In a world of CGI and special effects, even for a small thing, the itty bitty rat in Endgame is quite a relief. I’m stuck between two worlds where I absolutely love the advanced effects being utilized, but at the same time practical effects still hold a soft spot in my hard. Now, while the rat is no John Carpenter’s “The Thing”, it’s still cool to see they aren’t animating everything around.
The best way I’ve heard it put is “Why get something fake when you can get the real thing?” Granted, that was Kevin Hines discussing theatrical sets and props, but the same goes for special effects.
Ultimately, it’s a pleasure to see that even large film and production companies aren’t getting stuck in the CGI rut, at least not completely. Even CGI-based worlds and [cinematic] universes find ways to implement practical effects into their work, and though a rat is a particularly small detail in a 3 hour 2 minute film, it’s still a legitimate thing. Thanks Marvel.
That is super interesting that they were able to do that! CGI has come such a long way and I wonder if it actually would have been easier to animate a rat in. I have no idea, but I’d certainly be interested. Film has had a long history of using actual animals to do very interesting things (because originally, that was the only option. Mr. Ed, which is an old T.V. show about a talking horse from quite a long time ago, was done, I believe, by feeding the horse peanut butter and having it chew. They would find the bits where it looked like it was saying a specific word and use that as the cut. Since then there have been some movies I can think of with talking dogs, the older of which were done by using the food trick, but more recently using animation of the mouth.
To say this is a strange article is a bit of an understatement. It’s pretty comical that it even exists. However, I would absolutely be lying if I said I was not immediately attracted to the article just on its title alone. Sure, it may seem strange that in a movie filled with CGI decides to use a live rat for literally five seconds of screen time, but what most people tend to forget is that CGI costs money. Lots of it. Not that Marvel doesn’t have the money for it, but if there’s anything I’ve learned from props, it’s that if there’s a cheap alternative to get a real one, just get the real one. It’s silly, but it makes total sense to me. It’s even funnier to me that there are trained rats out there in the world and some person had the specific job to either find a trained rat or train the rat themselves. Regardless, it did its part in the movie and helped move the plot along in a cheaper way so I see this article as a win.
I absolutely love this article! The fact that Avengers: Endgame - a movie in which there is not a scene without some element of CGI (even some of the costumes were input graphically!) - that the production team would opt to have a live, trained rat almost just seems funny. From a technical standpoint, having the rat be real make the post production team’s job harder! Given that the background that the rat is interacting with was probably a green screen, editors in post would have to “cut out” the rat, something that sounds almost as tedious as just creating a rat from scratch in CGI. I’m always pleased to see more physical special effects (as opposed to just CGI-ing everything) but, in this particular scenario, I’m truly confused as to why the team would choose to have to feed, train, and edit around a live rat. A CGI “cop out” almost seems like it would have been better. Nevertheless, the rat did an excellent job and I hope he was properly compensated.
I absolutely love this article! The fact that Avengers: Endgame - a movie in which there is not a scene without some element of CGI (even some of the costumes were input graphically!) - that the production team would opt to have a live, trained rat almost just seems funny. From a technical standpoint, having the rat be real make the post production team’s job harder! Given that the background that the rat is interacting with was probably a green screen, editors in post would have to “cut out” the rat, something that sounds almost as tedious as just creating a rat from scratch in CGI. I’m always pleased to see more physical special effects (as opposed to just CGI-ing everything) but, in this particular scenario, I’m truly confused as to why the team would choose to have to feed, train, and edit around a live rat. A CGI “cop out” almost seems like it would have been better. Nevertheless, the rat did an excellent job and I hope he was properly compensated.
I think this is so silly and I love it. Why did they decide to put so much effort into training a rat? I am sure making the rat CGI would not have affected the movie at all. Did the rat get paid? Did the rat’s owner get paid? Is the rat now a hireable actor? I do love when live animals are used on the screen or the stage, given they are being treated with all the respect and proper care any animal should. I wonder how much time they put into making this decision, because theres no way EVERY production person was ecstatic about training a rat as an actor. But maybe they all were. I wonder how one becomes a rat-acting coach. Was there one? Or a whole faculty of rat-acting coaches? Is that a profession one can have? I wonder how fast rats pick up on this type of training- I know they are incredibly intelligent animals.
Post a Comment