ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 4 months ago - Ross Aitken

I hate to say it, but it completely depends on the film. Gravity is literally nothing without the VFX, and it was so much of its marketing that many people went to see it especially for that spectacle. Wolf of Wall Street, on the other hand, I didn't think would have much. Then this blew my mind: http://vimeo.com/83523133. It certainly wasn't marketed on the strength of its FX.
You'll be hard-pushed to find a big movie without VFX, even period flicks (even if it's just removing plane trails in the sky).
Ultimately it's a question of whether the FX are in service of the story or the other way round.

11 years, 4 months ago - Matt Ross

Thanks Paddy, I agree with you, and this questionnaire was designed to get the perspective of the industry. My research is about the impact and influence these factors have upon the film industry and if it is necessarily a good one. And I agree that these aren't always needed. Thanks for all your input.

11 years, 4 months ago - Matt Ross

Thanks Max, this is a great argument point and I agree with you when you state the obvious overuse of effects shows through for no reason is a problem, and this will be of great insight and use to my research.
If you have a few moments, would you be able to fill in my survey? https://www.esurveycreator.com/s/9f48dd6
Many thanks for all your thoughts, opinions and input.

11 years, 5 months ago - Matt Ross

Thanks for your response. Would you be willing to fill in my survey if you have a few moments?
https://www.esurveycreator.com/s/9f48dd6

11 years, 4 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

I have done Matt, but just so you know, your questions seem to pre-suppose VFX are more important than they are. They are just one part of the film process, and not even a terribly necessary one. Look at the opening sequence of 28 Days Later where our hero walks through deserted London - one of the most eerie establishing sequences in a modern movie, no CGI. Yes you could get a similar effect by building a 3D render of London, but don't need to.

11 years, 4 months ago - Max Alexander

Hi Matt,

As someone who currently works in VFX and discusses this a lot with other people I thought I'd just add a few words.

I love films, and have a great interest in making them. VFX is a tool for story telling, just like many other filmmaking technologies. There is so much VFX in big budget films as well as indie films nowadays and in my opinion it is generally not a bad thing. Much of it you probably would never know it was there as the technology and skilled artists have evolved. If it is being used to enhance and tell the story, VFX can be fantastic. You may or may not know but even films you wouldn't necessarily think has or 'needs' VFX probably has at least some shots where VFX was used, maybe not CGI but some kind of 2D Compositing, Removal or Enchancment work.

There's an argument where some say VFX is depleting work and jobs on set and elsewhere. This is rubbish. VFX requires planning and in many cases creates more work on set to get it filmed right. It can also be used to extent sets or further exaggerate on set special effects or make up in any genre of film. So those areas are still needed.

The problem is when CGI/VFX is used so obviously and not for good reason with reference to the story. I agree with what Paddy said. I'm not a fan of Transformers, thought the films were poor, but it's target was just to entertain and I guess required VFX to bring it to life, just a shame the film(s) and scripts are rubbish. VFX are meant to be invisible, as are, in my opinion, basically everything in filmmaking, surely you're not supposed to even know anyone was there making the story because it immerses you. If it succeeds in that way, it doesn't matter what techniques were used to get the final visual product.

11 years, 5 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Transformers Dark of the Moon. Star Wars - Attack of the Clones. So much shit on the screen in all shots it is distracting from what passes for a story. IMHO