Model Work and CGI

James said:

>Well to be quite honest I do think that animating CGI is >entirely in
>keeping with the meaning of the term "film making", and >if you deny
>this then in my view it is you who must eject the >meanings of the
>words "film" and "making" out of the window.

This is a question of values,loyalties and to suggest that all progress brings improvement.To imply that someone sitting in front of a screen constructing a movie story is film making is a notion so trite that I hate to mention it,as it denies that there is any meaning in the words new or different.
Even the fact that there are strong feelings among film makers regarding the use of video instead of film is clear evidence that this is not an issue of little importance.
I choose the term film making as a convenience,but it is the concept,the inherent and traditional craft of film making that I am trying to uphold.Central to this is the CGI Model argument.

>Obviously it is a different craft, yes. However the skill >and insight
>that goes with it is, firstly, no less considerable in my >opinion,
>and secondly, entirely irrelevant from the point of view >of the
>audience.
As I say the word film making is not central to my point,but you have acknowledged a difference and that is a qualitative and experiential one that cannot be replaced by a different process.Its akin to using artificial sweeter instead of sugar,we may get used to it,we may even convince ourselves it tastes the same,but it isn't the same and it never will be.

>Now, you clearly have a personal interest in physical >models being
>used in films, and for you clearly CGI has no appeal in >this respect.
>In this regard you represent a very small minority of the >film-going
>/ TV watching audience, most of whom really don't care >(or even think
>about) how it's done as long as they are viewing a >realistic spectacle.
>It's not (say) a real MiG-29 crashing into a tracking >station in
>either case. The only thing that matters is that you >suspend disbelief
>sufficiently to see a MiG-29 on the screen in the most >realistic way
>possible.

Of course it is about suspension of dis-belief.I am not denying that.But its not what is better,its what is cheaper and to make things more and more realistic to the point of extrusion.Realism is an end in itself.
During my reading of many books about making films I was made to realise that it was about dealing with surfaces of reality.This runs contrary to the modern manner of making films and that is to make things even more realistic and attention grabbing.This may be in the manner of the cutting and the story telling which is now so fast it never lets up. There is no time given to create an atmosphere.No time to allow a gradual build up.The lighting is unimaginative and subdued,again to create realism.
My defence of models is not simply that,but a defence of a whole tradition of making and enjoying films.

Mark UK





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I hope we're not veering too far off-topic with this debate on the use
of models vs. computer graphics in film making. I personally don't care
what is used, as long as it is good. I've seen good and bad modelwork,
and I've seen good and bad computer graphics.

(and the really good effects are the ones I didn't even realize were
effects!)

Marc

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:45:31 +0100
"Mark Davies" <[hidden email]> wrote:


> This is a question of values,loyalties and to suggest that all progress
> brings improvement.To imply that someone sitting in front of a screen
> constructing a movie story is film making is a notion so trite that I
> hate to mention it,as it denies that there is any meaning in the words
> new or different.

Well this is becoming absurd, it seems to me. Firstly, I have made no
implication that all progress brings improvement; you simply can't
get there from what I typed. Secondly, the notion that a film can't
be made partly in front of a screen is flatly incorrect, and there
is no suggestion whatever pertaining to the meanings "new" or
"different".


> As I say the word film making is not central to my point,but you have
> acknowledged a difference and that is a qualitative and experiential
> one that cannot be replaced by a different process.Its akin to using
> artificial sweeter instead of sugar,we may get used to it,we may even
> convince ourselves it tastes the same,but it isn't the same and it
> never will be.

This is an entirely fallacious argument.

Firstly: I have acknowledged a difference in the craft, yes. I have
also shown that said difference is irrelevant to the audience.

Secondly: the purpose of CGI is not to imitate physical models
for the benefit of miniature model enthusiasts, it is to imitate
objects in the real (or fantasy) world. In this it is parallel to
physical model method. Both are artificial. Neither has a claim
to being "sugar", as opposed to "sweetener" with respect to the
other.


> Of course it is about suspension of dis-belief.I am not denying
> that.But its not what is better,its what is cheaper and to make things
> more and more realistic to the point of extrusion.Realism is an end in
> itself.

This is a different argument and for me, the only valid one - which
method is actually more effective. In some cases it's CGI, in
others, it may be miniature models, but CGI can only improve over
time.

> During my reading of many books about making films I was made to
> realise that it was about dealing with surfaces of reality.This runs
> contrary to the modern manner of making films and that is to make
> things even more realistic and attention grabbing.This may be in the
> manner of the cutting and the story telling which is now so fast it
> never lets up. There is no time given to create an atmosphere.No time
> to allow a gradual build up.The lighting is unimaginative and
> subdued,again to create realism.
>

Again this is a perfectly valid criticism in my opinion albeit a
matter of taste ultimately, but it's one you've made against the
film maker and the director, not the method they use. None of the
observations you relate above is inherent to CGI.

> My defence of models is not simply that,but a defence of a whole
> tradition of making and enjoying films.
>

Yes, I see that. But the tradition you defend is not critical to the
art of film-making, and certainly not the interest of the general
viewing audience.

James

Hi Mark,

A very well reasoned set of observations.

Griff

--- In [hidden email], "Mark Davies" <aonq79@...> wrote:

This is a question of values,loyalties and to suggest that all progress brings improvement.To imply that someone sitting in front of a screen constructing a movie story is film making is a notion so trite that I hate to mention it,as it denies that there is any meaning in the words new or different.
> Even the fact that there are strong feelings among film makers regarding the use of video instead of film is clear evidence that this is not an issue of little importance.
> I choose the term film making as a convenience,but it is the concept,the inherent and traditional craft of film making that I am trying to uphold.Central to this is the CGI Model argument.

As I say the word film making is not central to my point,but you have acknowledged a difference and that is a qualitative and experiential one that cannot be replaced by a different process.Its akin to using artificial sweeter instead of sugar,we may get used to it,we may even convince ourselves it tastes the same,but it isn't the same and it never will be.

Of course it is about suspension of dis-belief.I am not denying that.But its not what is better,its what is cheaper and to make things more and more realistic to the point of extrusion.Realism is an end in itself.

During my reading of many books about making films I was made to realise that it was about dealing with surfaces of reality.This runs contrary to the modern manner of making films and that is to make things even more realistic and attention grabbing.This may be in the manner of the cutting and the story telling which is now so fast it never lets up. There is no time given to create an atmosphere.No time to allow a gradual build up.The lighting is unimaginative and subdued,again to create realism.
> My defence of models is not simply that,but a defence of a whole tradition of making and enjoying films.
>
> Mark UK

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:23:58 -0000
"Griff Wason" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> A very well reasoned set of observations.
>

That's very generous indeed, Griff :)