|
VROOM VROOM posted:quit gettin' mad about movies Yeah chill up a bit yall. Personally I'm fine with fake guns but I want squibs and fake blood, they're rad as hell.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
i think my main issue with the ever increasing amount of CGI that can be used is the clear impact it is having on filmmaking as a whole. for example setting up squibs takes time and effort. Once they go off, everything has to be redone for another take. That means a lot of care will be taken to try and get it right in a few takes as possible, and that means everything has to be right in the shot. When the team can say "well we will do it in post" that effects how the on set stuff is handled. same goes for lighting. When real lighting has to be used, that requires a certain amount of care to be taken, even if the filmmaker is trying to do it cheap and quick. digital grading has removed that as well, now if a shot is not lit well it can just be "fixed" in post. its so jarring watching even lovely older movies now compared to movies that now exist in the same sphere. Like take any lovely action movie on Amazon Prime and its full of everything we are discussing. CGI muzzle flashes when the actor does not even try and mime the recoil, CGI blood that looks terrible, digitally graded lighting that looks flat and uninteresting. nearly all special effects done with CGI. Then go watch a movie like Nemesis or Hardware which are low budget, lovely, and show it, but still have scenes with great lighting or fun action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUCGkSxowpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHGa5EDqne8
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
Lighting has suffered so much from modern filmmaking, sucks so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Lighting has suffered so much from modern filmmaking, sucks so bad. I revisited Highlander earlier this year and I had forgotten how absolutely dreadful it was on a couple of levels, but I can't deny that it looks incredibly good when it matters and overall I walked away with a still-positive opinion of it. And that was a mid-market movie that cost 53 million (adjusted for inflation)!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
I'm definitely Team Real Gunfire but its also not at the top of my concerns list. I'd much rather trade them in for Real Explosions as opposed to CGI fireballs which never quite look right. Extraction has some drat fine greenscreen work but some of the explosions are a little limp. The truest summation of filmmaking is Jackie Chan being asked what makes his actions scenes so great and he just replied "time". I miss miniatures too; a lost art form. And still looks better than most CGI-fests. One good story about Warrior (the show) is how on set they created a place for anyone to come in and practice martial arts and stuntwork. So if actors were on set for the whole day but had gently caress all to do? Swing by the stunt team and get some practice in. It was also open to any actor on the show, so even if your character never had any action scenes coming up you could still brush up and learn a new skillset.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
And it's not the filmmakers themselves, it's studios and such that are the ones compressing timelines. "Why do you need 2 weeks for this action scene? You can do X Y and Z in CGI, you only need 1 week."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:I'm definitely Team Real Gunfire but its also not at the top of my concerns list. I'd much rather trade them in for Real Explosions as opposed to CGI fireballs which never quite look right. Extraction has some drat fine greenscreen work but some of the explosions are a little limp. I get the need for fake fire but yeah it looks off so often. I can roll with most low budget cgi tho so I don't let any of it stop my enjoyment of the trash I watch lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
drat, Extraction 2 was nice. I don't remember exactly what the first one was like but I don't think I liked it as much as this one. Yeah, it doesn't reach the high of The Extraction again later in the movie but it was still satisfying throughout. Loved the gym equipment kills in the skyscraper part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 04:20
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Teenagers shooting films in their backyard can do squibs, it's not a limiting factor for a 100 million dollar movie. Similarly, thousands of movies made over a century have used real guns firing blanks, it's not a real safety concern unless you're criminally negligent like Alec Baldwin, in which case you should be in prison. Rubber guns with fake muzzle flashes and digital blood look like poo poo and make movies worst. Might as well argue that there shouldn't be stunts in film because we can do cgi now. Teenagers got nothin but time to work on their little movie no one is going to see. They’re not dealing with a angry exec or producer who told them to shoot the film in two weeks and get it out asap or whatever. It’s insane hearing what some low budget films time frames are. But the stuff I love tend to for some reason have a lot of time to make it work so I’m not sure if this trend is moving on or not. Anyway I’m anti gun and pro bloody squibs
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 10:00
|
|
|
Brief behind-the-scenes clip about one of the car stunts in Extraction 2: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM2UdGYC8/ (the way TikToks are embedded was changed and I don't know how to anymore)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 12:29
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:2 people have died in the last 30 years. 1 in such an insane chain of events that no one was even charged, and one due to blatant neglect. Stunts hurt/kill far more people. We can CGI in fake actors so should we ban all in person fight scenes and stunts? Basebf555 posted:Yea the main thing was that Rust cut corners and hired an incompetent non-union armorer. Like, there's nothing complicated about what happened on that set. They straight up had live rounds sitting around the set and the gun that was used in the accident had been taken out for target shooting by some cast members to pass the time. Then when it was brought back and they went to use the gun with the live round in it for the scene, they failed to do the proper checks you're supposed to do to make sure that the gun being fired is empty. The on the Corridor Crew episode was the stund coordinator on John Wick 2, the director of Day Shift, and has like 30+ years of experience. He went into how it's safer and also how using blank guns and squibs makes everything take longer which costs money that can better be used elsewhere. But hey I'm happy you guys as viewers are OK with the risks of other poeple because you think it's better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
yes, and the consumer of the content, i have an opinion on said content. the lack of squibs and real blood is noticeable even in john wick and those movies would be better with them. they do the gunshots/muzzle flashes fine so no complaints there, but that is not standard at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:But hey I'm happy you guys as viewers are OK with the risks of other poeple because you think it's better. Using blank guns and squibs costs more, not only due to setup time (and wardrobe copies) but also because safety is expensive, it takes time and care. Removing some category of how you achieve something technically because it's not safe if corners are cut is ridiculous, especially in stunt-heavy movies where there are much more dangerous things going on all the time. Like being anywhere near a car stunt. Edit: I've realized that talking about guns even in this context makes people 50% stupider, the number of repeatedly disproved assertions in this thread that keep coming up is disheartening. Edit2: Narcissus1916 posted:The truest summation of filmmaking is Jackie Chan being asked what makes his actions scenes so great and he just replied "time". Remulak fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jun 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The on the Corridor Crew episode was the stund coordinator on John Wick 2, the director of Day Shift, and has like 30+ years of experience. Safer is one thing. If a stunt coordinator feels that it's too risky to use blanks and squibs, I respect that. And like I said, the CG way can be done well, like it is in John Wick. The time and resource management thing is a separate issue though, it has nothing to do with safety. It's about wanting to design elaborate, complex action scenes where it would be extremely difficult to achieve them if you had to reset the guns and squibs every single take. Again, I get it, but you can't lump that in with the safety issue, it's not the same thing. And my point about safety was just that you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about it based on one incident where a film set was run in a criminally negligent way. No matter what you do, if a film set has no safety standards and doesn't abide by established safety regulations, safety is gonna be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Hey I was hit growing up there's no reason why we should stop I think it's effective parenting.Remulak posted:I completely and utterly love Hong Kong cinema of the 80s and 90s, and the working conditions were BRUTAL. Also I watch the NFL and pro rasslin', each of which have probably killed more people than the entire US film industry. This is a terribly stupid argument. I don't want people to die for my entertainment when you can do stuff that 99% of fans will accept as just as good much safer. WoodrowSkillson posted:yes, and the consumer of the content, i have an opinion on said content. the lack of squibs and real blood is noticeable even in john wick and those movies would be better with them. they do the gunshots/muzzle flashes fine so no complaints there, but that is not standard at all LOL anyhow what you're probably going to see is better blood rendering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:But hey I'm happy you guys as viewers are OK with the risks of other poeple because you think it's better. You too are absolutely ok with the risks, unless your position is that all stunts should be banned and done digitally. Again, fall and vehicle stunts have killed more stuntman than gun stunts by an enormous factor. Having a pet issue doesn't change that. You have no moral high ground, this is simply an attempt to shut down discussion by framing the debate as "me, the enlightened and helpful Stuntman Supporter, vs. you, the primitive and barbaric Gun Death Lover" and it's transparently incoherent unless you are also going to say that all stunts should be banned and digitized. In which case, the Action Movie Thread is probably not for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You too are absolutely ok with the risks, unless your position is that all stunts should be banned and done digitally. Again, fall and vehicle stunts have killed more stuntman than gun stunts by an enormous factor. Having a pet issue doesn't change that. LOL yeah actually I do have a moral highground. If a stunt performer has a way of doing things safer they should use that, instead of forgoing it because some film nerd on a forum thinks it makes the movie slightly less good. You're attempting to make up a position that I don't hold. If a performer can be more protected by them taking the fall with pads(like they usually do) I don't think it's fair of me to say "they should go no pads because the bumps look better". And yes I'm aware female stunt performers often do. I'd prefer Chris Benoit stop doing the flying hedbutt rather than killing his family because of repeated head trauma but that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If a performer can be more protected by them taking the fall with pads(like they usually do) I don't think it's fair of me to say "they should go no pads because the bumps look better". And yes I'm aware female stunt performers often do. This is asinine. Even with pads the performers get hurt and killed. The "performers wearing the pads" is "use blanks in the guns". It makes things safer but does not eliminate the risk. The "don't do the falls at all, do it digitally" is the "don't shoot guns at all, do it digitally". For all the whining about aesthetics, everyone in this forum reading this thread knows that if they did all stunts digitally the aesthetic cost on movies would be horrific. There's 2 aspects to this argument: safety vs aesthetics, and the trade-off therein, and you're either too addled to disentangle them or don't care, because you just want to score a smug drive-by moral victory. Just making up stats ("99% of people are fine with it") to do the Internet Two Step that I mentioned on the last page ("there's no real difference!") This isn't a discussion, it's a formulaic lecture. I'm bored. edit: C-Spam/Debate and Discussion poster, where this sort of framing is all they do to each other all day. I should have known. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jun 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:LOL yeah actually I do have a moral highground. If a stunt performer has a way of doing things safer they should use that, instead of forgoing it because some film nerd on a forum thinks it makes the movie slightly less good. You acknowledge though that there is a point where eliminating all risk does effect the quality of the end product. The ultimate protection is to not do a stunt at all, just recreate the actors with CG and don't allow actors to take any risks whatsoever. If that's your position, fine, but if it's not then you have to get into the conversation of mitigating risk as much as possible with common sense safety policies and regulations. And that's how guns and squibs have maintained a consistent safety record for many years since the Brandon Lee incident, there are policies in place that make things safe. Since Brandon Lee, there hasn't been a single incident that I'm aware of where a film set was abiding by all safety regulations and still had a serious gun accident.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
I mean blanks do look better but also with a lot of the Hong Kong movies if you actually look at the action you can tell the performers aren't aiming anywhere near each other while shooting which looks just as weird as some of the issues you get with cgi flashes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
B-Rock452 posted:I mean blanks do look better but also with a lot of the Hong Kong movies if you actually look at the action you can tell the performers aren't aiming anywhere near each other while shooting which looks just as weird as some of the issues you get with cgi flashes. I agree, even in Hard Boiled the oner has some very clear misses and parts where the gun's "effect" on the environment is not synced. Having said that, if they had done that scene with today's digital tools it would have looked substantially worse IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:You acknowledge though that there is a point where eliminating all risk does effect the quality of the end product. The ultimate protection is to not do a stunt at all, just recreate the actors with CG and don't allow actors to take any risks whatsoever. If that's your position, fine, but if it's not then you have to get into the conversation of mitigating risk as much as possible with common sense safety policies and regulations. And that's how guns and squibs have maintained a consistent safety record for many years since the Brandon Lee incident, there are policies in place that make things safe. Since Brandon Lee, there hasn't been a single incident that I'm aware of where a film set was abiding by all safety regulations and still had a serious gun accident. I think part of the issue is just how far you can go before something looks 'off.' Squibs are a really good example here, because a lot of the people posting in this thread love squibs, but I personally didn't see too many of the glorious 80s action movies until the mid to late 90s, and I never really thought of them as 'realistic' - rather, just a way to visually show off the violence. So CGI blood isn't that big of a deal for me to see - I can sometimes recognize it's CGI, but sometimes I won't, and I don't really have any pre-conceived notion of what I want. But I DO know that I want to see real car crashes and people falling and crashing through tables and whatnot. That's all very risky - just look at that offhand comment Keanu had with Adkins about the Matrix. In a fairly inconsequential scene in the subway fight, Keanu said the stuntman almost died. The problem is I 'know' what a stuntman going through something looks like, and it's a lot easier to tell when it's been replaced by CGI. Maybe one day it'll get to a 'good enough' level to replace stuntmen and I'll be insisting that stunts are a time honored profession and are simply better, no matter the risk. Maybe I'll insist the opposite. But I believe we're already there with gunfire and blood. I don't think anyone in this is morally wrong or right, it's just different levels of discernment and risk/reward in your chosen entertainment. Some people don't want to see action movies at all because the violence sickens them. What I'm saying is, you guys need to fight IRL and settle this. Maybe have a duel at Sacre Couer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I agree, even in Hard Boiled the oner has some very clear misses and parts where the gun's "effect" on the environment is not synced. I think a lot of it just comes down to time with cgi. I really don't mind it in a lot of low budget stuff because it is what it is but in Extraction 2 when you have flashes not lined up correctly or the camera doesn't cut away fast enough and you see a road that just got shredded by a minigun is completely fine it's just annoying. Like you have the budget to fix it or an editor who could have cut away faster. And the worst offenses of CGI could have just been avoided with some script changes. Like do we really need two instances of Rake shooting down a helicopter while poorly rendered CGI tracers fly around him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:This is asinine. Even with pads the performers get hurt and killed. The "performers wearing the pads" is "use blanks in the guns". It makes things safer but does not eliminate the risk. The "don't do the falls at all, do it digitally" is the "don't shoot guns at all, do it digitally". For all the whining about aesthetics, everyone in this forum reading this thread knows that if they did all stunts digitally the aesthetic cost on movies would be horrific. Basically your argument is that since there is still danger involved then stunt coordinators should not be advocating for a safe-ER method if it compromises what you personally care about as far as aesthetics. quote:There's 2 aspects to this argument: safety vs aesthetics, and the trade-off therein, and you're either too addled to disentangle them or don't care, because you just want to score a smug drive-by moral victory. Just making up stats ("99% of people are fine with it") to do the Internet Two Step that I mentioned on the last page ("there's no real difference!") This isn't a discussion, it's a formulaic lecture. I'm bored. oh no! smugness! the internet twostep! All of this is very real and not you getting aggressive because somebody pointed out you have a lovely opinion! quote:edit: C-Spam/Debate and Discussion poster, where this sort of framing is all they do to each other all day. I should have known. Oh nos I took issue with you being like "I don't like it that they made on screen gunplay safer because it reduced my enjoyment a fraction" I must be from a Problem Subforum
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:LOL yeah actually I do have a moral highground. If a stunt performer has a way of doing things safer they should use that, instead of forgoing it because some film nerd on a forum thinks it makes the movie slightly less good. they are safe ways to use guns in hollywood, they just take more time and money, as the john wick guy was explaining. And one of the key ones is to simply never have live ammo anywhere on set, which baldwin blatantly violated. since the primary motivator for using CGI in action scenes is to save time and money, it normally looks like dogshit. i love all the wick movies has i have posted about in here, but even in the new one some of the CGI blood immediately stood out as being fake looking, because it just does not look good. They are also doing a ton of in close stuff where firing a blank can damage hearing and even physically injure someone, so of course it makes sense to do it with cgi for safety. However this is dogshit and if they are not aiming at anyone there is literally no safety concern.   this is not    B-Rock452 posted:I mean blanks do look better but also with a lot of the Hong Kong movies if you actually look at the action you can tell the performers aren't aiming anywhere near each other while shooting which looks just as weird as some of the issues you get with cgi flashes. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
you compared practical effects to hitting your child
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Basically your argument is that since there is still danger involved then stunt coordinators should not be advocating for a safe-ER method if it compromises what you personally care about as far as aesthetics. aesthetics are literally the foundation of a visual medium
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
You know what movie I felt got actively ruined by digital crap? Day Shift, where Snoop Dogg opens up with a minigun on a bunch of vamps and it just totally lacked impact. It should have been a showstopper but it was just a bleh. There's a bunch of unconvincing digital junk stunts all through the movie (and some really nice stuff too, it's not a complete disaster). The director of that is the guy in Corridor Crew talking up the digital stuff, just totally not acknowledging that it's come with a very real cost of looking more fake and unconvincing than something like Lethal Weapon. When Day Shift (2022, budget: 100 million) has explosions and chases that looks substantially worse than Lethal Weapon (1987, budget: 30 million, adjusted for inflation) we have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Micheal Mann stuff shouldn't count in this argument because he is insane. But also his shootouts lend themselves more to blank use, he doesn't mix hand to hand fighting with shooting like you see in John Wick or Extraction. Edit. I should add except in Collateral but for the "is that my briefcase scene" Cruise wasn't using blanks
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
It's one thing in a John Wick movie when he's doing a headshot from an inch away, you can't safely do blanks that close, but that's more the exception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
The John Wick thing is where safety and time management get conflated because what the stunt guy is saying is that if we tried to do these ridiculously elaborate scenes with practical gun effects, it would take so much time that we'd never get the movie finished. The budget would be out of control and the studio wouldn't allow it. So it's a choice between the practical gun effects and the trademark John Wick action scenes where he's taking on ten guys who all have automatic weapons and there's hundreds of shots being fired every single take, in every single scene, for the entire runtime of the movie. Not every action movie is John Wick though. There are definitely times where filmmakers are using the CG effects as a lazy shortcut, unlike John Wick where it's a necessity because of how above and beyond they're going with the choreography and the sheer number of action scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:aesthetics are literally the foundation of a visual medium Yes but sacrificing safety for aesthetics is immoral, which is why we get upset that old school Hollywood producers put their actresses on meth and cigarrettes to keep them thin and Demille killing people Like I'm sure mummy brown is a great color should we still be using it? I mean painting is entirely based on aesthetics and color reproduction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes but sacrificing safety for aesthetics is immoral Cool, all movies should be animation. Thanks for dropping by.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Cool, all movies should be animation. Thanks for dropping by. There's a difference between safe-ER live action and eliminating live action altogether. We should do safer methods where we can. But LOL that you've decided that "mah gunplay" is a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes but sacrificing safety for aesthetics is immoral, which is why we get upset that old school Hollywood producers put their actresses on meth and cigarrettes to keep them thin and Demille killing people gotcha no live action fight scenes ever, all stuntpeople should be done in CGI, there is no acceptable risk allowed. Jaxyon posted:There's a difference between safe-ER live action and eliminating live action altogether. We should do safer methods where we can. yes. in action movies, the topic of the thread, wherein gunplay is literally the main part of many of the movies. doing it right is worth spending the time, money, and effort to do it safely, the same way thousands and thousands of movies have done so for decades without seriously injuring stuntpeople.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:gotcha no live action fight scenes ever, all stuntpeople should be done in CGI, there is no acceptable risk allowed. Didn't say that but if you feel you need to to do this to my argument I'm sure you're coming from a reasonable place and not having a freakout because somebody made you feel bad about making an argument that only a few people are dead so you should get realistic blood here let me do it in the opposite direction: "all safety lines and pads should be removed if it anyway compromises aesthetics for anyone. Stunts should basically just be reality and if people have to die it's not a lot of them hopefully"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Didn't say that Jaxyon posted:Yes but sacrificing safety for aesthetics is immoral attaching a moral argument to a discussion of acceptable risk is bullshit and you are not being clever by doing so. There is a risk driving the actors to the set, risk flying them over an ocean, risk putting them on a boat or in a helicopter. There is risk doing fight scenes, falling stunts, and by having them outside too long in extreme heat in the desert. there is risk having actors smoke herbal cigarettes instead of tobacco ones. the relative risk by real guns is outweighed by the higher quality result it produces in this medium entirely based on making the audience enjoy what they are seeing. yes it takes more time, money, and effort to do safely. My entire point has been that its worth it because the alternative looks terrible and actively detracts from watching the movie or show. same way its worth having keanu do jiu jitsu (a sport that has a risk of injury!) in order to learn how to do better fight scenes. same way jackie chan's insanity produced movies that will never be matched, and that's not even considering his most bombastic and outrageous stunts, just his fight scene schrography. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
great progress made on this page, nice discourse everyone The Raid was made for 1 million dollars with fake guns, CGI blood, and real stunts. Iko Uwais really stabbed all of those guys and tackled a guy out of a window onto a balcony 5 stories down, and you know what, it was worth it
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
IMO just create robots to do all the stunts
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
gotta keep real stuntmen, we're thinking about this all wrong. wait a seoncd... *erases a 5-foot-tall "FANS+ANTIGRAV=???" from a whiteboard, writes in "AI-DRIVEN CRASH PADS"* e: keep real guns but keep them off-set and use the power from their combustions to power the fake guns. everybody wins
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 21:00
|
|