Not on-topic regarding small gauge, but as we recently enjoyed a little of Robert Rodriguez's ego with his "video vs film" tirade, I thought we might have a little diversion to hear what Quentin Tarantino (who pretty much invented Rodriguez) thinks about CGI in movies:
From the UK Guardian:
Quentin Tarantino has made a typically outspoken, expletive-ridden attack on the increasing use of CGI in modern movies, describing the practice as "computer game bullshit". Railing at the likes of the two Matrix sequels, which have taken the use of computer-generated special effects to new levels of complexity, the director told Empire magazine he was determined to stick to "old school" movie-making techniques for his own films. "You know, my guys are all real. There's no computer fucking around. I'm sick to death of all that shit. This is old school with fucking cameras. If I'd wanted all that computer game bullshit, I'd have gone home and stuck my dick in my Nintendo."
(I wonder which Nintendo he has?) 8O
OT: Quentin Tarantino on CGI
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
OT: Quentin Tarantino on CGI
"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."â€â€George W. Bush, June 4, 2003
Re: OT: Quentin Tarantino on CGI
I very much doubt that. They are buddies. Share a few actors. But that doesn't mean Tarantino invented Rodriguez. They have very different styles of filmmaking as you have already pointed out.calgodot wrote:Quentin Tarantino (who pretty much invented Rodriguez) thinks about CGI in movies:
Anyway I would expect this kind of response from him. I'm guessing he is referring to Reloaded and to that extent I fully agree. Reloaded had way too many CG characters in it which totatlly ruined many of the fight scenes for me. I did feel like I was watching a video game.
-
Andersens Tears
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 2:13 pm
- Real name: Jamie Noakes
- Location: Östersund, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: OT: Quentin Tarantino on CGI
calgodot wrote:
(I wonder which Nintendo he has?) 8O[/quote]
... the one that accepts small cartridges
(I wonder which Nintendo he has?) 8O[/quote]
... the one that accepts small cartridges
Frank Marshall on CGI
Hello, this is my first post, i'm a filmmaker in Antwerp, Belgium.
Coïndicentally this post reminded me of something i'd read about Indiana Jones 4 not relying on CGI - (hopefully i don't risk turning this place into Aintitcoolnews)
"PRODUCER SAYS 'INDY 4' WILL NOT RELY ON CGI
Indiana Jones producer Frank Marshall is determined to shun the current
trends in movie making - insisting the upcoming fourth installment of the
hit franchise will avoid using computer effects. Frank is adamant the sequel
to the hit Harrison Ford adventure franchise will retain the tradition of
its classic forerunners by utilizing real stunt work instead of high-tech
graphics, giving it the feel of a B-movie. He says, "We didn't have computer
effects in those days, we couldn't easily erase things and I think one of
the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers
lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree
rather than erase it later as you can today. In Raiders Of The Lost Ark,
that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger
running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the
excitement and the creative energy on the set. When you start getting into
computers you get fantastical situations like in The Matrix or movies like
that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want
seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money
in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-movie feel. We
want to make Indiana Jones 4 like we made the first three."
Of course, CG can be a great tool - as long as the filmmakers know what they are doing. The Wachowski's obviously don't... those action scenes were dull and i'll prefer any old Sammo Hung or Jackie Chan movie any time!
Coïndicentally this post reminded me of something i'd read about Indiana Jones 4 not relying on CGI - (hopefully i don't risk turning this place into Aintitcoolnews)
"PRODUCER SAYS 'INDY 4' WILL NOT RELY ON CGI
Indiana Jones producer Frank Marshall is determined to shun the current
trends in movie making - insisting the upcoming fourth installment of the
hit franchise will avoid using computer effects. Frank is adamant the sequel
to the hit Harrison Ford adventure franchise will retain the tradition of
its classic forerunners by utilizing real stunt work instead of high-tech
graphics, giving it the feel of a B-movie. He says, "We didn't have computer
effects in those days, we couldn't easily erase things and I think one of
the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers
lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree
rather than erase it later as you can today. In Raiders Of The Lost Ark,
that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger
running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the
excitement and the creative energy on the set. When you start getting into
computers you get fantastical situations like in The Matrix or movies like
that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want
seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money
in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-movie feel. We
want to make Indiana Jones 4 like we made the first three."
Of course, CG can be a great tool - as long as the filmmakers know what they are doing. The Wachowski's obviously don't... those action scenes were dull and i'll prefer any old Sammo Hung or Jackie Chan movie any time!
-
Santo
-
MattPacini
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:43 pm
- Location: Northern California
- Contact:
What a load of crap, about Raiders of the Lost Ark not having any FX.
That might be a "real" ball behind Harrison Ford (fibreglass, I'm sure), but those ghosts aren't real at the end (when they open the Ark), and the crates in the warehouse aren't real, and there's a lot more that wasn't real.
There's quite a bit of optical printing, matte work and imniatures in Raiders, and they were using the state of the art FX for 1981 when they made that film, which I'm sure they will be more than willing to use this time. I mean, current state of the art FX.
Sure, maybe they're not going to have actual CG characters, but you can bet there will be tons of compositing, wire removal, etc., in Indiana 4, if such a film ever comes out.
You don't really think they're gonig to use glass mattes, do you?
They'll have to bluescreen out the cane, wheelchair, or walker Harrison Ford will be using, if they don't hurry up and make the damn thing!
He's in his 60's for crying out loud!
They should have some young stud like me take over the "Indie" part, eh?
I'm only 45!!!!!!
har harhar!
Matt Pacini
That might be a "real" ball behind Harrison Ford (fibreglass, I'm sure), but those ghosts aren't real at the end (when they open the Ark), and the crates in the warehouse aren't real, and there's a lot more that wasn't real.
There's quite a bit of optical printing, matte work and imniatures in Raiders, and they were using the state of the art FX for 1981 when they made that film, which I'm sure they will be more than willing to use this time. I mean, current state of the art FX.
Sure, maybe they're not going to have actual CG characters, but you can bet there will be tons of compositing, wire removal, etc., in Indiana 4, if such a film ever comes out.
You don't really think they're gonig to use glass mattes, do you?
They'll have to bluescreen out the cane, wheelchair, or walker Harrison Ford will be using, if they don't hurry up and make the damn thing!
He's in his 60's for crying out loud!
They should have some young stud like me take over the "Indie" part, eh?
I'm only 45!!!!!!
har harhar!
Matt Pacini
-
MattPacini
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:43 pm
- Location: Northern California
- Contact:
And so am I.mattias wrote:matt, you're the first to mention fx. the rest of us are talking about cgi...
/matt
You're missing my point.
I'm simply saying he's lying about what he's saying they're GOING to do on Indie IV.
Here's what I mean:
"... insisting the upcoming fourth installment of the hit franchise will avoid using computer effects."
I'm simply saying I don't believe him.
They ARE going to use computer effects, I guarantee you.
They're not going to have someone on the set saying "Oh, no, we can't do that, it has to be an in-camera effect, because we're refusing to use computers to remove wires later, remember?" or whatever.
It's just total BS. They're going to use CGI for what they would have use practical FX for in the past.
That's all I'm saying. They're just making this up for the story.
Are you saying you really believe they're not going to use ANY CGI at all?
Be serious!
Matt Pacini