Last movie watched...

[pictsy]

It really grinds my gears when I see that filmmakers adopt CGI to such extent as showing blood effects. Couldn't they get someone who'll just blow a hose or something, instead relying on computer graphics to generate something simple, like blood? Assholes.

IIRC the film is set in zero-g so practical blood effects would not have worked without use of the vomit comet.

[Barrington Boots]

Yep, the blood looks awful but having actors gobbing out blood packets wouldn't have worked for the zero-G setting.
I'm not sure how they'd have done it other than use CGI, it's just that the CGI looks crappy, as it almost inevitably does.

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm not sure how they'd have done it other than use CGI, it's just that the CGI looks crappy, as it almost inevitably does.

My strong suspicion, in terms of the general use of CGI blood, is that the risk associated with a practical effect (either explosive squibs or just a concentrated compressed air blast through a blood bag) is non-zero. "Fuck it, we can just add that in post, and no one sues us" is probably a very attractive proposition to most producers.

[Barrington Boots]

Agreed. CGI often seems a lazy solution, which is a shame when you think about the ingenious ideas that special effects dudes used to come up with in older films, but I'm not a filmmaker so I'm sure there's more at play than someone just cba.

[Jim_Campbell]

but I'm not a filmmaker so I'm sure there's more at play than someone just cba.

Again, I have no hard info on this, but I imagine it's largely an accounting decision: is the cost of adding CGI blood in post less than the cost of doing an effect on set, when you also take into account a reduction to your liability insurance? Plus, the added bonus that no one sues you because no one gets injured, either by having small explosive charges strapped to them, or hit in the eye by flying fake blood and scraps of fabric.

[milstar]

Using CGI for something like that is, like I already said, cheap gimmicks to me. Especially when you see older movies and they pull effects like this and it's like "omg!" state of the art. I mean, I watched documentary on Alien and they pretty much described practical effects they used in great detail and it really was Oscar worth (don't know if the film got Oscar for sfx, though). Luckily, today we have Nolan movies that rarely rely on CGI and that use complex mechanics in order to come up with something that is devoid of CGI use (Nolan probably would shoot this in zero gravity with all practical effects that come into the play). Besides, creating blood should be one of the simplest effects of all, that don't have to be explosive squibs. It's all about camera tricks. Also, I dislike when they show artificial nipples or digital penises, which is what Gaspar Noe does. If he wants to shoot a porno, he shouldn't be shy about it.

[pictsy]

I think with CGI blood it's just more cost effective and easier to control.  If a practical effect goes wrong you have to clean up and set everything up again.  Considering how much time a shot can take to set up in the first place and how much delays can eat into a budget CGI becomes a lot more efficient.  Get the shot and move on.  If you are using CGI anyway, there might be additional costs in hiring two effects companies over just one.
Given the long history of stunt work in the film industry, I imagine that the legal process for being protected against getting sued due to injury is pretty robust.  I think it's just a case of it being cheaper and easier. 

[Funt Solo]

Also, I dislike when they show artificial nipples or digital penises, which is what Gaspar Noe does. If he wants to shoot a porno, he shouldn't be shy about it.

What I'm getting from this is that there are two key rules for pron:

1. Don't be shy.
2. Never fake anything.

[Jim_Campbell]

Given the long history of stunt work in the film industry, I imagine that the legal process for being protected against getting sued due to injury is pretty robust.

No, the production will have liability insurance against that sort of thing — the insurers usually try to pay off potential litigants because it's cheaper than a court case (and the potential litigants will usually take it, because it's money in their pocket and cheaper than a court case) but liability insurance is really expensive and if you can demonstrate to the insurers that you're taking steps to minimise risk on-set, the premiums will come down.

[milstar]

Also, I dislike when they show artificial nipples or digital penises, which is what Gaspar Noe does. If he wants to shoot a porno, he shouldn't be shy about it.

What I'm getting from this is that there are two key rules for pron:

1. Don't be shy.
2. Never fake anything.

Only sheer authenticism.

Given the long history of stunt work in the film industry, I imagine that the legal process for being protected against getting sued due to injury is pretty robust.

No, the production will have liability insurance against that sort of thing — the insurers usually try to pay off potential litigants because it's cheaper than a court case (and the potential litigants will usually take it, because it's money in their pocket and cheaper than a court case) but liability insurance is really expensive and if you can demonstrate to the insurers that you're taking steps to minimise risk on-set, the premiums will come down.

I think that's why they use storyboards first, especially when it comes to sfx shots. Because insurers have to see how much money will cost them that particular frame.

[pictsy]

Given the long history of stunt work in the film industry, I imagine that the legal process for being protected against getting sued due to injury is pretty robust.

No, the production will have liability insurance against that sort of thing — the insurers usually try to pay off potential litigants because it's cheaper than a court case (and the potential litigants will usually take it, because it's money in their pocket and cheaper than a court case) but liability insurance is really expensive and if you can demonstrate to the insurers that you're taking steps to minimise risk on-set, the premiums will come down.

I looked this up and from what I've deduced from what I've found is it is the stunt person that assumes the risk.  There is even specialised insurance for it for stunt people to take out.  I found no results about those hiring stunt people who get injured being paid off by the productions liability insurance.  I did find some US court cases where stunt people sued for negligence, but that was based on the idea that the stunt co-ordinators changed the nature of the stunt last minute causing an accident and injury.  I also found an essay calling for the end of assumed risk for stunt people.

In any regards, it doesn't matter.  Paying insurance isn't the same thing as getting sued.  From what I can tell, that's a fringe case scenario so I still don't think the idea of being sued plays much of a part in using CGI blood instead or practical effects.

Anyway I was wrong.  The legal framework isn't as robust as I thought it was.  It doesn't seem to work in the stunt persons favour, so, y'know, whatever.

I think that's why they use storyboards first, especially when it comes to sfx shots. Because insurers have to see how much money will cost them that particular frame.

Storyboards are primarily a way of planning out shots and sequences before filming starts so the production know what to do when the filming starts.

[Jim_Campbell]

In any regards, it doesn't matter.  Paying insurance isn't the same thing as getting sued.  From what I can tell, that's a fringe case scenario so I still don't think the idea of being sued plays much of a part in using CGI blood instead or practical effects.

Sorry — I honestly wasn't trying to be stroppy, there. I wasn't specifically talking about stunt performers — there are lots of people in the vicinity of an effect that uses explosives, or other means to simulate the effect of a small explosion, to whom the risk is non-zero.* I haven't worked in the film industry, but I have had some experience dealing with large-scale liability insurers and I know that any way you can identify to eliminate risk, and show that you've done so, reduces the premium.

Add to that the practical considerations you mention about not having to deal with on-set delay and disruption, and I can see how something as simple as ditching physical blood FX in favour of a post-production solution could be very appealing to film industry bean-counters.

*You can put all the health & safety measures imaginable in place, and you will never get the risk to zero. For as long as the risk exists, insurers will put some kind of price tag on it, so the only way of reducing the risk to zero is to not do it.

[Funt Solo]

We couldn't resist Polar on Netflix over the weekend. I had inadvertantly read some scathing reviews, but despite the extreme violence, dodgy moralistic premise and absurdist characters...we quite liked it. I have little patience for on-screen torture these days and one sequence had me gritting my teeth, but Mads Mikkelsen holds it all together very well. A surprise hit in the Wedgeski household.

Agreed. Polar has lots of ingredients that should make it bad, but Mads Mikkelsen, man. He turns that opportunity yes.

[milstar]

16 Blocks

A rather mediocre actioner from director Richard Donner. Bruce Willis plays a cop so miserable and burnt out that it's almost painful to watch. That's the biggest issue I have with the movie. I prefer Bruce being more playful macho, as what he usually does in his movies. Here, you gotta wonder if that alcoholic, sleepless, limping character is him. His task is to proceed a prisoner, played by ever annoying Mos Def, here ever loquacious, to a court building to testify. In between them, are standing slew of persistent crooked cops, led by Bruce's (former) partner (David Morse), who's all about "oh, I know we cops are bad, but the life is fucked up anyway, so who cares". If someone missed anything, this film is either unofficial remake or plain tip-off of Clint Eastwood's The Gauntlet. Similarities are striking. Main character is alcoholic and mediocre cop, who finds himself over his head, his companion (female in Eastwood version) fast talking jail bird, a deadline, crooked cops and; in both movies, there's a rough bus scene. The Eastwood's film was goofy, but a lot more fun.

[CalHab]

Is Mos Def annoying? He was excellent in Be Kind Rewind, which is a wonderful film.

I think I'll have to see if anywhere is streaming it.