Topic: Digital coloring, sets and backdrops in movies

[NWR_pap64]

NOTE: This topic was originated in the rat's "Colors of War" thread, and since it would be derailing the thread in the worst way possible I decided to make a thread about it here.

Plus, I know Evan will eat this thread up .

Anyways, ever since movies like "Sin City" and "300" were praised for their digital coloring and backdrops it seems filmmakers are trying to capitalize on this and are creating more and more movies with clearly altered color schemes and backdrops.

I will confess I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, when done right it does add a lot of depth and even magic to the film's atmosphere and keeps your eyes focused on the screen. On the other, when overdone it looks so fake and dull, especially when they overuse brown and gray tones.

I think this sparked in me when I started watching some of Tim Burton's movies. On ABC they showed the original Willy Wonka and the Tim Burton remake back to back and I was stunned at the lack of color in the remake.

I love the Tim Burton version almost as much as the original version, but for a movie that takes place in a magical world of sweets everything's so dull and gray!

I also saw "Sweeney Todd". It was a good movie, but I sometimes got annoyed at how black and gray everything was.

Yes, I know the movie is supposed to be a dark horror movie, yes I know Tim Burton loves the Gothic settings and yes, it adds a lot of atmosphere to the movie, but at times I felt it went overboard. Even the blood is surprisingly lacking color, especially for a movie that loves to splash it around like water.

Maybe its just me, though. I'm no film expert, I only watch them and it could be just me getting tired of the whole brown and gray=reality mindset people have nowadays.

So what do you think? Evan, this thread has you name all over it, so don't pull any punches!

[animecyberrat]

I like bright and colorful movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street, all that red and white.



Ok serious on topic reply.

I am not sure about the artistic approach or whatever but I know that if it is a Sci-Fi movie I expect it to have a darker tone because that is what draws me to the genre in the first place. Like how I watch Horror movies but not "scary" movies because of the darker tone. Although I did like the Ring when it was new.

As for action movies, no I am the opposite, I want a realistic tone to the movie because I would like to see the explosions and bullets in all their unaltered glory. I do not mind CGI in movies as long as it does not look out of place. But I hate it when a movie will use CGI when there were better, more realistic looking ways to do it before and cheaper than CGI too.

I do like bright and colorful movies also but I prefer that for family friendly or comedic movies. So I think what I am saying is the color scheme or whatever your topic is about should reflect the tone of the movie. Part of what I loved so much about Pleasantville was the use colors to tell a story.
 

[Dasmos]

Maybe its just me, though. I'm no film expert, I only watch them and it could be just me getting tired of the whole brown and gray=reality mindset people have nowadays.

This topic is really far too vague to warrant any serious discussion. You could have made a decent topic about the whole 300, Sin City digital backlot thing, but then you switched it straight to colour and themes. The thread is also vague in the sense where you didn't specifically suggest any ground to your argument, you used a few examples to describe the whole nature of film making. Try suggesting genres where you feel your concerns are more based, because basically no-one in their right mind would agree with you that the film industry is grey and dull. Sure there are a few notable, big-name films where you may be right, but there's literally thousands of movies out there.

Well back to my real reply, films are basically made before the even start filming. The colour themes used are all pre-determined in the pre-production stage of the film's life. Film makers go into shooting with specific idea in mind and whether this transfers effectively onto the screen is pretty subjective Although in my opinion there are definitely examples where films have gone too far to be interesting (like Sky Captain).

I also don't agree with you in your argument that bland and dull colours are overused to create a sense of realism, expecially in the examples you gave. Look at the movies you've listed, are any of those supposed to be realistic? No. All the movies you've listed are fictious (or a dramatisation in the case of Sweeney Todd).

cheaper than CGI too.

Wrong. Honestly unless you have specific examples of what you're referring to, anything CGI nowdays is basically cheaper than going out there a filming it really happening.

[animecyberrat]

Ive done a LOT of video production and for an independent it is far cheaper to use traditional special effects, now I am talking about explosions and stuff like that. Where the 300 was almost entirely CGI, filming on location would have been a lot cheaper than rendering everything. Maybe you don't know much about the costs involved here but I may only have limited experience but I can say for certain that everyone I have worked with also agrees.


If you are doing something like Star Wars or LOTR, than CGI is going to be cheaper than hiring thousands of extras and creating grand sets just to destroy them. But for the types of movies being discussed in this topic, no way, doing what they did for 300 was overkill as fr as CGI goes. Using the computer to render the backgrounds and using the blue screen is one thing, but having only five people on set and doing everything in post production is a different story.

[NWR_pap64]

Maybe its just me, though. I'm no film expert, I only watch them and it could be just me getting tired of the whole brown and gray=reality mindset people have nowadays.

This topic is really far too vague to warrant any serious discussion. You could have made a decent topic about the whole 300, Sin City digital backlot thing, but then you switched it straight to colour and themes. The thread is also vague in the sense where you didn't specifically suggest any ground to your argument, you used a few examples to describe the whole nature of film making. Try suggesting genres where you feel your concerns are more based, because basically no-one in their right mind would agree with you that the film industry is grey and dull. Sure there are a few notable, big-name films where you may be right, but there's literally thousands of movies out there.

Well back to my real reply, films are basically made before the even start filming. The colour themes used are all pre-determined in the pre-production stage of the film's life. Film makers go into shooting with specific idea in mind and whether this transfers effectively onto the screen is pretty subjective Although in my opinion there are definitely examples where films have gone too far to be interesting (like Sky Captain).

I also don't agree with you in your argument that bland and dull colours are overused to create a sense of realism, especially in the examples you gave. Look at the movies you've listed, are any of those supposed to be realistic? No. All the movies you've listed are fictious (or a dramatisation in the case of Sweeney Todd).

While I do find it weird that your reply is more about me making a better topic than actually contributing to it, I appreciate the constructive criticism.

Like I said, I am not film expert. I am just offering an opinion from the perspective of a movie fan.

I do agree that there's a difference between a digital backlot and digital coloring but the reason I combine the two is because in most digital backlot movies the actors are shaded in a way that reflects the color and ambiance of the film. This is notable in the making of features where you see the actors acting in front of a green screen. So to me, at least, one contributes to the other.

Finally, I agree that the movies I mentioned are unrealistic and the color don't reflect reality of any kind. I guess that what I should have said is that its getting tiring seeing the dark color tones used constantly, no matter the topic and film using them.

Again, I'm just offering an opinion, no matter how convoluted it is. So bear with me.

[Dasmos]

Ive done a LOT of video production and for an independent it is far cheaper to use traditional special effects, now I am talking about explosions and stuff like that. Where the 300 was almost entirely CGI, filming on location would have been a lot cheaper than rendering everything. Maybe you don't know much about the costs involved here but I may only have limited experience but I can say for certain that everyone I have worked with also agrees.

Honestly rat, you're dribbling all over the floor. You may have "experience", but you don't really know what you're talking about. Do you even know what the budget was for 300? I don't think you do. It was only about $60 million. Pirates of the Carribean 3 cost 5 times that amount.

[animecyberrat]

And Pirates 3 had TONS more CGI. You are also forgetting Pirates had more big stars than 300 and big stars cost more money than special effects no matter what method you chose.

Star Wars Episode I had a 65 Million Dollar budget and Episode III had double that and III was almost pure CGI.

[Ian Sane]

Like pretty much ANYTHING with film making I find there's a time and place for it but when overused it becomes silly.  I don't like 300 very much at all.  It tries way too hard to be cool.  The digital colouring is part of that.  The use of slow motion for damn near everything is also part of that.

I find it much easier to get into films that resemble reality in some way.  You can have fantasy elements.  Most films are fiction.  Fiction does that have to be exactly like real life.  But it has to have look plausible.  Considering 300 is supposed to take place in our world at some point the colouring is obviously pure style because we know the world didn't look like that during the time of Sparta.  Style in films is always tricky.  Too often it can come across as pretentious wankery.  Too often I see that stuff and it comes across as the director doing it to make himself look arty.  Typically if I notice it, then it sucks.  No Country For Old Men has virtually no score.  I didn't even notice until someone pointed it out because it fit so well.  It was an idea that could come across as intentionally arty but it fit perfectly.  The sublety really makes a difference.  Don't ever tell me your film is so brilliant and groundbreaking.  Let me discover that.

I find CGI pretty annoying because so often it looks fake.  If I notice it's CGI then you failed.  The end.  That's like noticing a boulder falling on a guy is paper mache or noticing strings on a space ship.  Sometimes it's obvious just in the sense that I'm smart enough to know that certain things need it.  Big squid monsters just can't really be done effectively without it for example.  But if it's a scene that could have been done without it, and I notice you used it, then you failed.  I can't stand it when I can spot the CGI car or the CGI bullets or the CGI explosion or the CGI crowd shot for stuff that 20 years ago would have used physical props.

The best use of I've ever seen of CGI is Zodiac.  They used it for stuff like city backdrops and blood coming out of a victim as they were being stabbed.  I had no clue that any CGI was in the film until I looked at the extra features on the DVD.  That's how you do it.  You don't have a cartoon character wandering around like it's Who Framed Roger Rabbit.