The Shroud on 4/12/2009 at 22:41

---

Eh, I'd prefer it be less CG, more set/matte based. I think movies these days have gotten carried away with wowing audiences with CGI - although in some cases it would fit, especially in certain areas of Constantine's mansion and the Lost City. But for the most part I'd prefer they go with a more traditional approach. Not that I'll have any say in the matter one way or the other. ;)

Namdrol on 4/12/2009 at 22:55

---

I thought the same as Bakerman about animation to start, but I reckon that live action would be best.

I want dark indie noir, dark in mood, music, lighting, story.

But yeah lot trickier and as jtr says you can push the bounds more with animation.

Sulphur on 4/12/2009 at 23:46

---

Holy shit count me in on that action.

jtr7 on 5/12/2009 at 03:35

---

QFT FTW!!:thumb::thumb::thumb:

I click on his yet-to-be-constructed (http://www.danielthron.com/) site everyday, waiting to see what he says is coming!


300 is a decent example of the tech that could be used on a big production, and I'd really like to point out the fact that it's much easier to manipulate a silhouette and move an arm to a better location, turn a head, add or extend a pause, place an item in the hand, stitch on a gesture from another section of film, create distance between characters in three dimensions, move them closer, make them contact, cut out characters, add in more, and all that very quickly. The artificial lighting on the actors, that is often still not quite right these days, to match them to the environment they are not really in, is eliminated.

Just as Terry Gilliam's famous animations for Monty Python were made using cut-outs of his illustrations to save time (two weeks for his first set of animations, all by himself, with no prior animation experience), it's safe to say I wouldn't have it any other way, and never felt it was cheapened (in a bad way, heh heh) for it. Dan Thron took a necessary shortcut, and I wouldn't have it any other way, in essence. Placing a flashbomb in the actor's hand after the actor mimed the arming and throwing down of it was quick and easy. In fact, it was done so quickly, the flashbomb floats in his hand, but more time would've made it possible to lock it in (same with Garrett putting his mech-eye in--it floats and could've been smaller, right?). Watching Orland lay down some papers, with the actor's real hand, lightly painted over, makes me smile. An actor can use a bow without an arrow and a fire arrow can be drawn in. Safety first! A man can be clubbed without ever getting hit. Quickly and easily, with no worries about lighting and cinematography of the environment. Actors can walk on treadmills or around a circular path, and made to look like they are taking a stroll. Green-screen and rotoscoping without color and light matching or matting in. Just keep them blackened in and adjust the flat shapes. Most lip-syncing is eliminated. A broomstick can become a halberd without having to create a photo-realistic 3D CG model to track over it, and the manipulations can be done by 1 to 3 people on old computers. It's inexpensive but not disappointingly cheap. All the attention can go to painting the environment, and the performances of a handful of actors in various parts which do not have to be perfect. Cloaks mask shape so only changes in movement and the voice are needed to change the identity of the character. It's what's being done and been done in the film industry for something like twenty years but without millions of dollars and a large team yet quite effective. And we've already seen we have the talent and know-how to match the LGS technique. The major difference is Dan's and Jennifer's artistic styles for the painted environs and direction.

Dominus on 5/12/2009 at 08:35

---

;)