For those working on SSS implementations/interested in SSS

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Toon_Scheur
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:20 pm

Post by Toon_Scheur »

I'm sorry SamDam, I still have to disagree with you. Episode I and Episode 2 both have far more superior visual effects than the first Star War films. But we all know they both sucked like a vacuum cleaner. All the GI and state of the art SSS and skin deformation and so and so couldn't save Ep. 1 and Ep. 2 just because to story STINKS.

If they did FF with crappy graphics but with a kick ass story, the critics would have say that the movie has a good story and it the visuals looks very artistic.
If they toon-rendered the Incredibles, it will still be a very good movie. Visual effects are intended to support the story telling, not to steal the story itself (hence FF, EP. 1 Ep. 2 and so).
For example, DOF is intended to draw the attention of the viewer to the object that is in focus. Blender can't do that. So my work around would be: Let the character to some peculiar action to draw attention (like petting a cat in a curious fashion or something). If you look for it, you won't find that many scenes with DOF.
I could have critized the Incredibles in the modling department. Fair is fair, that is not the best modeling we've around. And look at their ears. It looks like they consist of just a couple of polygons. So I think it is strange that you've choosen to pay attention to specific technical areas....say the things that Blender can't do? So you went to see the movie to dream that some day Blender would reach that level of mathematical excellence too?

I will keep insisting that you would have enjoyed the movie more if you payed more attention to way the story develops, how the characters interact with eachother and how the character moves. If photorealism is the criteria for a succesful story to you, why do we have so much live action films (they are photoreal by default) that flopped? And why there are so many hand drawn animation films (that are certainly NOT photoreal) succesful? The answer is the only one constant: Story(telling)

But to stay on course of this thread. Yes, SSS is being developed in Blender. :lol:

Of course a movie has to be consistent with itself. So you can't ask the viewers the believe that they are seeing a space battle, but your effect don't show it right. That would bring confusion and throw the audience of track. And that was also the main problem of FF. They wanted to play it both ways by saying: Hey, this is realistic, but unrealistic cartoon like things will happen.

bfvietnam
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:54 pm

YEah good story rocks, great graphics is just icing.

Post by bfvietnam »

The problem with hollywood is they throw in
gimmicks when the story sucks.. I think the biggest turkey of
movies is spy kids 2.. Its in 3D, that's why I rented it, but
it stunk so bad, no matter how good the 3D was, it wasn't
worth seeing Sylvester Stalone and Ricardo Montalban
make fools of themselves.. Lucky I rented out ELF
at the same time, it kinda stunk but hass Will Ferrell
ever stunk at making stuff funny?

The reason storys in movies suck is that Hollywood
makes all its money on the world market, so the focus
is on things outside of the dialog and the story, like effects,
sex and violence.

It would be neat if two people each made a movie, one
tries for the extreme "hollywood movie" and the other
goes in the opposite direction, focusing on the storyline,
this would be a good 3D graphics project to make a movie that
tells a story without dialog, possibly even without sound, using as plain,
plain graphics as possible, with no frills.. If the story is good, it doesn't
matter what visuals or sound you have. But its got to be really
compelling.

I think a good recent example of this, from what I was able
to get in a few seconds from a preview, is "white noise".

The last great movie I saw was
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".
Next to that is the recent Harry Potter movie.
LOTR impressed me a bit, but I knew the story,
but it bugs me more the children identifying with
Sean Astin's character. When to me its like
seeing Corey Feldman playing sam.

A funny movie to see from the 80s, "Explorers" with
Corey Feldman and River Phoenix. Seems like
movies these days are done with a deficiency of
brain cells. I got a movie for you Hollywood writers,
see "The Happiness Cage" with Christopher Walken in it..
This is the embodiment of what I think Hollywood is..

Toon_Scheur
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:20 pm

Post by Toon_Scheur »

You're totaly right bfVietnam.
I'm totaly saturated with all those average Holywood movies. If you see one, you've seen them all. Exceptions to this are movies like Fight Club, the Matrix 1, Pulp Fiction, Good Will Hunting and a few more. The rest is mere entertainment and never to be watched again. O.. this a very good one: Waking Life (from Richard Linklater). For me a good movie should have a good dialog and a high philisofical level.

But I defetniley will check out those you mentioned too.
But to get back to the issue of effects making the movie. The Polar Express. Far superieur in graphics than the Incredibles. But again like FF, the facial animation totaly sucked! And well... the movie is boring. The plot is thin.

I agree that there should be some minimal level of technical excellence for a 3D movie to be wortwhile watching, But it does not starts with DOF and SSS and so on. It should have at least motion blur, good lighting rig, good textures, good lighting rig. So according to SamDam , the Incredibles is better than Toy Story or Monster Inc. just because they have SSS and water sims and cloth sims. It is defitnely a factor if all else is the same. But the fact is, they all are enjoyable movies regardless of the level of the technolagy.

Post Reply