Is Roger Ebert right about what he said about modern editing?

H

harmonica44

I was reading this movie review of his:

ttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100203/REVIEWS/100209992/1023

He says that by today's standards that computers do the editing for action scenes, and that stuntmen are no longer necessary. But I don't see much how editing is changed. It's more of the directors style, rather than just doing stunts isn't it? It's the director who chose to quick cut everything. Weather he did it with a computer or not compared to actual film, it's still editing and I don't see how that has changed much. Unless there were a lot of mordern FX added to make the stunts and fights look a lot more real than they are.

He also compared the movie to The Chaser (2008), saying that the actors do their stunt jobs better in that movie, but again, that's just the directors editing style, and I don't think modern computer editing technology is too blame. I think today's FX is a good thing, making it easier. It's the style of editing, that's the problem, and therefore to blame. Thoughts?
 
I have almost 20 years in the visual effects industry, and I agree with the gist of Mr. Ebert's article.

In pre-digital times, when we saw an 'event' in a movie, we saw that there was an actor or stuntman involved. The fact that someone actually did the stunt, provided a certain spectacle which visual effects lack. When I see the digital cars in Fast & the Furious 2+, I just don't feel the risk & forces involved in a real situation. They also come up with shots and camera moves that scream "VFX" and pull the viewer out of the moment. On the other hand, the cars in Ronin were very satisfying (to me!). Real cars, real stunts, and real damage add a credibility to the action that computers just don't have. Even if both look almost the same, they aren't the same.

That said, I'm blocking a car chase sequence that cannot be photographed in the scripted locations, so I'm going to shoot many of the car elements at a closed air strip and split/comp them into plates of busy city streets; some cars will also be CG, and some miniatures. Am I happy about it? Nope, but until I get a big-boy budget, I have to fall back on the resources at hand. Roger will have to wait ;)

I can also imagine how hard it would be to get the permits & insurance to shoot the Bullitt sequence in San Fran, today.
 
Also, fight scenes are being edited in a very crappy style where you don't see a fight anymore. The last Bourne movie and Salt are two examples of a very crappy style that fights are edited where you don't see the action from way too many close-ups.

I hated the way the action was edited together in The Expendibles too. The cuts were WAY to fast and the lighting was way too dark. I enjoy watching Jet Li in action. The way the cuts were so quick in The Expendibles, I could barely seee him.

Very few action movies are being shot and edited properly these days to appreciate what a good stunt person can bring to a production.
 
The choppy cutting in the Expendables was a Producer's call:

"How can I get these 60-somethings to move like 30-somethings? ... Cut out every other frame."
 
Last edited:
A frriend who is a Hollywood stunt professional was telling me the close-up style for fight scenes comes from the television studios. They use that technique when actors are not rehearsed for their stunts to cover their lack of rehearsal. It is also probably cheaper for their set insurance with less risks.

When action is shot with all close-ups, the film can only imply action because the action is not being shown.

When the camera is pulled back where you can see all of the action, that's when you can see stunts at their finest. You get to see the full body of the stunt players making their magic happen.
 
Last edited:
I keep hearing this again and again - CGI is destroying the point of going to a movie. There may be an opportunity for an enterprising director here.
 
Stunts and fights have changed greatly over the decades. Check out old Errol Flynn swashbucklers, where a single shot can last for 30 or more seconds (i.e. Flynn & Rathbone in the final fight scene of "The Adventures of Robin Hood" - they fight, move off camera but we see their shadows, move back on camera) or even Bruce Lees kung fu flicks (which changed the Hollywood approach to fights). "Gladiator" did the close-up, quick-cut editing style in the fight scenes quite effectively.

The problem with too many filmmakers and crafts people is that they copy the style without grasping the purpose of the use of the particular style for a specific situation. And, in addition to many of the reasons already stated ("bad" actors, low budget, etc.), many seem to choose style over substance, or even attempt to use style to overcome a lack of substance.

CGI can be used to overcome physical obstacles and prevent injury to valuable acting talent, but there is never a substitute for convincing peril to the characters, and CGI has been pushing us way beyond the bounds of believablility.
 
Well, since CGI has stretched the limits of believability, if a filmmaker did a stunt the old fashion way, and the stunt people couldn't stretch and move as well as CGI characters, would that sell to the audience? IOW, would the audience prefer a live stuntman who can do less than his CGI counterpart?
 
CG is just a tool....

Bad movies, consumer sheep and the relentless stream of unnecessary remakes is destroying the movie going experience.
 
There is a place and purpose for live action, cgi, miniture models, and even stunt dummies. I agree with Alcove Audio. And, also Rok. I agree with Rok too on what should be the deciding factor.

Filmmakers have choices. How should they decide? Budget! How can you afford this shot? That's how you decide.
 
Nice posts, folks.

Back in the old days, when you had longer cuts of a fight, the choreography drove the timing and tempo of the sequence. Today, much of that is decided in the cut. It seems to be another example where proper planning is pushed aside in favor of making the decisions in post.

I recently came back from a show where I had the pleasure of working with an excellent stunt coordinator (a known and respected martial artist & fight choreographer). I saw weeks of his fight rehearsals get thrown out the window because the Director would not completely engage/commit during prep. As a result, it was all more-or-less made up on the day shoot (and it basically looked like it). As a result, the Editor now has to chop it up and give it life.

Complex stunts require the creatives to make choices very early in preproduction. This doesn't jive with today's "fix it in post" paradigm. ... sigh ...

_Rok_
 
I personally don't care about CGI..

I remember watching Star Wars with awed amazement when I was 8 years old. Exactly the same amazement was for Avatar.

Latter has way advanced CGI.
CGI is just a tool that helps to tell the story to me. That was makes me go see a movie.


Give me a reason to care why the protagonist leaps from the building, and I will not give a damn if it was done with a stuntman or CGI :)
 
_Rok_ said:
I have almost 20 years in the visual effects industry, and I agree with the gist of Mr. Ebert's article.

In pre-digital times, when we saw an 'event' in a movie, we saw that there was an actor or stuntman involved. The fact that someone actually did the stunt, provided a certain spectacle which visual effects lack. When I see the digital cars in Fast & the Furious 2+, I just don't feel the risk & forces involved in a real situation. They also come up with shots and camera moves that scream "VFX" and pull the viewer out of the moment. On the other hand, the cars in Ronin were very satisfying (to me!). Real cars, real stunts, and real damage add a credibility to the action that computers just don't have. Even if both look almost the same, they aren't the same.

That said, I'm blocking a car chase sequence that cannot be photographed in the scripted locations, so I'm going to shoot many of the car elements at a closed air strip and split/comp them into plates of busy city streets; some cars will also be CG, and some miniatures. Am I happy about it? Nope, but until I get a big-boy budget, I have to fall back on the resources at hand. Roger will have to wait ;)

I can also imagine how hard it would be to get the permits & insurance to shoot the Bullitt sequence in San Fran, today.
Click to expand...

Ronin's a great mention. Probably the best car chase, race sequence ever.

Yeah, probably comes down to budget. So, having no clue, let me ask: since the pervasive use of CGI, have stunt people been downsized, like so many others in the increasingly automated economy? Are they working less, or more, or the same these days?

Like it's been said, live action and CGI are both tools. Probably the more real, live action there is, the better. Because when they're subpar, the CGIs can really pull you out of the movie. I always think of Blade II and Matrix Reloaded for comparison. In the 2002 Blade II, Wesley Snipe's and Luke Goss's CGI proxies were able to leap about and fight each other in larger than life ways, and I think it turned out pretty believable. It still looks great. In fact, it's kickass. But the 2003 Matrix Reloaded has some very similar CGI that pulled me right out of the movie. The scene where an agent jumps onto and crushes a car's front end as well as the fight with the one-hundred Smiths, for a couple of examples. But maybe those were primarily technical difficulties. And I guess Matrix Reloaded is already "ancient," heheh. Perhaps if they made that movie today, there wouldn't be those hitches.

Also, check out Old Boy (2003). There's that awesome and extended fight in the hallway which I don't think is CGI. It goes to show that even in this century a live action fight sequence can be great when the filmmakers are willing and able to put some work and artistry into it. But then, Dae-su Oh isn't supposed to be a superhero, a super agent, a vampire, or a denizen of the Matrix. =D
 
Last edited:
I think the problem with CGI is that most everyone ignores the physical laws of science. So even if we cannot tell the difference between CGI and the real thing, it looks faked anyway.
 
_Rok_ said:
I have almost 20 years in the visual effects industry, and I agree with the gist of Mr. Ebert's article.

In pre-digital times, when we saw an 'event' in a movie, we saw that there was an actor or stuntman involved. The fact that someone actually did the stunt, provided a certain spectacle which visual effects lack. When I see the digital cars in Fast & the Furious 2+, I just don't feel the risk & forces involved in a real situation. They also come up with shots and camera moves that scream "VFX" and pull the viewer out of the moment. On the other hand, the cars in Ronin were very satisfying (to me!). Real cars, real stunts, and real damage add a credibility to the action that computers just don't have. Even if both look almost the same, they aren't the same.

That said, I'm blocking a car chase sequence that cannot be photographed in the scripted locations, so I'm going to shoot many of the car elements at a closed air strip and split/comp them into plates of busy city streets; some cars will also be CG, and some miniatures. Am I happy about it? Nope, but until I get a big-boy budget, I have to fall back on the resources at hand. Roger will have to wait ;)

I can also imagine how hard it would be to get the permits & insurance to shoot the Bullitt sequence in San Fran, today.
Click to expand...

Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
Also, fight scenes are being edited in a very crappy style where you don't see a fight anymore. The last Bourne movie and Salt are two examples of a very crappy style that fights are edited where you don't see the action from way too many close-ups.

I hated the way the action was edited together in The Expendibles too. The cuts were WAY to fast and the lighting was way too dark. I enjoy watching Jet Li in action. The way the cuts were so quick in The Expendibles, I could barely seee him.

Very few action movies are being shot and edited properly these days to appreciate what a good stunt person can bring to a production.
Click to expand...

I think A lot of it though has to do with the way directors and producers decisions. You use 2 Fast 2 Furious as an example, but are their any movies that have CGI car chases that are done in a dark dramatic way to actually be scary? I heard parts of The Dark Knight car chase was CGI although it's hard to tell, and not near as obvious.

And as far as close ups in modern fights go, is it possible to plan out a fight in pre production well enough that you can make it look good in the editing, without having such close ups, and have longer takes as well? Or does it have to be close up, to make up for lack of fight choreographers and stuntmen? Interesting to know that's why they are doing the close up nowadays.


So it's been said that CGI ignores the physical law of science but are their any CGI action movies so dramatic and scary, and physically realistic, that they actually work?

So as far as that comment goes about shooting fight scenes close up, to imply the fight, rather than show it... Why has this only started up in the past decade? Has the economy go far up and Hollywood cannot afford as many stuntmen as they use to, compared to before?
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't think style has as much to do with today's editing as lack of substance does. It's keep the audiences eyes unfocused and they won't realize they're watching crap.

Action and fight sequences used to advance and intensify the storytelling. Now it just replaces it.
 
Okay for example here's a fight from Eastern Promises, and one from The Expendables.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll9gnBb_sqY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLt7lXDCHQ0

The Bourne one is an obvious example of modern editing to mask mistakes but it is it possible to use modern computer editing, and CG to make a fight like Eastern Promises, and not so constantly cut, chopped up, close up, and shaky cam? Or if they must do quick cut, close up, and chopped, can they do it so it's more dramatic like EP?
 
Last edited:
GuerrillaAngel you are correct with your statement about physics. It's also related to the Uncanny Valley (CG humans).

Once you create anything that is supposed to look photo-realistic, the audience applies certain expectations of reality that they do not apply to cartoons.

In the case of CG stunts/explosions, the audience doesn't have much in the way of direct experience with these things, so they can only apply the basics: Light, shadows and general physics. The basics sound fairly straight forward, but these are rarely understood by many animators & TDs & Compositors. As a result, they miss a few basics and as a result betray the audience's expectations.

Also, since the filmmakers want to create something that's "Never been seen before" they often ask the animator to do something that flies blatantly in he face of Newton. Transformers demonstrates the excellent execution of this kind of phony-balony. Producers/Directors also will ask that the CG element be lit brighter than reality. Why? They openly admit that if they are going to pay five/six figures for a shot, they want to see what they are paying for. Sure, you'll see it ... as a fake.

The desire for a signature effect or a 'trailer moment' often breaks one-too-many rules of physics, and plays like a false note ... and comes off feeling wrong. Batman's Tumbler (sp?) is a good example of CG cars done right. But let's not forget, they built a functioning version of this vehicle, and used it in as many shots as possible (stunts included). So the CG version had some direct reference for the animators to work from. BTW, the vehicle looks great up close (I even sat in it). I don't think the CG motorcycle (from the second movie) came off nearly as well.

The Uncanny Valley involves all the same expectations of reality, but with an important twist; the audience has LOTS of experience with the subject. They know people. They see people everyday. There are millions of little things that humans do (and don't do) that tell us we are looking at a human. Since the audience is an expert on this subject (as opposed to fighting robots), they have strongly held expectations that are very hard to meet. Unfortunately, of the millions of cues the audience recognize as "human" time and budgets allows for the VFX Team to only create a small fraction. As a result, the CG humans are both intriguing and disturbing.

The audience will accept a CG creature/monster, but reject a CG human in exactly the same context. James Cameron knows this and wisely made his Na'vi look nothing like real humans (8' tall, bright blue, cartoon feet, animalistic eyes). The Na'vi were accepted as realistic by the audience because we have lower expectations for things we have no familiarity with.

I've worked a long time trying to meet the audience expectation of reality. Sometimes I've succeeded, and very often came up short. CG done right always brings a smile to my face. Sure CGI is a tool, but like any tool, you need to know when to use it, and when to avoid it. A film camera is also just a tool but I'm smart enough to never use it to drive a nail (I know, I know, I'm reaching. But you get the point).

_Rok_
 
Last edited:
_Rok_ said:
GuerrillaAngel you are correct with your statement about physics. It's also related to the Uncanny Valley (CG humans).

Once you create anything that is supposed to look photo-realistic, the audience applies certain expectations of reality that they do not apply to cartoons.

In the case of CG stunts/explosions, the audience doesn't have much in the way of direct experience with these things, so they can only apply the basics: Light, shadows and general physics. The basics sound fairly straight forward, but these are rarely understood by many animators & TDs & Compositors. As a result, they miss a few basics and as a result betray the audience's expectations.

Also, since the filmmakers want to create something that's "Never been seen before" they often ask the animator to do something that flies blatantly in he face of Newton. Transformers demonstrates the excellent execution of this kind of phony-balony. Producers/Directors also will ask that the CG element be lit brighter than reality. Why? They openly admit that if they are going to pay five/six figures for a shot, they want to see what they are paying for. Sure, you'll see it ... as a fake.

The desire for a signature effect or a 'trailer moment' often breaks one-too-many rules of physics, and plays like a false note ... and comes off feeling wrong. Batman's Tumbler (sp?) is a good example of CG cars done right. But let's not forget, they built a functioning version of this vehicle, and used it in as many shots as possible (stunts included). So the CG version had some direct reference for the animators to work from. BTW, the vehicle looks great up close (I even sat in it). I don't think the CG motorcycle (from the second movie) came off nearly as well.

The Uncanny Valley involves all the same expectations of reality, but with an important twist; the audience has LOTS of experience with the subject. They know people. They see people everyday. There are millions of little things that humans do (and don't do) that tell us we are looking at a human. Since the audience is an expert on this subject (as opposed to fighting robots), they have strongly held expectations that are very hard to meet. Unfortunately, of the millions of cues the audience recognize as "human" time and budgets allows for the VFX Team to only create a small fraction. As a result, the CG humans are both intriguing and disturbing.

The audience will accept a CG creature/monster, but reject a CG human in exactly the same context. James Cameron knows this and wisely made his Na'vi look nothing like real humans (8' tall, bright blue, cartoon feet, animalistic eyes). The Na'vi were accepted as realistic by the audience because we have lower expectations for things we have no familiarity with.

I've worked a long time trying to meet the audience expectation of reality. Sometimes I've succeeded, and very often came up short. CG done right always brings a smile to my face. Sure CGI is a tool, but like any tool, you need to know when to use it, and when to avoid it. A film camera is also just a tool but I'm smart enough to never use it to drive a nail (I know, I know, I'm reaching. But you get the point).

_Rok_
Click to expand...

Yessir to all this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top