Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[itisnotlogical]

Saw the trailer for Call of the Wild in cinema. Don't give a damn about the movie, but the trailer saddened me.

I don't hate CG, I never did. It's an artistic tool that can be used or abused, like shakycam or monochrome.

But come on, you couldn't get a fucking dog for your movie? You had to add that in post? Disney, in all their omnipotence, the indestructible capitalist juggernaut that will probably outlive all of us, couldn't shell out for a goddamn golden retriever.

[wierd]

No, They OVERSPENT on a CG one, because working with a real dog on set (Something with a mind of its own, that is not slavishly devoted to Disney's profits, and so not 100% compliant, even with a good trainer) is "Hard."

The message is not that Disney would not spend the money on a real dog;  It is that they are so slavishly devoted to 100% compliance in the production process, that a real dog was just not acceptable, and they would rather pay way more for a fake one that complies.

[scriver]

Wait. So they made a movie about a dog. But didn't have the dog?

Sounds like instantaneous classic worthy production right there

[JoshuaFH]

There's nothing in the rulebook that says a cg dog can't play basketball.

[scriver]

There's nothing in the rulebook that says a cg dog can't play basketball.

If pay to watch a remake of airbud with this twist

[Kagus]

The fully CGI model of Buck is a digital scan of a real dog, adopted during production from the Emporia, Kansas animal shelter by director Chris Sanders' wife, Jessica Steele-Sanders. Coincidentally, the dog's name was "Buckley." Buckley is the same kind of mixed breed as Buck is described in Jack London's book: a cross between a St. Bernard and a Scotch collie-type dog (a medium-sized herding dog, similar to a border collie or Australian shepherd). When Jessica Steele-Sanders adopted Buckley as a companion for the Sanders' other dog, Brody, the CG model for Buck at that time was loosely based on a Bernese mountain dog -- however, when the producers saw Buckley and learned that he was the same sort of mixed breed as the dog in the book, it was decided that Buck in the film would be changed to a digital scan of Buckley

So there's apparently some small reason for the CGI approach, even if it is still a bit, well... Odd. Kids will like it I'm sure.

St. Bernards are also notoriously dopey, so even if they did manage to find a performing dog of that mixed breed, there's the chance they'd have issues getting it to do what they want... Just look at Cujo, where for the rabid attack scenes they had to swap out the St. Bernard they were using for a dressed-up golden retriever, because they couldn't get the dog amped-up enough for a violent scene.

[hector13]

Have you never heard the phrase “never work with kids or animals” in relation to entertainment?

One might suggest a movie set is not the best place for an animal, never mind the significantly easier means with which CG makes the animal do what it needs to do. There’s nothing here to go bananas about here.

[dragdeler]

-

[Iduno]

No matter how many times I try, the browser's back button does not make a thread go back a page. I still do it at least twice a day.

Excuse me sir there are hardworking doggos struggling to make ends meet.

I have it on good authority that they are are all good girls/boys.


Edit:

Have you never heard the phrase “never work with kids or animals” in relation to entertainment?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2jBBQQkDL0

[scriver]

Have you never heard the phrase “never work with kids or animals” in relation to entertainment?

One might suggest a movie set is not the best place for an animal, never mind the significantly easier means with which CG makes the animal do what it needs to do. There’s nothing here to go bananas about here.

The contention here is that they're following that rule when making an animal movie

And paying more money (if that claim is true, which I take for granted that it is because it affirms my biases against Disney) in order to follow that saying than they would've otherwise

Which is dumb

[Dunamisdeos]

That book is a sad as fuck story and I can't wait for Disney to sanitize it with singing doggos.

I hope they keep the part about how he goes batshit bonkers at the end and kills all the murderously savage native americans.

[itisnotlogical]

All I can think of is the Bob's Burgers episode where Tina has to do a book report and Linda helps her BS the whole thing.

♪Who's that calling? It's the Wild!♪

[wierd]

...

It's that time again!  Time to have my IQ lowered by the slow, and monotonous pacing of the Relias Learning online training! (MANDATORY!)

Today's topic: Chemical Labeling and Safety!


Did I mention that you **MUST** listen to the ENTIRE presentation, cannot skip ahead, have to engage in "learning exercises" that are designed for 5 year olds, and that the overall experience is horrible?


I get to do this every 6 months! YAY!!  Often, the subject matter is redundant and already familiar! BONUS!

[Reelya]

No, They OVERSPENT on a CG one, because working with a real dog on set (Something with a mind of its own, that is not slavishly devoted to Disney's profits, and so not 100% compliant, even with a good trainer) is "Hard."

No, they didn't overspend. Even if it costs more for the CGI dog than a real dog, you also have to take into account that everyone else is standing around while you're trying to get the dog to do what you want. An entire film crew unit. Additional takes, and that means you end up being out there for additional days or weeks, if there are on-location shots since you only have a narrow time window in which the sun's lighting is right.

That's what costs more money, and makes doing the CGI cheaper.

[wierd]

I would say it makes it competitive, not better.

There's a LOT that can go wrong in POST, getting scene lighting correct is a bitch, rendering on something with realistic fur is a bottomless pit of rendering cycles for any clip of length, it takes multiple skilled people to do the animation and rigging for each shot, etc.

While a real dog might be immensely more interested in the cameraman's burrito filled lunchbox than in doing the scene, (and thus derail shooting), the CG dog is not a magic bullet either; Incorrect scene lighting from an improperly calibrated light meter can ruin an entire scene, and require days worth of re-rendering, after possibly even more days of trying to tease out proper light data.  It also means additional equipment and set crew to set up, and more points of failure in production.


The real deal is what I initially stated-- Compliance.  You cannot put the fear of job termination on a dog; It just does not care.  CG workers? Stage hands? actors? Camera people? Oh yes-- You can dominate and control THOSE.  Disney finds this latter very appealing.