The Source Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Do you believe that blue/green screen backdrops take away from natural acting? A lot of movies today use blue/green screen backdrops, so they can composite backgrounds through a digital process. Episodes I, II, and III were drentched in this process. As the actors reacted to their surroundings, I felt like they did not hit natural emotional notes. When I mean backdrops, I am talking about the entire set in green and blue. I am not talking about the sets that contained actual props mixed with blue and green backdrops. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 While I have done very little acting, and none in front of a blue/greenscreen, I think it is harder to act in front of the screen and make it look really natural. It's easier to stay in character if you have a good set surrounding you helping with the effect. However, in movie acting, once you look just off the set, you have a zillion people, cameras, lights, etc, which doesn't add to the ambiance of the scene whatsoever. Good actors are able to work around those limitations and keep up the emotional notes--I didn't feel like Liam Neeson was having problems acting Qui-gon Jinn, he just didn't have much opportunity in the script to do anything terribly emotional. I think some of the acting issues were as much a reflection of the directing and script limitations as they were the actors themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I don't mind the blue/green screens because even if the acting does suffer, the special effects make up for them IMO. Though I don't think the acting really takes too much of a blow, I think most movies I have seen that use bluescreen still have pretty good acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Nope...not a bit. I think the blue screen helped a bit. Especially with the special effects. Plus in the Star Wars Saga only about hlf of it was in space and practically non-existent places possible to the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 **** no. That's retarded. These people make a living by suspending belief. What difference does the background make? Do you think people on Broadway are somehow cheating the audience? Those backgrounds are fake too. The answer, is dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 An interesting question. The acting in the prequels was definitely not as good as in the originals, despite the special effects. But in my opnion, it's probably just a coincidence. So, no. Backdrops do not take away from natural acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Maybe. It's harder for them to act, maybe because there's no physical scene behind them but I think that it's only a question of competence of the actor. If he's good, he should be able to pull it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 I think special effects take away from acting. I have to concure that blue screen acting is a difficult task, but it is possible to make a good performance. I think it was Liam Neeson had metioned that he thought it was necessay for stage sets and props. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurora Merlow Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 i think it does take away from acting because you need to be able to see physical props or things happening to be able to give a valid reaction. I'm not saying i have a problem with it because most of the time the special effects makes up for it, but i do think it takes a little bit away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 **** no. That's retarded. These people make a living by suspending belief. What difference does the background make? Do you think people on Broadway are somehow cheating the audience? Those backgrounds are fake too. The answer, is dumbass. There is a differentiation though Cap. I think it is different for film actors compared to other things they have done in film. You always hear actors mentioning it in interviews... "it's a bit hard sometimes, we had to imagine we were on a battlefield facing 10,000 orcs, not a wooden set in front of green screen on a cloudy day in new Zealand" Comparing it to a theatrical performance isnt really valid, as theatrical acting is just *worlds* different from film acting. In film there are the benefits of mics, retakes, reshoots, ADL to fix your dialogue, close ups, etc. Theater is a different bag. There's some stage direction involved, physical gestures are often exaggerated and good actors can project their voices all the way to the cheap seats The sets are their for the benefit of the audience's imagination only. Ive watched Macbeth by the Royal Shakespeare Company with Dame Jedi Dench and they were all wearing black with an entirely black background... Dame Judi's Lady Macbeth was just damn chilling... I saw the same play withe same actors on video, and it just wasnt the same So going back to the original question... I dont think it takes anything away necessarily, just creates a new set of challenges for the actor. If you think about it, films that have alot of green screen are usually sci-fi/action/fantasy pieces, where you dont really pay much attention to the quality of the acting anyway, not as much as if you were watching a lo-tech drama or even a thriller. mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char Ell Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I think the green screen acting requirements of films with a large number of digitally added effects are something actors have to adjust to. There are probably some actors that are better at it than others but I don't think it inhibits natural acting. The actors involved just have to learn to apply a little more imagination, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 If I were there I would have been certainly distracted, because it does feel hard to imagine a blank blue sheet is a horny Twi'Lek. But then again it only tests the skills of that actor. If he's good enough, he'll get through, but if he does get distracted, you've probably wasted a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kensai Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 The baccdrop defines the mood not the acting, if an actor/tress is talented enough it will be done without being marred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I disagree, Mac. Actually, I think someone who can elicit an emotional response without being able to see or interact with the set is a better actor because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleDog Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Before films came along acting in plays was done with very few props, if you were going to sit down you had a chair, if you were in a bedroom you had a bed etc. Lucas however took it a little too far and gave the actors no props in some cases. So not really but in extreme cases yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Maker Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 From natural acting? I wouldn't know because I am not an actor. From natural feeling? If done sloppy heck yes, some of the backgrounds and scenes in the prequels were good enough for CGI to come off as real (in my opinion) but other parts just make it feel slapped together and the director didn't want to spend money on the real thing. Which is understandable but when you make 85% of your film(s) *cough* Georgre Lucas *cough* it starts to feel redundant, it makes the audience feel like you didn't want to give them the most realistic feel possible, and when you are making a 2 1/2 hour film the actors begin to feel... how shall we say, abstract. And it shows in the CGI scenes in Ep I & II, even though the acting was bad already yes, the CGI just made or more difficult for the actors (or so it seemed to me) to give off a believable perfromance. But if done correctly and blended properly between real things and screens then I think it can work. But George Lucas (again, IMO) relied too much on the fact that he had super uber mega ultra flashy effects to make-up for the fact that the first two prequel's acting sucked. :/ I mean its ironic in a way, he came up with the quote (a long time ago if any of you remember) "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Q'ol Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I disagree, Mac. Actually, I think someone who can elicit an emotional response without being able to see or interact with the set is a better actor because of it. Said it better than I could. My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I don't see a difference because it's been my experience that the good actors know how to elicit the desired emotions even with limited stageprops like the blue and green screen. So in a sense, I agree with The Doctor. The better actor can visually see what is before him and can respond to it accordingly. You can see it when they play those characters hard to forget like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. My mom gets a kick when I imitate him because he played the part of a bada$$ Colonel so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.