Is clarity in action a bad thing?
👁 15
https://blenderdumbass.org/ : 👁 2
https://blenderdumbass.org/comment?url=articles%2Fis_clarity_in_action_a_bad_thing_&warning=&text=%3E+Think+about+it.+It+should+be+a+high+intensity+moment+of+incredible+tension.+Yet+the+shots+are+so+calm+and+so+precise+that+you+don%27t+feel+anything+at+all.+You+don%27t+know+what+to+feel.+You+notice+small+rendering+errors+from+overworked+and+underpayed+artists.+And+your+brain+comes+to+a+conclusion+that+it+must+be+CGI.+%0D%0A%0D%0AA+movie+where+execution+was+so+good%2C+even+though+the+special+effects+were+pretty+low-budget+was+%5BGodzilla%5D%28https%3A%2F%2Fblenderdumbass.org%2Freviews%2Fgodzilla__1954__is_a_choir_of_destruction_and_loss%29.+I+remember+getting+so+engrossed+in+the+moment%2C+the+epic+scale+of+destruction+that+I+totally+forgot+it+was+just+some+man+walking+around+a+miniature+city. : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/2d_compositing_for_vfx_explained : 👁 2
https://blenderdumbass.org/blender_articles : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
by Blender Dumbass
Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".
I often hear how good action film-making is always clear and easy to follow. Camera isn't shaking like crazy and editing isn't filled with ADHD mania. Yet the more I think about it the less this makes sense. ↩ Reply
For example, take the bridge scene from David F. Sandberg's film Shazam! 2. The direction of the scene is very clear. The shots are long and smooth. Every box in an internet guide for a "good action scene" is ticked. And yet you have this: ↩ Reply
Link to the clip of this scene. ↩ Reply
![[embedded image]](/pictures/user_upload/blenderdumbass/action_clarity_fake_cars.png "Extremely Fake looking CGI cars")
Look at these cars. On paper everything about them is correct. In closeup shots you can see that the cars are modeled well and textured to the standards. They have the surface imperfection maps and everything. The animation is solid. Yet watching this sequence makes you feel that the cars are very, very CGI. ↩ Reply
Shazam! 2 had a reported budget of something between 110 to 125 million dollars. They had the money to do this right. And cars are one of the simplest things to render. Video games from the turn of the century had very realistic depictions of cars. Every 3D rendering website or forum will have hundreds of super-realistic car renders. Hell even films like Bad Boys II that were made 2 decades before Shazam! 2 had much better CGI cars. ↩ Reply
![[embedded image]](/pictures/user_upload/blenderdumbass/cgi_ferrari_bad_boys2.png "CGI Ferrari Bad Boys 2")
Believe it or not, this is a CGI Ferrari. And that is a movie from 2003. ↩ Reply
I think the clarity is to blame. ↩ Reply
Think about it. It should be a high intensity moment of incredible tension. Yet the shots are so calm and so precise that you don't feel anything at all. You don't know what to feel. You notice small rendering errors from overworked and underpayed artists. And your brain comes to a conclusion that it must be CGI. c:0 ↩ Reply
![[embedded image]](/pictures/user_upload/blenderdumbass/lucy_chase_CGI_cars.png "Lucy 2014 traffic")
Take for example Lucy from 2014, by Luc Besson. It has a chase scene which has a lot of clearly CGI cars. It was made a decade after Bad Boys II and a decade before Shazam! 2. Yet the cars look ( on a technical level ) worse than in both of those films. Still though, watch the scene in motion... ↩ Reply
Link to the clip of the scene ↩ Reply
... and the direction of Besson is so fucking good that the CGI-ness of the cars could not bother you less. You almost don't even notice it. The scene fucking rules. And while Besson could have made a slow, readable action scene. It would not have made you feel the speed and the anxiety of the moment. ↩ Reply
I think this is how Michael Bay does it too. He can pull off invisible CGI work in 2004, or groundbreaking CGI work in 2007. Or push the whole industry forward while nobody else ( pretty much ) can replicate it, because he prioritizes Adrenalin. Because he wants the audience to feel the scene more than to understand it. ↩ Reply
Happy Hacking!!! ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
![[avatar]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/55NKGQKE7IRKMLHV.png)
Troler
c:0 January 12, 2026 Think about it. It should be a high intensity moment of incredible tension. Yet the shots are so calm and so precise that you don't feel anything at all. You don't know what to feel. You notice small rendering errors from overworked and underpayed artists. And your brain comes to a conclusion that it must be CGI.
⤴ ViewA movie where execution was so good, even though the special effects were pretty low-budget was Godzilla. I remember getting so engrossed in the moment, the epic scale of destruction that I totally forgot it was just some man walking around a miniature city.
Troler
c:1 January 12, 2026On unrelated but somewhat related note, in Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon (2003) there were talking cat characters. The problem with having cats in a TV series:
1. They're cats, making them do anything you want is 10x harder than with dogs;
2. They don't talk.
Instead the director went with a more creative approach, what if the cats were plushies. And it worked! Watching the show, I was engrosed in the talking plushies. The only means they formulated the emotions visually was by changing the eyes. Do you need anything else?
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/vfx_honda.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/vfx_honda_2.png)