PDA

View Full Version : Bad animation spotted: SANCTUARY



Dexter2999
04-16-2011, 10:51 AM
Got home from work last night and checked the DVR to see what was recorded. SANCTUARY has started it's new season so I clicked play.

Now I am aware that the effects for the show aren't "top notch" and I am usually somewhat forgiving because honestly they are better than I can do. But one shot in particular stood out because it was a fundamental skill and it was awful, a walk cycle.

It was some sort of creature walking down the hall and the camera is following him. Then the camera panns around to reveal the stars of the show walking in the opposite direction. The creature waves as it passes them.

The creature looked good as a model. The tracking of the shot was pretty spot on. The compositing was good. But I swear they totally screwed the pooch on that walk cycle. Made me angry to think of so much hard work flushed down the toilet for something so basic.

Silkrooster
04-16-2011, 11:21 PM
I usually have fun picking out spots that are bad(not necessariy just graphics either, bad acting, poor writing, not properly identifying the object in their hand, etc.). Something else to do when watching a show I guess.

Its either that or trying to figure out where I have seen an actor before in other shows.

So I guess you could say some of the shows are not holding my attention. lol.

Silkrooster
04-16-2011, 11:23 PM
I haven't seen this weeks show yet. I generally like it, but it is a step down from her role in star gate. I beleive they have less funds for the show. Non the less, I kind of enjoy the story line.

Dexter2999
04-17-2011, 12:36 AM
I like the origin of the series. It was supposed to be a Net series. They got Amanda Tapping because they figured that 100,000 of the Stargate fans would probably pay a buck or two to see her in a show. They were going to shoot the show and market it on iTunes I believe.

The show went quiet for a while. Then it resurfaced as a SciFi network series.
Genesis Division was a similar thing from what I understand. It featured Rosario Dawson. Can't say as I ever saw it, but according to IMDB it was also on SciFi.

colkai
04-17-2011, 05:57 AM
Got to say, I'm in the "forgive it a lot" camp as they do so much on relatively a small budget, (well, small these days ;) ). It was interesting having watched the net series to see it come to SciFi and the changes they made to those first episodes.

Mind you, it's Amanda T., so I'm there anyway. :D

Some of the FX ARE very ropey though, whilst others are great. What confuses me is how sometimes a comp of them walking through a "set" is spot on and other times it is very blatantly a green-screen shot. Mind you, I enjoy the characters and their rapport and having spent many a fun night watching B-Movies, I am far from bothered about crappy FX. :D

Just wish I knew when it was returning to these shores, don't want to miss it!

shrox
04-17-2011, 12:39 PM
Got to say, I'm in the "forgive it a lot" camp as they do so much on relatively a small budget, (well, small these days ;) ). It was interesting having watched the net series to see it come to SciFi and the changes they made to those first episodes.

Mind you, it's Amanda T., so I'm there anyway. :D

Some of the FX ARE very ropey though, whilst others are great. What confuses me is how sometimes a comp of them walking through a "set" is spot on and other times it is very blatantly a green-screen shot. Mind you, I enjoy the characters and their rapport and having spent many a fun night watching B-Movies, I am far from bothered about crappy FX. :D

Just wish I knew when it was returning to these shores, don't want to miss it!

Practically every interior FX shot in the new "V" screamed green screen!

Dexter2999
04-17-2011, 01:19 PM
Practically every interior FX shot in the new "V" screamed green screen!

I don't know how far along I go with that statment. I think there were a number of shots that I thought were well done. But I do have to admit that the bad ones are the ones you notice more and the ones that stick out in your memory for sure.

In that respect effects are like audio, seems like no one notices when it is good. But when things go bad...that's another story.

jeric_synergy
04-17-2011, 01:21 PM
"Sanctuary" is rife w/bad compositing.

Other than that: is it just me, or does every show seem to open in the 2nd act??

Silkrooster
04-17-2011, 10:43 PM
I think larger funds and set would do wonders for the show. I think amanda is was drew me to the show as well.

Imatk
04-20-2011, 11:47 AM
Let's put it this way... when you can spot bad compositing and animation in a feature film you will CERTAINLY be seeing this type of thing happening on a low-budget television series.

The way it works (generally speaking) on a low-budget ep is you have a money shot which most of the money (ironically) goes to and then you have the shots that basically get thrown under the bus.

Either you have less money, less time, or not enough artists to devote to a particular shot so it suffers.

Episodic television has THE TIGHTEST deadlines of ANY production. Commercials have way more budget and time... as do feature films (although feature films are getting pretty damn trim now it seems) so most of these artists are performing quite the miracle on an episodic series when shots look good or great.

jeric_synergy
04-20-2011, 12:27 PM
I think larger funds and set would do wonders for the show.
Better writing would be even more beneficial.

COBRASoft
04-20-2011, 01:48 PM
I donno guys, I expected a lot more from Sanctuary. They should have kept her daughter in the series ;).

jeric_synergy
04-20-2011, 02:49 PM
One thing that tempers my enjoyment is that I seemed to miss the backstory-- I guess that's in the web episodes?

Anyway, IMO if they wanted it to be better, they'd (lightly) introduce issues of economics to the show-- that always grounds a narrative.

Hey, at least it's more fun than "SG: Universe".

Cryonic
04-20-2011, 02:51 PM
"Sanctuary" is rife w/bad compositing.

Other than that: is it just me, or does every show seem to open in the 2nd act??

Not a surprise that they like to bring the audience in by starting In Media Res. The show seems to be a mixture of episodic and story arc episodes. It doesn't help that the actual airtime for an episode has been getting shorter and shorter over the last several decades.

Star Trek: The Original Series - 53+ minutes to each hour
Quantum Leap - 50 minutes to each hour
Sanctuary, House, etc... - barely 40 minutes to each hour

That is a lot more ads being played given the extra amount of time devoted to them and the huge increase in number of channels on which to advertise.

jeric_synergy
04-20-2011, 02:53 PM
Maybe if the FCC had more clout. Like they used to.

Silkrooster
04-21-2011, 10:15 PM
Not a surprise that they like to bring the audience in by starting In Media Res. The show seems to be a mixture of episodic and story arc episodes. It doesn't help that the actual airtime for an episode has been getting shorter and shorter over the last several decades.

Star Trek: The Original Series - 53+ minutes to each hour
Quantum Leap - 50 minutes to each hour
Sanctuary, House, etc... - barely 40 minutes to each hour

That is a lot more ads being played given the extra amount of time devoted to them and the huge increase in number of channels on which to advertise.

Its not just the additional advertising per show, its the number of shows per season that gets shorter as well.
I think the networks and premiums are short on funds or the cost per show is increasing. But I noticed this mostly after the writer's strike. Its like they are afraid of another strike and are saving shows just so they have something to air during the strike.

Cryonic
04-22-2011, 11:53 AM
Its not just the additional advertising per show, its the number of shows per season that gets shorter as well.
I think the networks and premiums are short on funds or the cost per show is increasing. But I noticed this mostly after the writer's strike. Its like they are afraid of another strike and are saving shows just so they have something to air during the strike.

Yes, a lot of shows are now down to 20 - 22 episodes to a season from 24 - 26 episodes. Costs have gone up for a number of reasons (e.g. the Seinfeld actors getting $1mil per episode each or the Friends...). The market gets more diluted the greater the amount of competition, though the big 3 channels are still the biggest movers on TV (ABC, NBC, CBS). This is why a lot of mainstream channels and others have moved to more "reality" shows. They cost a lot less to produce and in some cases can be made to pay for themselves (e.g. the cost to vote for people on American Idol).

The other big problem is the continuing need to run shows as a season. They are using only about 22 episodes to fill a 40 week time period. So they are constantly going on hiatus for weeks at a time, especially from December to the end of the "season" around May.

I wouldn't mind more channels that switched to doing things similar to the BBC. 12 episodes to a season, played without interruption in the weeks and then a new show comes on. Yes, that means 4 shows in that timeslot over the course of the year with 4 weeks of no new programming. But it keeps things fresh and moving... Or do 3 shows in the slot and have 4 months of no new programming scattered through the year to deal with issues of the slow times (summer, December, etc...).

Dexter2999
04-22-2011, 01:38 PM
Anyone else notice that witht he popularity of DVR's that they no longer air the re-runs while in hiatus?

Cryonic
04-22-2011, 02:18 PM
Reairs happen less often and shows come out fairly quickly to iTunes or Hulu (usually within 24 hours). Gives the station an extra source of income (that they don't have to share with the affiliate stations).

Dexter2999
04-22-2011, 02:38 PM
Yes, but it also means they spend more in buying additional content to fill the gap left by not airing re-runs.

Cryonic
04-22-2011, 03:00 PM
I think they are just using syndicated shows to fill the gaps or other specials.