John Hench Quotes

When you take something that's inert, and through motion, give it life, make it appear to be alive, living, breathing thinking and having emotions, that's animation. But when you take something that's live-action, and move a part of it, that's a special effect.

I've done some effects shots. I've done some compositing. And in 'Just Like Heaven' did a lot of, like, motion control and things like that. But never done, like, computer-generated imagery in action.

Other effects in the show included models of the ships which were extremely expensive to make. We used to do our shots in front of a blue screen and they'd put the effects on after.

The thing with computer-generated imagery is that it's an incredibly powerful tool for making better visual effects. But I believe in an absolute difference between animation and photography.

Special effects are characters. Special effects are essential elements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Special effects are becoming more and more affordable and looking more and more like the real thing.

ILM was the first company that I had worked at that had a computer-graphics division.

Maybe 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' didn't have a lot of visual effects in it, but most movies have some sort of visual effects.

I wish they taught green screen acting classes.

Yes, actually. Animation's a very easy thing to watch on tour.

The nature of motion capture is only going to work for certain films. It's not going to put any other type of movies out of business.

I've always been into visual effects. It was something I took keen interest in before films happened. Ironically, I am a part of 'Raaz 3,' a film that is shot entirely on 3D. It has encouraged me to pursue my dream. Hopefully, if time permits, I will travel to the United States and attend a crash course in visual graphics and animation.

I'm not a big fan of visual effects.

Obviously, CGI in the last ten years has gone through such leaps and bounds that today, people are looking for these kinds of movies to wow audiences with technology.

Clearly, if we'd had the kind of computer graphics capability then that we have now, the Star Gate sequence would be much more complex than flat planes of light and color.

Polar Express is not an attempt to do animation. It is a technology-based film.

I don't like camera trickery and editing and doubles and all of that.

You've seen how they make movies like Star Wars and stuff. They're never really there. They're in front of a green screen just pretending to be jumping around.

Going from 'Shark Night' to 'Piranha,' a guy holding a fish on a stick in front of you that they're going to replace in post-production, it's a lot different than seeing this animatronic shark that, if you get caught up in the moment, looks, acts and you sometimes think could be real.

I'm of a generation of director that came up understanding special effects.

I wouldn't want to do a whole movie with effects.

MPC, Moving Picture Company, they're really excellent, they did the majority of the effects.

I've always been excited by rotoscoping, the technique used in films like 'Waking Life,' which fuses animation with real-life emotion. It seemed like it was a process ripe for innovation.

'King Kong,' especially the first two acts of it, is a really good example of the use of miniatures mixed with digital characters and how convincing it was.

Unless you're making Marvel movies, I think CGI usually suffers, especially in mid-budget-range horror movies where you see CGI.