Handling The Visual Effects

[batman44]

As the title suggest, who would you like to handle the effects for the film? Personally, I'll like to see Weta Digital.

Edit: Show can you change the title to Who should handle Visual/ CGI effects.

[dark_b]

weta or ILM. both are on the top.
R & H showed that a small company can not handle a big blockbuster.R & H did a good job but not good enough.

[FilmNerdJamie]

If I'm the director of the Superman revival film, I want my Superman to fly on-set as much as possible (i.e. wire, harness, etc.) I realize there are limitations and times when CGI must be used.

But...I have to be able to see him fly using practical effects as long as I can...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

If I'm the director of the Superman revival film, I want my Superman to fly on-set as much as possible (i.e. wire, harness, etc.) I realize there are limitations and times when CGI must be used.

But...I have to be able to see him fly using practical effects as long as I can...

I agree. When it comes to flying the next director should try their hardest not to over use CGI stunt doubles. I totally perfer extensive greenscreen/wire work.

Answer to the question:

I'll go with ILM.

[Deaths Head II]

I think ILM would be the best choice out of the ones I'm familiar with. Though I wouldn't mind Weta. I agree that R&H should not come back. I just didn't like the style of their CGI. If we could get work like the one on the Transformers film, that would be excellent. I know ILM was behind 3/4ths of that.

[batman44]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

If I'm the director of the Superman revival film, I want my Superman to fly on-set as much as possible (i.e. wire, harness, etc.) I realize there are limitations and times when CGI must be used.

But...I have to be able to see him fly using practical effects as long as I can...

I agree. That was a small problem I had with SR, alittle too much CGI.

ILM is also a great choice.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Originally Posted by batman44

As the title suggest, who would you like to handle the effects for the film?

Having worn both hats myself...

As a director, I'd say whoever sees eye-to-eye visually with what I want for the film.

As a producer, I'd say whoever is the cheapest.

[SuperDaniel]

Not the company who did the effects of SR. That CG was one the worst i've ever seen.It's a shame that some flying shots from 30 years ago looks better than 2006.

[Ishmayl]

Pixar

[superadam87]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

If I'm the director of the Superman revival film, I want my Superman to fly on-set as much as possible (i.e. wire, harness, etc.) I realize there are limitations and times when CGI must be used.

But...I have to be able to see him fly using practical effects as long as I can...

Completely 100% agree! That's what made the Donner film so believable. Chris Reeve did practical flying.

In "Superman Returns," we got way too much CGI.

It's only believable if the person really does it.
Push the wire work, harness, etc as far as humanly possible. IF you have to rely on CGI, then go for it. But keep it to a minimum.

And I choose INDUSTRIAL LIGHT & MAGIC.

[Michael Corleone]

Weta is my number one choice, but there has to be a working relationship. Weta seems to have a good reputation for that kind of relationship though.

[Crook]

I'll be baffled if ILM or WETA don't get the job this time around. I'll be even more baffled if Sony gets it again.

[Michael Corleone]

Originally Posted by Crook

I'll be baffled if ILM or WETA don't get the job this time around. I'll be even more baffled if Sony gets it again.

I don't think Sony did a bad job. The problem is the director has to be hands on with some of the work. I don't feel that Singer had the vision to see what could be done and asked for it to be used in unnecessary ways.

[Dark_Lord]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

I agree. When it comes to flying the next director should try their hardest not to over use CGI stunt doubles. I totally perfer extensive greenscreen/wire work.

Answer to the question:

I'll go with ILM.

I agree as well. Whenever it's possible greenscreen/wire work would be better. I'd go with ILM too.

[bunk]

I'd like to actually see Superman take off from the ground and fly up into the sky. The taking off and landing in SR was kind of lame.

[Crook]

Originally Posted by Michael Corleone

I don't think Sony did a bad job. The problem is the director has to be hands on with some of the work. I don't feel that Singer had the vision to see what could be done and asked for it to be used in unnecessary ways.

Sure, it's Singer's fault as well. But Sony still did subpar work compared to what it's main competitors would have done.

Originally Posted by bunk

I'd like to actually see Superman take off from the ground and fly up into the sky. The taking off and landing in SR was kind of lame.

Yes, it's about time we get one continuous shot of that. No lame edits to cover it up.

[Michael Corleone]

Originally Posted by Crook

Sure, it's Singer's fault as well. But Sony still did subpar work compared to what it's main competitors would have done.

I have to disagree. Sony's work was far from subpar. It was the sequence and design of the shots that were uninspired. The plane sequence alone was top notch.

[BMM]

Originally Posted by dark_b

weta or ILM. both are on the top.
R & H showed that a small company can not handle a big blockbuster.R & H did a good job but not good enough.

??? Rythym and Hues only contributed 114 shots out of the 1,000+ partioned to other studios. Moreover, R&H contributed some of the nicest--Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El hologram, Luthor's yacht, crystal growth, and the sea rescue. I have yet to see a complaint about any of those.

If anything, Sony Pictures Imageworks contributed the most complained about shots of the movie (CG Superman)... then again, it also contributed the most praised (777 shuttle sequence).

I would like to see a combination of talented studios, including Cinesite, Digital Domain, ILM, Rhythm and Hues, or Weta among others.

[Crook]

Originally Posted by Michael Corleone

I have to disagree. Sony's work was far from subpar. It was the sequence and design of the shots that were uninspired. The plane sequence alone was top notch.

I was referring to the very plastic-looking Superman cgi double.

Originally Posted by BMM

??? Rythym and Hues only contributed 114 shots out of the 1,000+ partioned to other studios. Moreover, R&H contributed some of the nicest--Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El hologram, Luthor's yacht, crystal growth, and the sea rescue. I have yet to see a complaint about any of those.

He was referring to R&H's work on TIH. That is why he's making the comparison of a small company doing a big budget film.

If anything, Sony Pictures Imageworks contributed the most complained about shots of the movie (CG Superman)... then again, it also contributed the most praised (777 shuttle sequence).

I would like to see a combination of talented studios, including Cinesite, Digital Domain, ILM, Rhythm and Hues, or Weta among others.

I'm pretty sure most cgi films use more than one studio to do the effects. The thing is though most of the third party companies are working on the small things like wire removals and subtle touch-ups.

Ideally, only one studio should work on the very big effects for a film. You mix up studios and you (likely) run the risk of varying cgi inconsistencies.

[Deaths Head II]

Originally Posted by superadam87

Completely 100% agree! That's what made the Donner film so believable. Chris Reeve did practical flying.

In "Superman Returns," we got way too much CGI.

One quality I think the old Donnor films still have over most Superhero films is that it the film felt more grounded in reality since the characters don't morph into CGI people every five minutes. That's how that film convinced me a man could fly. Every film spams CGI so I won't cry if they won't do it, but it would make the film feel a lot more distinct.

Originally Posted by Michael Corleone

I have to disagree. Sony's work was far from subpar. It was the sequence and design of the shots that were uninspired. The plane sequence alone was top notch.

Out of curiousity, was the S on the back of the cape unallowed simply because no modern CGI could keep it from becoming a blob or simply because the CGI crew on Superman Returns couldn't do it?

[BMM]

Originally Posted by Crook

He was referring to R&H's work on TIH. That is why he's making the comparison of a small company doing a big budget film.

That makes more sense. Still, I wouldn't exclude their contribution based on The Incredible Hulk. Every effects company puts forth questionable work at some point. If Rhythm and Hues, or similar studios, are to be involved, I would prefer they put forth the same number and kinds of shots as Rhythm and Hues did in Superman Returns rather than The Incredible Hulk.

[Michael Corleone]

Originally Posted by Crook

I was referring to the very plastic-looking Superman cgi double.

I understand. I'm saying that while it looked rubbery and had flaws compared to a real person, the work was not sub par. That's probably some of the best double work I've seen considering it had to stand up to a close up shot. Digital doubles didn't really get any better than that at the time. Right now, things are improving at an exponential rate, so anything now will look better. As it stands right now, that type of digital recreation is about as difficult as it gets the in the effects world. There is new software being written and new techniques being thought up monthly.

Sony isn't my favorite effects house, but I doubt anyone could have done that shot any better given the way it was blocked out in the script and storyboards. In the end, it was probably a bad idea to do a double. Green screen combined with some computer controlled camera work would have been more convincing as well as possibly more economical, of course that would depend on what facilities were available. In the end that was a result of decisions made by people other than the animators and artists. They delivered great work for what they were asked to do.

[solidsnake86]

With far away shots they can get away with a digital double. SR had some great scenes and some very poor scenes. I remember reading that they convinced singer to use the digital double in some sequences so I would say that we need a director who is stubborn into not giving in to putting more CGI shots. Some of the best shots in SR were done with routh like that clip of him flying to the plane. We need more of those shots.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by BMM

??? Rythym and Hues only contributed 114 shots out of the 1,000+ partioned to other studios. Moreover, R&H contributed some of the nicest--Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El hologram, Luthor's yacht, crystal growth, and the sea rescue. I have yet to see a complaint about any of those.

If anything, Sony Pictures Imageworks contributed the most complained about shots of the movie (CG Superman)... then again, it also contributed the most praised (777 shuttle sequence).

I would like to see a combination of talented studios, including Cinesite, Digital Domain, ILM, Rhythm and Hues, or Weta among others.

i was talking about TIH.

[CGHulk]

I want ILM on the reboot. The landings and takeoffs to be the actor not a fake looking CG double, like Sony Imagework did. I truely believe ILM would deliver a photorealistic CG double if they are on the reboot! I want less CG double if it can be shot practically. Like in Superman Returns the digital double was used when they could have and should have just shot Brandon landing and panning and taking off in the rig.