The Dark Knight Cgi Thread

[Reflectionist]

or the great plot, btw

Transformers had a plot?

 

[Frank Noir]

Nobody went to see Transformers for the plot anyway...

BIG *****ING ROBOTS, BABY!

That's what we cared about.

 

[Gianakin_]

Big robots that played hide & seek in gardens and pissed people.

 

[Nightmare]

Big robots who were overshadowed by an annoying kid doing lame 1 liner jokes every time he was on camera.

 

[Gianakin_]

Big robots that played second fiddle to bad black people's jokes, that I thought had been forgotten in the 80s.

I feel I'm hijacking the thread. But if it's for a noble reason, then so be it.

 

[Lead_Tester]

CGI is like FIre....Your friend and foe !

Spiderman 3?

 

[ChickenScratch]

http://www.dneg.com/projects/the_bourne_ultimatum_65.html

Yeah, I know.

 

[Jokers_Wild]

Spiderman 3?

Some decent CGI was about the only thing SM3 had going for it.

 

[comic_guy04]

Actually,

1) When crane was gassed that Batman was real (the ooze out of his mouth was CGI)

2) Two face's scarring accident has CGI implements in it (but quick cutting will help that). The rest is prosthetics (i've seen it.) The only thing that may be digitaly over done is a "socket" around his eye and the removal of the ear.

- Jow

well if it's not too much trouble maybe you can describe what his scarring looks like in more detail if you've seen it? I'm personally curious what color it is and how gruesome they can go with it in a PG-13 movie.

 

[Jonathan Crane]

how gruesome they can go with it in a PG-13 movie.

Revenge of the Sith was PG-13, and in my opinion it was pretty strong for that rating:

 

[jmc]

CGI / Speciall effects should compliment the film, not be the film. The best CGI are the ones that don't stand out on purpose and scream 'hey, see how cool this looks!'.

 

[not_a_victim]

Right. Like others here have noted, there's actually a ton of CGI in this film. The difference is, when you see a cityscape shot in Daredevil (for example, not picking on the film), it's mostly paintings and CGI. Cityscapes in Nolan's Batman are based on real city shots, real lighting, and real sets. CGI just fills in the gaps.

Then there are things you couldn't possibly get just right no matter how many times you tried to shoot it - and you know what: It's usually little stuff, not the big stuff. Take blowing up the hospital. Pyrotechnics have gotten to the point where those explosions can look just the way you want them to - BETTER than most CGI work, in fact. So, the best way to blow up a hospital in this film is to actually find a building that can be blown up. But check out Batman's cape in the trailer, just as he's coming down on that white van. Looks like a Neal Adams' drawing, or maybe an Alex Ross painting. Perfect lighting, perfect shape, perfect form. Fake! You'd never get that to happen just right if you shot it. Compare that to, for example, Burton's first Batman film. Batman coming through the skylight. Watch the cape. They did the best they could with it, with wires and so on, but it's just not the same.

Same thing with the Superman films. How does the latest Superman do all those rolls and twists and other maneuvers Chris Reeve could never manage? Yes, some of it is with a completely CGI Superman, but a lot of it is shot essentially the same way Reeve did it. The big difference is that the wires and cables and so on that allow him to fly no longer have to be hidden, as was the case back in the day. Now, they just get CGI'd out. In other words, it's not a CGI'd Superman you're watching so much as it's a CGI'd everything-around-him.

In Batman, because the buildings are (mostly) real and (therefore) utterly convincing, you don't notice that all the 'Chicago' signs are CGI'd out. Because Batman's cape is usually real, you don't notice when, suddenly and for a few moments, it isn't.

That's the right way to use CGI in a film like this, I think. You try not to use it in the obvious and expected ways, by building real sets, using 'real' props (the tumbler, the batpod, etc.), going to real locations, and doing real stunts. Then the CGI can be used to enhance and 'perfect' those real things, instead of replacing them. I think this approach is so important in a film like this one where, after all, you are basically engaged in making a fantasy come to life.

But we saw the raw footage of him landing on the van, and Bale (or whoever) was wearing a real cape. I know it was raw footage, as it still had the descent wires in it.
Am I wrong?

 

[not_a_victim]

Revenge of the Sith was PG-13, and in my opinion it was pretty strong for that rating:

Yeah, with Lucas' disdain of Hollywood, and how he is considered to be an outsider, how in the world did he kiss enough butt to get it rated PG-13? That has bothered me for two years now.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Non-CGI is a thumbs up for me, I Am Legend is definetly a great example of how terrible overdone CGI can ruin a film, it made me hate that movie. Id rather have an old fashioned "blow-em up" action styled film without layers of fake looking cities etc.

 

[Jonathan Crane]

But check out Batman's cape in the trailer, just as he's coming down on that white van. Looks like a Neal Adams' drawing, or maybe an Alex Ross painting. Perfect lighting, perfect shape, perfect form. Fake!

It's real. Did you see leaked pictures?

 

[not_a_victim]

It's real. Did you see leaked pictures?

I said the same thing, just a few posts up.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Just wanted to know your opinions about the lack of CGI in the BB and TDK.

my opinion is that there is NOT a lack of CGI, but a lack of OBVIOUS CGI. i love how Nolan approaches special effects because it's basically how ALL directors should approach effects. unless you're working on a fantasy film that requires totally unrealistic imagery, CGI should never be used in place of something that can be done practically. as many people have already stated, the human vampires in I Am Legend are a great example of unnecessary CGI.

 

[Jonathan Crane]

I said the same thing, just a few posts up.

[SIZE=-1]Now we're two.


[/SIZE]

 

[metalhead971]

Yeah, with Lucas' disdain of Hollywood, and how he is considered to be an outsider, how in the world did he kiss enough butt to get it rated PG-13? That has bothered me for two years now.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's cuz of 1) No blood (lightsabers automatically cauterize the wounds), 2) No curse words, and 3) No sex. Apparently you can do whatever the hell you want with a movie and not get an R rating if it doesn't have those 3 things.

 

[metalhead971]

Dang, sorry, double post.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

If I had to guess, I'd say it's cuz of 1) No blood (lightsabers automatically cauterize the wounds), 2) No curse words, and 3) No sex. Apparently you can do whatever the hell you want with a movie and not get an R rating if it doesn't have those 3 things.

Or to be more specific, no gore, no 4-letter words, and no topless women or frontal nudity. I believe you can still have blood, "ass" "*****" "god-damn" and a butt crack in a PG 13.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Or to be more specific, no gore, no 4-letter words, and no topless women or frontal nudity. I believe you can still have blood, "ass" "*****" "god-damn" and a butt crack in a PG 13.

Wow, B**** got censored, thats funny =) t:

 

[jtfaria]

double post, sorry.

 

[jtfaria]

It's real. Did you see leaked pictures?

Yes. I believe you are talking about one image in which he is in mid-air hanging from a wire. The roof of the van is barely visible at the bottom.

Take a close look at the cape. They did a good job with it, articulating the scallops, if you will, at the bottom that Batman's cape is known for. I now think the CGI artists did not entirely re-create the cape, because the frames in the trailer show a shape very similar to what the leaked image shows.

But note how some of the ridges in that picture, especially at our far left, stick out a bit awkwardly (due to the wires inside giving it shape, like an umbrella). Also note the light picked up in the cape at the far right.

Keep the pic on your screen if you can, but now go to the trailer, and slowly play the few frames where Batman lands on that van. Look how smooth and flowing the ridges are. Note that the parts that stick way out are not so apparent, and that the light on the right side is gone. (As of course is the wire Batman came down on, but you expected that.)

They did some subtle stuff to 'help' what they filmed, but I no longer think it's an all-CGI replacement cape in this shot. You're right.

But there are some things I'm not sure of, mainly the cape as he hits the van. Look how nicely it breaks down, acting like cloth again (presumably, as per the cape's explanation, Batman has turned off the current and the cape has gone limp). I don't think the actual cape was capable of behaving like that - and certainly not so quickly (remember, it's got rigid wires to give it shape, like an umbrella. It doesn't REALLY use current!). I remember Nolan saying something about the need for CGI segues when the cape either became rigid or became flaccid in Begins. So I suspect that is still the case here. Still, there's more REAL cape action going on here than I originally gave credit for, you're right about that.

 

[metalhead971]

The Dark Knight: more than meets the eye!!!

How's that for a tagline?.....what, it's already taken?.....Transformers???? DAMN!