The Dark Knight Digital Dent!

[Figs]

definitely, but if you've ever seen pan's labyrinth, it was some of the better cgi i've seen as far as applying directly to a person. when the guy was sewing up his cheek, it looked so good. i mean, i've never seen perfect cgi, i can almost always tell when something is cgi, but this was VERY good cgi.

Totally forgot about that! That's a damn good example. I'll be happy if it's on that level, and that was a semi low budget independent film as well.

 

[Luchastyle]

Totally forgot about that! That's a damn good example. I'll be happy if it's on that level, and that was a semi low budget independent film as well.

yes indeed, TDK has all the ability to use top of the line cg enhancement for these two characters, and while people continuously state that nolan is against having a cg heavy film, you have to realize that the entire gotham landscape in BB was enhanced with various CGI. so he's not against cgi. he just only wants to use it when necessary, and if joker has completely cut cheeks, and two-face has an exposed eye and teeth, cg may very well be the only option that would make it look plausible.

as a sidenote, if two-face's eye were exposed, would he be continuously applying eyedrops to it? i think that would be a nice little touch, because realistically, he would have to use eyedrops because he has no eyelid to apply moisture to his exposed eye.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'm actually beginning to warm to the Gotham Central look, suprisingly. He wouldn't be 'scarred' or looking like the top layer of his face is missing; but rather the skins just become pruned, rough, hardened or something like that, with slight discolouration. He just looks really damn ugly, with of course the bulging eye and curled lip. It's not as realistic of course but it may look more unique and/or a better visual for the character and the overall movie, depending on how it all turns out.

Completely agree.

 

[Figs]

yes indeed, TDK has all the ability to use top of the line cg enhancement for these two characters, and while people continuously state that nolan is against having a cg heavy film, you have to realize that the entire gotham landscape in BB was enhanced with various CGI. so he's not against cgi. he just only wants to use it when necessary, and if joker has completely cut cheeks, and two-face has an exposed eye and teeth, cg may very well be the only option that would make it look plausible.

as a sidenote, if two-face's eye were exposed, would he be continuously applying eyedrops to it? i think that would be a nice little touch, because realistically, he would have to use eyedrops because he has no eyelid to apply moisture to his exposed eye.

I like the look with the exposed eyeball and teeth, but the eyedrops idea I wouldn't like. It would seem kinda silly, maybe realistic but silly at the same time. That's just me though.

 

[Luchastyle]

I like the look with the exposed eyeball and teeth, but the eyedrops idea I wouldn't like. It would seem kinda silly, maybe realistic but silly at the same time. That's just me though.

yeah i think it's silly to. i think it's a nice little humorous and human element to add to the character. he may be insane now, but he still can't ignore his itchy dry eye. maybe the harvey side's hand applies the drop to the two-face side.

 

[KOLLUS]

quick off-topic question, I remember Harv having a crush on Montoya, but did anything ever come of it in the comics?

i think it was unrequited, on her side too.
they made her a lesbian shortly thereafter.

 

[Jacobhiggins]

The pirates of the caribean special effects were amazing and you couldn't even tell there faces were cgi, it just looked so damn real, so I don't think there's gonna be a problem at all!

 

[AdmNelson]

definitely, but if you've ever seen pan's labyrinth, it was some of the better cgi i've seen as far as applying directly to a person. when the guy was sewing up his cheek, it looked so good. i mean, i've never seen perfect cgi, i can almost always tell when something is cgi, but this was VERY good cgi.

You may be able to tell when an obvious CGI effect is, indeed, a digital effect (like, I don't think the actor in Pan's Labyrinth was willing to actually get his cheek slashed with a knife and then sew it up on-camera... so it's gotta be an effect) -- but there are huge numbers of CG effects in many films that are utterly invisible. You don't notice them because they're not "out of the ordinary" at all.

One little example: in "Batman Begins," did you realize the mountain background behind the Lear Jet (that Bruce walks up to after he escapes from the monastery) weren't really there? The plane was shot on a runway in England, with a different background added seamlessly. There are TONS of shots like this in many films that no one would recognize as CG shots.

I do CG animation for a living, and even I'm astonished sometimes to find out about shots in films that weren't completely "real."

-- Admiral Nelson

 

[Mr. Socko]

I didn't know the bats in Begins were CG until I got the DVD.

 

[Luchastyle]

You may be able to tell when an obvious CGI effect is, indeed, a digital effect (like, I don't think the actor in Pan's Labyrinth was willing to actually get his cheek slashed with a knife and then sew it up on-camera... so it's gotta be an effect) -- but there are huge numbers of CG effects in many films that are utterly invisible. You don't notice them because they're not "out of the ordinary" at all.

One little example: in "Batman Begins," did you realize the mountain background behind the Lear Jet (that Bruce walks up to after he escapes from the monastery) weren't really there? The plane was shot on a runway in England, with a different background added seamlessly. There are TONS of shots like this in many films that no one would recognize as CG shots.

I do CG animation for a living, and even I'm astonished sometimes to find out about shots in films that weren't completely "real."

-- Admiral Nelson

yeah i know that, i also mentioned earlier about how a lot of the cityscape of gotham was cg and i didn't realize it until i heard it. enhancement cg is quite often very good. i was basically speaking about things applied to actors or things that interact with live action material. for example, the baby in children of men. that was very good work and a lot of people didn't realize it was cg, but i could see that it was because, i don't know it's hard to explain, and shiny isn't the right word, but a lot of times cgi just looks shiny somehow, the lighting isn't quite perfect with the rest of the scene, or the texture is a little off from something that's real. but, yes as far as the mountains in BB or things of that nature, landscapes especially and other things that don't move, can be virtually flawless. i hate when people rely on cgi, but when it's used right, i love it.

 

[regwec]

If this is right, then I expect it is for the reason that the source guessed: teeth showing through the cheek. Much can be done with makeup, but I doubt that a cheek can be made to disappear.

 

[Mysterio]

You may be able to tell when an obvious CGI effect is, indeed, a digital effect (like, I don't think the actor in Pan's Labyrinth was willing to actually get his cheek slashed with a knife and then sew it up on-camera... so it's gotta be an effect) -- but there are huge numbers of CG effects in many films that are utterly invisible. You don't notice them because they're not "out of the ordinary" at all.

One little example: in "Batman Begins," did you realize the mountain background behind the Lear Jet (that Bruce walks up to after he escapes from the monastery) weren't really there? The plane was shot on a runway in England, with a different background added seamlessly. There are TONS of shots like this in many films that no one would recognize as CG shots.

I do CG animation for a living, and even I'm astonished sometimes to find out about shots in films that weren't completely "real."

-- Admiral Nelson

i wish i could find it, but i found an awesome promotional video from a company that does CG and greenscreen work. a lot of it was background stuff, topographic, environmental stuff like your example. really, really cool. i pasted it in a thread somewhere on SHH but i don't remember where

 

[Fanticon]

maybe the effects will only be for the moment his face gets splashed with acid. but then again i can see it more for the little details as well...filling in things that prosthetic make-up won't be able to pull off on film.

 

[explode7]

They dont need to use CGI for 2 face's face they can use something else called creature effects which WETA does perfectly (King Kong) where they actually molded the face like a sculpture and then animated it. Dont know how that will work for 2 face though.

 

[Superman45]

this was something I made. I think they could pull eckart's lips up and cover it with make-up. the eye could either be practicle or cgi. I don't think it should move because its a dead eye. The cheek bone is all I see as having to be cgi

 

[GUNSLINGER]

this was something I made. I think they could pull eckart's lips up and cover it with make-up. the eye could either be practicle or cgi. I don't think it should move because its a dead eye. The cheek bone is all I see as having to be cgi

good job!!! thats about what i am picturing in my head.

 

[requiett]

I can't believe no one mentioned Dorkyfresh's awesome manip:

 

[Mr. Socko]

^Always loved that one. But CG wouldn't be needed for something like that.

Don't know what they have planned.

 

[Dvhyzs]

^Always loved that one. But CG wouldn't be needed for something like that.

Don't know what they have planned.

Probably pretty close, but i can assume they are removing some of his mouth with CGI.

 

[batman44]

^^^^Good job Superman45. I'm thinking we may get something along those lines.

 

[gwynplaine]

Maybe Capitain Benjamin Daimio of the BRPD would an interesting source of inspiration for Dent. His teeth are really showing and he's pretty scary looking.

 

[gwynplaine]