Gravity

[Electrofarce]

There is nothing wrong with CGI. CGI is a great tool when you're trying to do something that is impossible to film. When you can do something old-school, its much better to it that way. Because most of the times CGI looks like CGI. Space movies can be made with very little CGI, just look at 2001 as an example. It was necassary for Avatar because of all the blue people and the monsters and creatures etc. Im not sure exactly what the CGI herer will go but hopefully for something necassary.

I wonder who will now play the lead role. Im almost expecting Marion Cotillard to be cast.

Well there are gonna be a ton of satellites and space sations blowing up. It also takes place in the future and they have to create a giant space station and everybody is in zero-g which in scenes from movies like Avatar and Inception they had to make a completely digital world around floating actors. Not to mention making Earth and who knows what other planets look realistic. I can definately see the practicality of this being 60% CG

 

[CBGB]

Even though Avatar didn't have a fantastic story, I absolutely loved it.

Plus, the director doesn't make the visual effects, he leaves it up to a vfx company so there is no reason why CGI would ruin a film. If anything it should lend more realism to the film.

Which is cool, at least you can admit that it had a sub-par story. The characters though, But that's a different story.

In terms of the CGI, it is the studio's money and James Cameron gets the final say in everything. In my opinion no matter how realistic it may be, CGI is CGI, and it can never replace the real thing. The only times I find CGI effective is in a Pixar film. Because they have a great story, with interesting and well rounded characters.

 

[Electrofarce]

Which is cool, at least you can admit that it had a sub-par story. The characters though, But that's a different story.

In terms of the CGI, it is the studio's money and James Cameron gets the final say in everything. In my opinion no matter how realistic it may be, CGI is CGI, and it can never replace the real thing. The only times I find CGI effective is in a Pixar film. Because they have a great story, with interesting and well rounded characters.

Well, I can't change your opinion, but I will respect it.

Personally I find CGI is best used in live-action films because they can make something unimaginable look real (when enough money is put into them). And if a film has bad CGI than no one cares about the story they just complain about the effects and that goes both ways.

I have much more faith in this guy (as oppose to Cameron, even though Avatar turned out great) to deliver a more contemperary and realistic blockbuster.

 

[jmc]

Alfonso Cuarón - enough said.

 

[Crook]

It's f'n Cuaron, how the hell are you guys even questioning if he'll use CGI responsibly?

 

[Dark Victory]

The use of CGI in Children of Men was pretty ****ing impressive. I can see how some are put off by the fact that the film will rely heavily on CGI, but if it's anything like Sunshine, then I'm all for it.

 

[HULK (banned)]

AMAZING!

 

[FamilyGuy827]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/06/16...unding-sci-fi-thriller-gravity/#ixzz0r5Ssid00

First up, this is not Gravity as in the Alfonso Cuarón 3D sci-fi space thriller that will have an insane opening shot.
No, this is an altogether different film called Gravity. This one has been described as ‘The Day After Tomorrow meets Taken,’ and Clash of the Titans and The Incredible Hulk director Louis Leterrier is now attached to direct.
Pajiba has the news, explaining that the film is about ” a father who has to search for his lost child as the world stops spinning and Earth begins to lose its gravity.” This is an in-development situation, so we’re not likely to hear anything too firm about it yet, and when we do hear more, in all likelihood the film will have a different title. The project is with Mark Gordon Productions and Universal, with George Nolfi (The Adjustment Bureau) reportedly producing.


But let’s go back to that logline, just in case you didn’t properly process it the first time. Gravity is about a father who has to search for his lost child as the world stops spinning and Earth begins to lose its gravity.
Think about that for a second. No gravity. Everyone is starting to float — they all look like they’re in the middle of a street encounter with David Blaine. How utterly insane do most people go? And if there’s a Taken-like aspect to the plot, how do chases happen when there is no gravity? This movie might be the first true action ballet ever to be made.
Also: what stops the Earth spinning? Superman? The lost child? Does the world gradually slow down, so that gravity lessens by degrees over the course of the film? The logline inspires SO MANY QUESTIONS.
This will pretty much have to be in 3D, won’t it? And star Nicolas Cage. Please star Nicolas Cage.

 

[:eek:]

Sounds insanely stupid. I'm not a scientist but isn't it the sheer size of the planet that cause gravity? Would the gravity really disappear if Earth stopped spinning?

But it would be disastrous in other ways. One side would have constant daylight and the other constant night. And that would have a great impact on the temperature

 

[Motown Marvel]

How do you know he won't use CGI ressponsibly.

when a film is 60% CGI....its not being used responsibly. thats using CGI just for the sake of using CGI. its lazy and yields little creativity on behalf of the filmmaker.

This is a scifi film...is it that shocking that it will have a lot of cgi? and how is that a bad thing?

I swear people that complain about this must've been born in the 60s or something. Its 2010...cg is a very practical and useful tool for films that are epic in scope. Why so much aversion towards it?

because it looks like crap.

 

[Kane52630]

when a film is 60% CGI....its not being used responsibly. thats using CGI just for the sake of using CGI. its lazy and yields little creativity on behalf of the filmmaker.

yeah because PIXAR cant do great movies

CGI is CGI, it can be 100% and still make for great stories. Its all in the writing and directing which Alfonso Cuarón is great at doing.

 

[Figs]

Don't get me wrong, I did love Children of Men but it looks like Cuaron is the internet's flavor of the month now...

 

[dark_b]

if its an expensive movie then they wont have a complex story. its that simple. we know how hollywood works. they invest money in movies that will make the money back. if the story is to complicated then the movie doesnt get a big budget. and its nothing worng with that.

 

[Octoberist]

Don't get me wrong, I did love Children of Men but it looks like Cuaron is the internet's flavor of the month now...

I still think he's the best of the three Mexican New Wave Directors. He's the balanced one (especaillly Yu Tu Mama Tambien) where as González Iñárritu tends to be too bleak and while Del Toro is great with fantasy but doesn't know how to hold back (when it comes to the humor in his Hellboy movies. bordering self-indulgent)

 

[Tacit Ronin]

when a film is 60% CGI....its not being used responsibly. thats using CGI just for the sake of using CGI. its lazy and yields little creativity on behalf of the filmmaker.

You haven't seen the film. You can't make empty claims like this.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I'm not big in the science field, but i think iread something once, wouldn't we fall off almost instantaneously if the world fell off? that'll be one short film.

 

[jmc]

if its an expensive movie then they wont have a complex story. its that simple. we know how hollywood works. they invest money in movies that will make the money back. if the story is to complicated then the movie doesnt get a big budget. and its nothing worng with that.

Only Alfonso Cuarón is in charge of this, this will be anything but simple.

 

[Sentinel X]

because it looks like crap.

Avatar, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, King Kong, District 9, Jurassic Park, and many more beg to differ.

Can you imagine if they used practical effects for those movies instead of cgi....it would look atrocious.

 

[luke1234]

if its an expensive movie then they wont have a complex story. its that simple. we know how hollywood works. they invest money in movies that will make the money back. if the story is to complicated then the movie doesnt get a big budget. and its nothing worng with that.

uhh...Inception?

 

[dark_b]

uhh...Inception?

Nolan gave WB TDK numbers.Cuarón didnt. when Inception will not make enough money it will be like always. denial.

 

[luke1234]

Cuaron might not have Nolan's name but he defintely should be given a good amount of free reign on this flick with a hefty budget, especially with RDJ cast. In fact a 20 minute opening shot kind of ensures it.

 

[Kane52630]

yeah he can have a complex story since RDJ is in the cast, he brings in the $$$ and then you add in the CGI effects what will win people over.

 

[luke1234]

yeah he can have a complex story since RDJ is in the cast, he brings in the $$$ and then you add in the CGI effects what will win people over.

yerp, plus i think due to this summer's lackluster box office toll, and pending on how well Inception does, Orginality might be the new Hollywood trend.

 

[dark_b]

Cuaron might not have Nolan's name but he defintely should be given a good amount of free reign on this flick with a hefty budget, especially with RDJ cast. In fact a 20 minute opening shot kind of ensures it.

a 20 minute long shot will make millions at teh BO?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

uhh...Inception?

Forget Inception, TDK itself had a multilayered, interconnected, sprawling story.

Sometimes too much on a first viewing.