Gravity

[Electrofarce]

Wow, that other Gravity movie sounds stupid as hell. I think there is some confusion here. How can there be two films called Gravity? Either there is confused plots and it's just one film or the titles will be resolved later. They can't have two films called Gravity so close to eachother. This sounds like the problem they had with Avatar & The Last Airbender so one film has to give up the title. Hopefully it's Leterier's film.

 

[luke1234]

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

i dont see why it wouldn't? As long as it keeps a consistent pacing it shouldnt turn off viewers.

 

[luke1234]

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

Sometimes too much on a first viewing.

very true, almost a little overwhelming.

 

[ross2287]

Regarding using CGI properly in sci-fi movies, 2001 is a great example, but a more recent example would be Moon with Sam Rockwell. I think the CGI was handled very well there.

 

[luke1234]

agreed, not to mention the help of well crafted miniatures.

 

[Backdrifter]

alfonso cuaron? YAY! 60% CGI? Boooooo.

Dude, do you know how much CGI was used in Children of Men? Most of it you didn't even notice because it was so seamlessly integrated into the image. Cuaron is one of the few directors who uses special effects in a way that doesn't distract, but enhances the imagery.

 

[Kane52630]

people should really get off the impression of CG being only like GI Joe and Transformers.

 

[Motown Marvel]

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.

im fine with 100% cgi movies. they're not trying to pass themselves off as reality and there is a good consistency to the image. but live action movies that just have an over abundance of CGI for no real good reason, and are attempting to look real when they so clearly do not.....

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

im not passing any final judgements on the film. im forming an opinion based on what i know. trust me, i'd love to be wrong.

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.

most of which had some crappy looking unnecessary CGI.

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

actually, most of the movies could have benefitted from using practical effects combined with CGI enhancements.

Dude, do you know how much CGI was used in Children of Men? Most of it you didn't even notice because it was so seamlessly integrated into the image. Cuaron is one of the few directors who uses special effects in a way that doesn't distract, but enhances the imagery.

im not entirely familiar with all of the CGI in Children of Men, but clearly it was utilized well. i agree that CGI should go unnoticed while enhancing the image. my problem is: more often than not, that isnt the case. and im growing tired of it in films. and im finding it hard to believe that a 60% CGI movie could maintain such subtlety.

 

[Sentinel X]

most of which had some crappy looking unnecessary CGI.

This where I think either you're lying, extremely biased, or I just can't take your opinion seriously. Maybe you didn't think the effects were as good as people said they were...but crappy?

actually, most of the movies could have benefitted from using practical effects combined with CGI enhancements.

As far as I know all of those movies have used practical effects with cg enhancements...even Avatar.

 

[zanos]

The description sounds horribly uninteresting to me.

 

[redhawk23]

uh, by using CGI responsibly.



its sad that film makers today have come to lack so much creativity that they feel they need to lazily reliant on CGI.

wow dude get over yourself. you dont have a clue as to what they are doing shot wise, characterwise, or effects wise. A.C. has proven time over that he cann pull have major technical achievements even when teathered to the difficulties of practical effects. I'm sure we will see much of this still applied, but its very possible that he will show his ingenuity to do something new with the technology. Thats not being lazy. CGI is a tool and given the directors past track record, its a tool he will probably use well.

 

[redhawk23]

most of which had some crappy looking unnecessary CGI.
.

because 90 years of soundstages and stop motion looked absolutely real

don't get me wrong, i love practical effects, but people have always used the tools avail able to them.

If CGI existed when they made the 10 commandments they would have used it.

Also I'm very confused when people pass off cgi as lazy. there is lazy cgi, but many of the films people have mentioned have set continually higher standards, and to make these films armies of artists devoted months and often years of hard work. theres nothing lazy about that. Does gollum looked dated now? of course, but so does anything harryhausen did, but doesnt make either lesser achievements of craftsmanship

 

[Motown Marvel]

This where I think either you're lying, extremely biased, or I just can't take your opinion seriously. Maybe you didn't think the effects were as good as people said they were...but crappy?

if the CGI is recognizable as CGI, then it has failed.

As far as I know all of those movies have used practical effects with cg enhancements...even Avatar.

oh, im sure avatar did utilize some practical effects. but the vast majority of the movie looked like a CGI cartoon.

wow dude get over yourself. you dont have a clue as to what they are doing shot wise, characterwise, or effects wise. A.C. has proven time over that he cann pull have major technical achievements even when teathered to the difficulties of practical effects. I'm sure we will see much of this still applied, but its very possible that he will show his ingenuity to do something new with the technology. Thats not being lazy. CGI is a tool and given the directors past track record, its a tool he will probably use well.

no, i dont have a clue as to what they're doing. and i really do hope they succeed and prove me wrong. but, judging by the recent history of films and their usage of CGI, im not hopeful....

because 90 years of soundstages and stop motion looked absolutely real

don't get me wrong, i love practical effects, but people have always used the tools avail able to them.

If CGI existed when they made the 10 commandments they would have used it.

Also I'm very confused when people pass off cgi as lazy. there is lazy cgi, but many of the films people have mentioned have set continually higher standards, and to make these films armies of artists devoted months and often years of hard work. theres nothing lazy about that. Does gollum looked dated now? of course, but so does anything harryhausen did, but doesnt make either lesser achievements of craftsmanship

im not expecting them to use stop motion and soundstage technology from decades ago. but CGI isnt the only advancement made in special effects technology. and im not saying the process of CGI is lazy, i understand it takes a lot of work. but i find filmmakers getting lazy by resorting to CGI, rather than taking the time and effort and ingenuity to do something REAL in front of the camera, which would result in something looking better.

Regarding using CGI properly in sci-fi movies, 2001 is a great example, but a more recent example would be Moon with Sam Rockwell. I think the CGI was handled very well there.

more impressively would be THE FOUNTAIN. seeing what it was able to achieve using no CGI was very inspiring.

 

[Crook]

Citing 'The Fountain' as a source of cgi-alternative is a bit disingenuous. The visuals found in that film were inherently surreal and had no intention of being life-like.

Avatar has yet to perfect the CGI method, but I have no doubt CGI was likely the best course of action in bringing their concepts to life believably. Animatronics, makeup, prosthetics, miniatures, none of the traditional methods would've done it justice.

 

[Electrofarce]

Citing 'The Fountain' as a source of cgi-alternative is a bit disingenuous. The visuals found in that film were inherently surreal and had no intention of being life-like.

Avatar has yet to perfect the CGI method, but I have no doubt CGI was likely the best course of action in bringing their concepts to life believably. Animatronics, makeup, prosthetics, miniatures, none of the traditional methods would've done it justice.

Avatar was definately a huge leap though. Atleast until Gravity I think it will remain the gold standard for CGI.

 

[dark_b]

until Gravity?you think they will have 2 years of R&D,biggest budget and the best CGI team?

 

[Sentinel X]

if the CGI is recognizable as CGI, then it has failed.

But practical effects would've failed too in that case because it would've looked WORSE.
Can you imagine a girl painted blue to look like Neytiri? ugh. Or using a puppet for King Kong. It would've been waaaaayyy worse. At least in my opinion

oh, im sure avatar did utilize some practical effects. but the vast majority of the movie looked like a CGI cartoon.

Fair enough. I guess we can't really argue opinion. In my eyes the likes of Avatar, King Kong, POTC, etc are vastly different from CG cartoons like Shrek, Toy Story, Ice Age, etc but if you can't see that there is certainly no argument here

 

[Electrofarce]

oh, im sure avatar did utilize some practical effects. but the vast majority of the movie looked like a CGI cartoon.

Oh are you serious? If you think Avatar looked fake than you have lost your mind. A cartoon? Please, it was so close to photo-real it was unbelievable and I'm sure most of us can agree it was damn good.

My Study of Film teacher had no idea when Jake first woke up he swore it was makeup!

 

[Electrofarce]

until Gravity?you think they will have 2 years of R&D,biggest budget and the best CGI team?

I said ATLEAST meaning "if anything". Honestly I don't think it will come close as far as ACHIEVING what Avatar achieved. It's using the same technology Avatar used so it's nothing new. But at the very least it may surpass some of the CGI seen in Avatar. Plus it is a bit more realistic sci-fi film anyways.

 

[Motown Marvel]

But practical effects would've failed too in that case because it would've looked WORSE.
Can you imagine a girl painted blue to look like Neytiri? ugh. Or using a puppet for King Kong. It would've been waaaaayyy worse. At least in my opinion

i dont think it would have looked bad at all. its not as simple as blue paint and puppets. but it is damn impressive what people can do with practical effects these days. people forget that there have been advancements in that area too, not just CGI. sadly, there is less and less of a demand for it, and i think thats because people dont really understand what can be done.

Fair enough. I guess we can't really argue opinion. In my eyes the likes of Avatar, King Kong, POTC, etc are vastly different from CG cartoons like Shrek, Toy Story, Ice Age, etc but if you can't see that there is certainly no argument here

no, man. there is a huge difference between the CGI in shrek and avatar. my problem is, with films like avatar, the CGI is trying to be passed off as a real tangible object, yet its rarely ever convincing enough. its so obviously CGI, which makes it look so obviously fake. if you want something to look photo realistic, the best place to start is by photographing something real!

 

[CGHulk]

I hope Cuaron doesn't make this film and decides to make The Hobbit films!

 

[Electrofarce]

no, man. there is a huge difference between the CGI in shrek and avatar. my problem is, with films like avatar, the CGI is trying to be passed off as a real tangible object, yet its rarely ever convincing enough. its so obviously CGI, which makes it look so obviously fake. if you want something to look photo realistic, the best place to start is by photographing something real!

Sounds like your really against advancements in technology dude. Give me one example of how we could have passed King Kong off with a puppet. I swear it's just rediculous. Computers have the ability to light objects almost 99.9% to what the would look like in real life and that goes for rendering as well. You can only make an alien world look so real because IT'S AN ALIEN WORLD! If you watched Avatar in the 1980's and no one told you how it was made, you'd think it was real.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Sounds like your really against advancements in technology dude. Give me one example of how we could have passed King Kong off with a puppet. I swear it's just rediculous. Computers have the ability to light objects almost 99.9% to what the would look like in real life and that goes for rendering as well. You can only make an alien world look so real because IT'S AN ALIEN WORLD! If you watched Avatar in the 1980's and no one told you how it was made, you'd think it was real.

you dont use a puppet for king kong. instead of putting a dude in a motion capture suit, you simply put a guy in a king kong suit, shoot him against a green screen, then place him in the shot. it'd look far more realistic than a CGI ape.

and seriously, avatar was far from photo realistic.

im not against advancements in technology. im all for it actually. i just prefer the technology to be used responsibly rather than flagrantly.

 

[Backdrifter]

Avatar could've done most of the Na'vi with makeup and CG enhancements. Their anatomy was too similar to ours. But, don't get me started on the weak Na'vi designs in that movie. Cameron took the easy route with them... big, cute eyes, hyper-sexualized bodies... District 9 was essentially the same movie, and it had ugly, seemingly barbaric aliens who we had to LEARN to like and we had to observe to see that they were kind. Cameron was just lazy and manipulative.


Sorry...rant over.


Back to Gravity.

 

[Sentinel X]

I actually loved the Na'vi design. Avatar and District 9 aimed for totally different things. District 9 emphasized on the south african apartheid where Africans were viewed essentially as ugly sub-human creatures until people began to realize they were like everything else. Where as Avatar focused on the beauty of nature and pounded heavy environmental themes...so making the Na'vi beautiful, majestic creatures is absolutely fitting imo.

Also @ motown marvel I think you're in the minority with your opinion on King Kong. A man in a suit for King Kong would look HORRENDOUS. The anatomical structure of man and a gorilla are just too different for it to look credible. Whenever King Kong would move there would be something off