Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[solidsnake86]

^Johns is one guy, and I agree with some of what you said because I watched his smallville episode and his dialogue was pretty terrible. Thing is though, this was a 200 million dollar production, with a competent director. They had the resources if they wanted to hire better writers.

To me the film looks like its a victim of not having enough money to pull off what they were going for from the beginning. And that should have been up to campbell to come up with creative ways to deal with that. Look at what del toro was able to accomplish with the budget in Hellboy 2 in terms of the creatures. I thought Campbell would have gone the prosethetics route but it looks like he got lost in the CGI.

 

[Energist]

To me the film looks like its a victim of not having enough money to pull off what they were going for from the beginning. And that should have been up to campbell to come up with creative ways to deal with that. Look at what del toro was able to accomplish with the budget in Hellboy 2 in terms of the creatures. I thought Campbell would have gone the prosethetics route but it looks like he got lost in the CGI.

You raise a good point. The CG was a big turnoff for me when I saw the trailers and commercials, but I hoped (and had even heard from some) that it would look better on the big screen. I really didn't feel it did, however.

But then, I have to admit that I deplore ridiculous amounts of CG, because even when it is done competently (like in Avatar), it still comes across to me as little more than a big budget cartoon, with the actual live-action sequences only drawing further attention to what is and isn't real. In the end, it's usually more of a distraction to me than anything else, and goes a long way in taking me right out of a picture.

I can take it in doses, of course, and more so when I feel the script and performances are already good. Lord of the Rings is probably the most saturated example of a CG-heavy film series that I thoroughly enjoyed, but Green Lantern overdid it for me, and the poor script didn't help me one bit to get past the overabundance of special effects. Not for things like the ring constructs, because I agree that those absolutely have to be CG. The suit, several of the aliens, and even a large amount of the backgrounds, however, I thought would have been better served were they done with traditional special effects as opposed to the use of computer generated models and blue screens.

 

[Octoberist]

You're naive, guy. They can't even get a pilot of the character on a major television network. What makes you think that it's got a chance on the big screen? The track record of female superheroine films has not been good at all. That only adds to the risk factor associated with trying to make a WW picture.

So if an American movie starring an Asian American actor bombs, it means that Hollywood should use the excuse of 'Asian actor can't carry a movie'?

 

[Octoberist]

And yes I agree that Corps aliens would have benefited from a 'del toro' approach with a practical/CG mix.

 

[jmc]

The thing with CG characters is that they still end up looking like CG characters, no matter how good the rendering is. What makes it worse is when there's a) no performance to base the characters off, b) weak story. The CG/Practical combo is the best solutions because you've got a physical person on set interacting with the surroundings which can then be enhanced later in the computer.

 

[dnno1]

The thing with CG characters is that they still end up looking like CG characters, no matter how good the rendering is...

That's not true.

The image above is a CGI model.



The face of the actor in this clip is CG up until the 1:30 mark.

 

[Lencho01]

The first example is a still photo. Once there's movement, it's easier to tell if it's CGI or not. The second example highlights why people can tell CGI from real stuff. When it comes to people, there will be something "off" about them. When it comes to animals and aliens, we can tell because they don't look real or don't exist in our world.

 

[Octoberist]

With the clip, it's filled with the uncanny valley.

And I think agree that CG/Practical is the way to go next time, if there is one.

 

[dark_b]

The thing with CG characters is that they still end up looking like CG characters, no matter how good the rendering is. What makes it worse is when there's a) no performance to base the characters off, b) weak story. The CG/Practical combo is the best solutions because you've got a physical person on set interacting with the surroundings which can then be enhanced later in the computer.

and animatronics look like animatronics.

GL didnt bomb beause the CGI was not 100% realistic. if the budget was 150 it would still be a bomb. 50 millions is a lot of money.and practical effects wouldnt bring the budget that low. practical effects are alos expensive.

 

[Octoberist]

Animantronics looks great and at least they look tangible. Or use Weta instead of Sony who seemed way over their heads. I'm not against CG characters but it seems like only a few can impress and most are from the same companies, ILM and Weta.

But I don't see why pratical would be any more expensive than CG.

 

[dark_b]

Animantronics looks great and at least they look tangible. Or use Weta instead of Sony who seemed way over their heads. I'm not against CG characters but it seems like only a few can impress and most are from the same companies, ILM and Weta.

But I don't see why pratical would be any more expensive than CG.

1. what if WETA and ILM have no time to do the effects? what to do then?
2.i didnt writte that animatronics are mroe expensive. but that they are also expensive effects on the set with a lot of people working for small seconds of footage. and then on top you still need to pay all the CGI artist who would enchance .

plus del Toro didnt use practical monsters in close ups for complex dialoge. but if there is one director and one studio i would trust animatronic aliens it would be del Toro and Stan Winston studio.

 

[Octoberist]

1. what if WETA and ILM have no time to do the effects? what to do then?
2.i didnt writte that animatronics are mroe expensive. but that they are also expensive effects on the set with a lot of people working for small seconds of footage. and then on top you still need to pay all the CGI artist who would enchance .

plus del Toro didnt use practical monsters in close ups for complex dialoge. but if there is one director and one studio i would trust animatronic alians it would be del Toro and Stan Winston studio.

1. Double Negative or Digital Domain.

2. What are you talking about? Pan's labyrinth had Doug Jobes blindly phonetically speaking Spanish in makeup.


If you smellll what I'm cooking???

 

[dnno1]

So if an American movie starring an Asian American actor bombs, it means that Hollywood should use the excuse of 'Asian actor can't carry a movie'?

There would have to me more than one example before you can draw that conclusion. Furthermore, Jackie Chan and Chow Yun-Fat have made their share of successful films.

 

[KalMart]

Animantronics looks great and at least they look tangible. Or use Weta instead of Sony who seemed way over their heads. I'm not against CG characters but it seems like only a few can impress and most are from the same companies, ILM and Weta.

But I don't see why pratical would be any more expensive than CG.

It could require more time if a lot of it is shot during principle...which is generally the most expensive stage per day of an entire production. And you don't get as much camera control/coverage as you would with a 3D model in virtual space.

I still believe it does come down to whoever's doing and supervising the work, though. ILM or WETA are better at it, no question...the effectiveness of CG can't just rely on the actual CG work. The rest of the shot/composition has to work just as hard to make it 'convincing'.

 

[Octoberist]

I think Sony is good only if the director knows what he's doing. Sony's Watchmen looked decent (though that lynx thing looked awful) due to Zack.

Otherwise, they are inconsistent and unreliable.

 

[dnno1]

The first example is a still photo. Once there's movement, it's easier to tell if it's CGI or not. The second example highlights why people can tell CGI from real stuff. When it comes to people, there will be something "off" about them. When it comes to animals and aliens, we can tell because they don't look real or don't exist in our world.

You would have only know if I told you.

 

[MadVillainy]

not true at all dnno

She loooks CG as LEncho said you can tell something is off. It's always in the eyes

 

[Octoberist]

You would have only know if I told you.

She looks distractingly weird. Like what Blackman said, it's the eyes and some of the movements of the face.

 

[Raiden]

I think Sony is good only if the director knows what he's doing. Sony's Watchmen looked decent (though that lynx thing looked awful) due to Zack.

Otherwise, they are inconsistent and unreliable.

I don't know why Zack still left in the lynx, since it tied to that alien monster unleashed to the hotspots around the world by Ozymandias and Zack changed that part of the story to make it more "believable". Lynx was supposed to show that Ozymandias experiments with genetic mutation but without that alien monster its existence was meaningless.

 

[dnno1]

not true at all dnno

She loooks CG as LEncho said you can tell something is off. It's always in the eyes

She looks real and you wouldn't have known or bothered to even comment if I hadn't told you that she wasn't.

 

[dnno1]

She looks distractingly weird. Like what Blackman said, it's the eyes and some of the movements of the face.

That's because she is distacted... by a mouse cursor.

 

[dark_b]

1. Double Negative or Digital Domain.

2. What are you talking about? Pan's labyrinth had Doug Jobes blindly phonetically speaking Spanish in makeup.


If you smellll what I'm cooking???

1. double negative doesnt have enough artist and computer power to make a movie like GL. Digital Domain could do it.
2. Tomar and Kilowog couldnt be done with human faces. their heads are so different from human heads that they would have to build robotic faces. makeup on human faces wouldnt work. the only way it would work is if they would change the face design. think about it- loko how Kilowog looks. every character from Doug JOnes looks in a way very human like. Tomar-er face ,eyes and nose doesnt. the same with Kilowog.

i know that i sound like a smartass and like a jackass. but think abou it very good. look at pictures. i did. it wouldnt work. try to understand it.

 

[dark_b]

not true at all dnno

She loooks CG as LEncho said you can tell something is off. It's always in the eyes

are you sure that if someone would post a video of this girl without talking or writting that its CGI that we would notice it?

the reason i am asking this is because they did it and the story is very funny.

 

[MadVillainy]

She looks real and you wouldn't have known or bothered to even comment if I hadn't told you that she wasn't.

Yes I wouldve it's not that difficult.


I have a feeling this exhange is going to go into "No you couldnt" "Yes I could" back and forth territory and IM just gonna end it here

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah maybe it's for the best