Iron Man IRON MAN CG article

[kakashi]

anyone readed the whole article? they cheated a lot of times. even with the CGI model tehy couldnt do all the poses and movement. so tehy made a system where the parts bended together.
they actually cheated how the suit moves. i am not having a problem with this because they suit that was builded was just to much like a robot.

So what if they decided to go with CGI even after they built an actual suit.

They obviously made trhe right call because it looked great on the movie...so i'm happy.

It boggles my mind that someone saw the movie...happy with how the suit looked on the film...then gets upset when they found out it wasn't an 'actual' iron man suit that he saw on the movie...but a computer drawing

 

[Spectacular23]

i don't really see what the problem is, i like the fact that they use CGI BUT there was also plenty scenes with RDJ in the real thing like on the rooftop and that part of the freeway. i didn't really have a problem with it being CGI but i know in IM2 they are going to design it for him to move more freely i mean it only logical

 

[kakashi]

I read it. I don't think you can use the word "cheat" though. I mean this is not a sporting event, it's a movie. As long as what they use works, I don't care if they had to sacrifice a goat to a pagan god to get it done.

ROFLMAO!

* imagined Favreau and Downey jr sacrificing a goat to a pagan god*t:

 

[carrrnuttt]

anyone readed the whole article? they cheated a lot of times.

You're reaching.

Did YOU read the whole article? Because they were able to "cheat" with the CGI, they were able to motion capture RDJ's action scenes with his natural movements, therefore improving the scene overall with organic movements, unlike Michael Keaton's "whole body head turns" they were stuck with in Batman.

So the CGI is actually a GOOD thing, when it comes to the final results of the movie.

 

[Infinity9999x]

with hulk it is different. iron man suit exists. hulk not.

That's not the point. The point is, the only reason you knew it was CGI in Ironman was because you already knew information about the movie that most audience members don't. Which means that the CGI was not obvious. It's obvious if you glance at it and can tell right away that it's computer animated.

Wait...what!?!? You mean thats not actually the Hulk screaming?? DAMN IT ALL!!

I know, I cried for days when I found out the truth.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I don't think it was right to say we knew the terrorist scene was going to be digital before even going into the movie. Anyone who couldn't tell the Tank scene (which everyone saw at some point before going in) wasn't a digital Iron Man just doesn't know what the distinguishing mark of CGI is... or when CGI is used in other movies. But comparing the Hulk to IM is just silly... its apples and oranges really.

 

[dark_b]

So what if they decided to go with CGI even after they built an actual suit.

They obviously made trhe right call because it looked great on the movie...so i'm happy.

It boggles my mind that someone saw the movie...happy with how the suit looked on the film...then gets upset when they found out it wasn't an 'actual' iron man suit that he saw on the movie...but a computer drawing

but i like hte movie. i like how iron man moved. i think it was the only way to go. the CGI was the only way to make iron man move like he was.
the movie is badass.
didnt you see thta i wrotte that i dont have a problem with this?

to all peopel who responded to my post. i am on a forum. i want to debate the CGI. in the article you can see how they made the movie with CGI. i want to debate this. i agree with what they did because it would nto be possible with the real suit. i dont understand why you need to defend everythig. i am f... on your side.

 

[dark_b]

That's not the point. The point is, the only reason you knew it was CGI in Ironman was because you already knew information about the movie that most audience members don't. Which means that the CGI was not obvious. It's obvious if you glance at it and can tell right away that it's computer animated.



I know, I cried for days when I found out the truth.

what are you talking about. i watched the movei on tuesday. i read this article yesterday. i didnt knwo what was digital before i went in the theater.

 

[dark_b]

You're reaching.

Did YOU read the whole article? Because they were able to "cheat" with the CGI, they were able to motion capture RDJ's action scenes with his natural movements, therefore improving the scene overall with organic movements, unlike Michael Keaton's "whole body head turns" they were stuck with in Batman.

So the CGI is actually a GOOD thing, when it comes to the final results of the movie.

but i am not complaining for f... sake. it is normal that they had to cheat. they also cheated with transformers. when a robot transforms the parts that were behind didnt transform like they should. the aniamtors just hided some parts. every transformation was animated differently.

why are you defending this when i am not complaining?

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

Those shots are absolutely beautiful.

 

[dark_b]

they are.i am very happy that MARVEL and ILM were so generous to reelese those HD CGI shots of IM.WB didtn realese extra CGI shots of superman returns. its very nice.

IM reflect the enviorment around himself. so one of the reasons why a CGi IM looks better is because they can change the sky in the shot. for example. if the real suit is on location and the sky is pure blue the you will see the blue sky on the suit. if you then add CG clouds the reflection should change. with a CGI IM you can change it on the computer.

 

[TheTurtle]

That's surely some of the best CGI ever? I think it's just as well they decided to use extra CGI, letting Downey Jr. have unrestricted movements. Plus, they obviously put A LOT of work into the CGI, which makes it okay.

If the cgi had been rubbish, I would be here now saying "well they should have stuck him in the suit. He'd have been slow, but it would have looked real" but this way we get the best of both worlds.

 

[jimslimbo]

Well iron man did not have the best cgi.Imo.It was above average for sure.

But i don't know if its just because i have a keen eye to pick out cgi shots,But i could tell what was cgi. But then again I have yet to watch a film,no matter how good the cgi is, and be fool by what is real and what is cgi. Except Davy Jones.Thats perfect cgi.

 

[Clark Kent]

Thats perfect cgi.

In your opinion.

 

[jimslimbo]

In your opinion.

Can you prove otherwise?

 

[Clark Kent]

Can you prove otherwise?

Don't be ridiculous. You can't say that something, or someone, just IS perfect CGI. It's subjective. I thought that the Hulk in the first movie was mostly perfect, but that was just my opinion. Plenty of other people FELT he looked like a cartoon. You FEEL Davy Jones was perfect, I don't.

 

[jimslimbo]

Why don't you think its good cgi?

 

[Clark Kent]

Why don't you think its good cgi?

Now you're misquoting me. I didn't say I didn't think it was good CGI. I said I didn't think it was PERFECT CGI. There's a difference. Here

, for example, the lighting on his ... whatever they are ... just looks off to me, considering the lighting in the environment. Plus they, whatever they are, just look a little rubbery to me. They also don't look, to me, as if they're really touching his torso.

I HATE CGI. How come movies can't be made the traditional? Real effects, real stunts?!

Because some things just CAN'T be done real, the Hulk for example. The only way to do the Hulk for real would be to do what they did with Lou Ferrigno. But that was 30 years ago, and on television. Nowadays, in a Hulk movie, the fans expect him to look more like the true comic book version, and it just isn't possible for a human being to match that kind of physique. And animatronics just aren't flexible or expressive enough.

 

[jimslimbo]

Well is seem your the only person who would complain about some of the greatest cgi made.

 

[Clark Kent]

some of the greatest cgi made.

In your opinion.

 

[jimslimbo]

In your opinion.

In the opinion of millions to be correct.

 

[Clark Kent]

In the opinion of millions to be correct.

It's still just opinion. Quality is an abstract, subjective concept. There are no concrete facts when it comes to quality, just subjective opinions. How many people hold one opinion versus how many people hold another is irrelevant. It's still just opinion.

 

[EML]

But that's just your opinion on opinions

 

[Troy_Parker]

So Is This Whole Thread 'Bout People whining 'bout the CGI in the movie? 'cept for the few, THE ONES WHO DON'T WHINE (Yes I Know That This Is Classified As Whining)

They Would've Needed CGI anyway to pull off some of the shots anyway

 

[ultimatefan]

The landing in Afghanistan of course had to be CGI, but the standing and pointing the repulsors seems a bit unnecessary. But still looked good.