Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL ...you mean those little specs? They gonna transfer those over to a new image house?

If you look closely at the footage you will notice that a lot of those were detailed and moving.
 
If you look closely at the footage you will notice that a lot of those were detailed and moving.

Once again, that is CGI replication of the same models to make it look like there are more Lanterns than there actually is. They didn't render out thousands of models. That would take years. They copy/paste a much smaller number. All those Lanterns do the same movement on another part of the screen.
 
Once again, that is CGI replication of the same models to make it look like there are more Lanterns than there actually is. They didn't render out thousands of models. That would take years. They copy/paste a much smaller number. All those Lanterns do the same movement on another part of the screen.

Shhhh .... don't break up his party.
 
Once again, that is CGI replication of the same models to make it look like there are more Lanterns than there actually is. They didn't render out thousands of models. That would take years. They copy/paste a much smaller number. All those Lanterns do the same movement on another part of the screen.

Either way, we got the sense of scale. There were definitely more than 30 Green Lanterns.
 
Shhhh .... don't break up his party.

I have to share my knowledge!!!

Either way, we got the sense of scale. There were definitely more than 30 Green Lanterns.

You do, but I am just debunking this idea they made 1000s of models for the movie. They didn't. That 30 Lantern count sounds about right. But, those 30 are enough to create the illusion that there are more, which is all a film is doing. Making the illusion what you're seeing is real. The shot looks good, but people thinking they made individual models for all those lanterns are just wrong.
 
Oh, and Dnno, you still think Green Lantern is gonna get nominated for (hahahaha!) best Cinematography?
 
Oh, and Dnno, you still think Green Lantern is gonna get nominated for (hahahaha!) best Cinematography?

Well Avatar did win the Oscar in that category, so he's not completely off base. However, CGI landscapes should not qualify for cinematography at all.
 
Well Avatar did win the Oscar in that category, so he's not completely off base. However, CGI landscapes should not qualify for cinematography at all.
Avatar did not win for it's CGI landscape. It won for seamlessly integrating virtual lighting with live action and innovations regarding 3D cameras and rigs.
 
1.They might not have been intended to speak in the first film, but that does not mean that they are not supposed to speak in subsequent films. 2. They could go with a different VFx house, but that doesn't mean that you wipe the slate clean. The CG models could carry over to the next group. 3. I don't think they need to sell the suits on the they'll do it cheaper bit, since they more than likely already know that it is. It's common business sense that reusing previous work is a non-recurring cost and that taking advantage of that only serves to lower your overall cost for a second film.

1. Dude....if they have 100's...or even just 10's....of CG models to make for individuals that don't have featured parts in the movie, they're not going to set each individual up the same way they did for the ones that do....because there just wouldn't be enough time and money. They're set up to be replicated with minor changes, and just moveable enough to look lifelike when you group them all together. It's like the equivalent of auditioning and rehearsing 100's of extras for a stadium scene...one at a time. You don't do that, you bring them all in and have very basic things that they have to do en masse. Or....you only shoot 50 of them...then tell them to switch seats and shoot again, and again, and later use those multiple versions to fill up the frame. Characters like Tomar Re and Kilowog...100's-1000's of hours each to get then to do what they did onscreen for the first movie. Think about it....think how much they had to spend on VFX, then spend more on...and how much they didn't get done just for the shots needed and left out.

2. It's not about wiping the slate clean for the sake of starting anew....again, if you had a movie that was started in, say, Dreamworks animation...then wanted Pixar to do the next one...it wouldn't be a case of sending over drives full of earlier characters and just opening them up to star re-animating. Each place has built their own facility and workflow around their own systems and software. There's different encoding languages., software, etc., and by the time any character is designed enough to start placing in the movie, they've already gone through many of those steps/systems that are unique to the effects house producing them.

3. Filmmaking is not a 'common business', though. And these aren't standardized car parts or what have you. It's not anywhere as simple as you're attempting to make it out to be. So I'd advise that you listen to people who actually do know about this stuff when they inform you about how it actually does work. Even if the same VFX house were on the job, and they had archived all their designs and models...it's not like they keep them 'at the ready' for the next 2-3 years. They need to clear their main storage/SANs etc. for whatever other show they do, then reschedule and restaff for that one, unarchive the digital material, integrate it into their system/workflow again, then go back and remodel whatever new characters are going to be anything other than background/crowd...for featured movement/speaking/action/etc.. It's not a simple click and go. That all still takes time and money...so again, you can't really point to that as 'major savings' and any sort of incentive for a sequel. For that matter, you could just as easily say that they'll save on scoring if the composer re-uses some of the themes he wrote for the first one. So what? Doesn't mean he'll be paid less ro spend less time scoring the second film.

Think, McFly....think.
 
Last edited:
Do you think they learned their lesson after this failure ? Or will Man Of Steel suffer the same fate ?

No one better touch Zack Snyder's movie. I want to see it in all of its slo-mo ass kicking glory. :D
 
I think the main reason Nolan is there so that they won't touch Snyder's movie.
 
I think the main reason Nolan is there so that they won't touch Snyder's movie.

But by now the WB should figure jeez everytime someone high up wants to control a movie it fails & people actually call the studio out on it. Will they always wonder why a movie that the studios controls fail or will they just be cool with it ? People should be getting fired over this failure. They have to know which executives had control etc
 
No one better touch Zack Snyder's movie. I want to see it in all of its slo-mo ass kicking glory. :D

I think slow mo could work in the Superman movie, to show how fast he is compared to all the regular goons that he was fighting. Snyder can definitely go over-the-top crazy with all the action scenes in there.
 
1. Dude....if they have 100's...or even just 10's....of CG models to make for individuals that don't have featured parts in the movie, they're not going to set each individual up the same way they did for the ones that do....because there just wouldn't be enough time and money. They're set up to be replicated with minor changes, and just moveable enough to look lifelike when you group them all together. It's like the equivalent of auditioning and rehearsing 100's of extras for a stadium scene...one at a time. You don't do that, you bring them all in and have very basic things that they have to do en masse. Or....you only shoot 50 of them...then tell them to switch seats and shoot again, and again, and later use those multiple versions to fill up the frame. Characters like Tomar Re and Kilowog...100's-1000's of hours each to get then to do what they did onscreen for the first movie. Think about it....think how much they had to spend on VFX, then spend more on...and how much they didn't get done just for the shots needed and left out.

2. It's not about wiping the slate clean for the sake of starting anew....again, if you had a movie that was started in, say, Dreamworks animation...then wanted Pixar to do the next one...it wouldn't be a case of sending over drives full of earlier characters and just opening them up to star re-animating. Each place has built their own facility and workflow around their own systems and software. There's different encoding languages., software, etc., and by the time any character is designed enough to start placing in the movie, they've already gone through many of those steps/systems that are unique to the effects house producing them.

3. Filmmaking is not a 'common business', though. And these aren't standardized car parts or what have you. It's not anywhere as simple as you're attempting to make it out to be. So I'd advise that you listen to people who actually do know about this stuff when they inform you about how it actually does work. Even if the same VFX house were on the job, and they had archived all their designs and models...it's not like they keep them 'at the ready' for the next 2-3 years. They need to clear their main storage/SANs etc. for whatever other show they do, then reschedule and restaff for that one, unarchive the digital material, integrate it into their system/workflow again, then go back and remodel whatever new characters are going to be anything other than background/crowd...for featured movement/speaking/action/etc.. It's not a simple click and go. That all still takes time and money...so again, you can't really point to that as 'major savings' and any sort of incentive for a sequel. For that matter, you could just as easily say that they'll save on scoring if the composer re-uses some of the themes he wrote for the first one. So what? Doesn't mean he'll be paid less ro spend less time scoring the second film.

Think, McFly....think.

1. I didn't say that they should voice each and every character. I was saying that they have the characters there to use should they want to voice a different one (instead of like Kilowog or Tomar Re).

2. I think everybody knows the formats that are out there and there are translators for them as well. All that need be done is to translate the models over to that format and then work from there. It might be easier to stay with the vendors you've already worked with before, but at least you don't have to start from scratch if you translate the models (if that is necessary).

3. Actually, certain object or models are. An M1 Abrams tank is an M1 Abrams tank(the same thing goes for an f-35 fighter jet or what have you). It has its set dimensions and fidelity . You could buy one for $2000 but if you already have one, why buy another?
 
You do, but I am just debunking this idea they made 1000s of models for the movie. They didn't. That 30 Lantern count sounds about right. But, those 30 are enough to create the illusion that there are more, which is all a film is doing. Making the illusion what you're seeing is real. The shot looks good, but people thinking they made individual models for all those lanterns are just wrong.

Of course. I agree that they didn't make 1000 models.

Oh, and Dnno, you still think Green Lantern is gonna get nominated for (hahahaha!) best Cinematography?

What's so funny? The cinematography in GL was absolutely amazing. Much better than Batman Begins, and that won back in '05.
 
I think slow mo could work in the Superman movie, to show how fast he is compared to all the regular goons that he was fighting. Snyder can definitely go over-the-top crazy with all the action scenes in there.

Definitely. We're finally going to get a proper action scene with Superman. FINALLY.

Honestly, I appreciate S1 and SII's efforts and I know they were great effects for the time, but they really haven't aged well. It's funny to look at now.
 
Definitely. We're finally going to get a proper action scene with Superman. FINALLY.

Honestly, I appreciate S1 and SII's efforts and I know they were great effects for the time, but they really haven't aged well. It's funny to look at now.

I think the effects have ages fine. I mean, yeah they look dated in places. But, not laughably terrible :huh:
 
Looks fine to me :huh:

The voice thing was most off thing about that clip.
 
I've never laughed at a bad effect (Amazing Bulk aside). I know what they intended and they did the best they could.
 
Looks fine to me :huh:

The voice thing was most off thing about that clip.

It clearly looked like they jumped out, not flew out.

I've never laughed at a bad effect (Amazing Bulk aside). I know what they intended and they did the best they could.

Exactly. I really respect them for trying to do Superman with their technology.

EDIT: Never laughed at an effect, eh? Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2-6XdiR1iI

XD

And no, it's not a fan film or anything. It has the original Tron actor in it.
 
It clearly looked like they jumped out, not flew out.

It doesn't look laughable, though. The jumps take a split second, and then they cut away from them. It's believable enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"