Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 9

[solidsnake86]

^you know more about that stuff then i do and ýour probably right. It wasn't necessary to make the suit CG when half the time they were trying to make it look real. They really dropped the ball there too.

 

[Poni_Boy]

CGI aliens in 2010 were not hard. modeling,rigging and rendering is very simple nowdays. animation takes a long time. but the aliens in background didnt have complex movement.

i tell you the CGI suits on Hal and Sinestro were expensive as s.........

just matching the suit on hes body. just the wireframe took months. and even then they had to animate all the neck muscles and match them with Reynolds.

Don't forget they only created about 30 actual alien renders and simpley cut/pasted body parts to fill in the gaps on the Oa/Central Battery scene

Also, they used the same footage from the Sinestro speech in the second, final, one.

 

[dark_b]

^you know more about that stuff then i do and ýour probably right. It wasn't necessary to make the suit CG when half the time they were trying to make it look real. They really dropped the ball there too.

when the movie makes money its not a big deal.

for example when ILM had to change Iron Man's superbowl footage it was also expensive. the movie made money so we dont talk negative about it. but its the same. t:

the problem with the suits is that there was no way that they could look real. so from the beginning they were meant to be ''glowing''. ok i can accept that. the suit looks like green skin.interesting concept but they are so expensive. soooo expensive.

 

[Marvin]

CGI aliens in 2010 were not hard. modeling,rigging and rendering is very simple nowdays. animation takes a long time. but the aliens in background didnt have complex movement.

i tell you the CGI suits on Hal and Sinestro were expensive as s.........

just matching the suit on hes body. just the wireframe took months. and even then they had to animate all the neck muscles and match them with Reynolds.

ohhh and changing Oa in the last months cost millions. remember the change? when you change the whole skyline then you need to change every Oa frame.

Wire framing seems redundant why motion capture is in the picture. I mean sure they need additional key animation but there was no face work or davy jones like tentacles...

I figured the animation on the suits was the easiest part...the rendering per frame on the other hand.

 

[dark_b]

Wire framing seems redundant why motion capture is in the picture. I mean sure they need additional key animation but there was no face work or davy jones like tentacles...

I figured the animation on the suits was the easiest part...the rendering per frame on the other hand.

no. a lot of people think that those grey suits have automatic motion capturing. ILM has technology that gives them a basic animation. basic movement. then they need to use animators to match it . so no. the suits are more used for reference. animators still need to spend months working on the shots. this is of course the body,arms and legs. fingers are not captured. so all fingers are hand animated by the animators. again extra work. fingers were also animated in Avatar.
Cameron was smart to have almost 10 extra cameras around actors for reference. it was easier for animators. of course they didnt do this on GL. why? because its easier to be a smartass and ignore everyone else.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

This is why a special effects heavy movie needs to have a director that understands special effects. One can only imagine the disasters Avatar and Benjamin Button would've been if they were not helmed by Cameron and Fincher respectively.

 

[Marvin]

no. a lot of people think that those grey suits have automatic motion capturing. ILM has technology that gives them a basic animation. basic movement. then they need to use animators to match it . so no. the suits are more used for reference. animators still need to spend months working on the shots. this is of course the body,arms and legs. fingers are not captured. so all fingers are hand animated by the animators. again extra work. fingers were also animated in Avatar.
Cameron was smart to have almost 10 extra cameras around actors for reference. it was easier for animators. of course they didnt do this on GL. why? because its easier to be a smartass and ignore everyone else.

Always figured the motion captured was used directly, seems pointless if it's just for reference. (gotta love happy feet).

seems like sony image works knows no fear

 

[Marvin]

This is why a special effects heavy movie needs to have a director that understands special effects. One can only imagine the disasters Avatar and Benjamin Button would've been if they were not helmed by Cameron and Fincher respectively.

Verbinski would have been great for this, he's obsessed with world building has his films pretty much live action cartoon. Plus he would have brought ILM with him.

 

[KalMart]

Always figured the motion captured was used directly, seems pointless if it's just for reference. (gotta love happy feet).

seems like sony image works knows no fear

Not a waste...it definitely gives the animators good reference points for motion curves/velocities...since human motion in particular is very hard to simulate realistically.

 

[DieSmiling]

This is why a special effects heavy movie needs to have a director that understands special effects. One can only imagine the disasters Avatar and Benjamin Button would've been if they were not helmed by Cameron and Fincher respectively.

Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth to this.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Not a waste...it definitely gives the animators good reference points for motion curves/velocities...since human motion in particular is very hard to simulate realistically.

Speaking of, I always wondered if they used motion capture for the Hulk in TIH... I always thought he looked like he had no definite bone structure... certain times when he's moving his arms and stuff it just doesn't look right.

 

[dark_b]

Always figured the motion captured was used directly, seems pointless if it's just for reference. (gotta love happy feet).

seems like sony image works knows no fear

when you do normal motion capturing then you dont use the actors face.
the grey suits are used when you work on sets or when you use the actors face. or for example Iron Man. RDJ face is used and the set behind it. so they used the grey suits. or the red suits. anyone want to know why on IM2 they used red suits for RDJ?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Speaking of, I always wondered if they used motion capture for the Hulk in TIH... I always thought he looked like he had no definite bone structure... certain times when he's moving his arms and stuff it just doesn't look right.

Marvel Studios' fanboys will hound me for this, but Ang Lee's Hulk still looks a million times better to me.

 

[KalMart]

Speaking of, I always wondered if they used motion capture for the Hulk in TIH... I always thought he looked like he had no definite bone structure... certain times when he's moving his arms and stuff it just doesn't look right.

I don't know for sure but it can be a difficult if you have to change the proportions of your ultimate onscreen model...especially if there's visible muscle structure and skin, etc..

 

[JAK®]

Marvel Studios' fanboys will hound me for this, but Ang Lee's Hulk still looks a million times better to me.

I agree with you.

 

[Polux]

This is sad man...so the movie is doing badly?? Is the movie actually that bad?? I was so excited about this movie and all the footage looked awesome and all the people involved is so talented....what went wrong?? And the worst part is that there's still no opening day for it in my country...


Polux

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Marvel Studios' fanboys will hound me for this, but Ang Lee's Hulk still looks a million times better to me.

CGI-wise he looks much better, but the general design in TIH is better.

Judging from the Avengers art, they combined the mass and size of Ang Lee's Hulk with the ripped look of TIH's... which is what I wanted all along. Hopefully the CGI is up to par this time.

 

[DieSmiling]

In general Ang Lee's Hulk holds up really well as far character animation goes. IMO, the action in that movie is very underrated. There are some AWESOME parts.

 

[dnno1]

So basically, even with $200M, they bit off way more than they could chew...except when it came to the actual storytelling and dialogue, which apparently could have just as easily come from a high-schooler.

Transformers did the same thing, but they had less money and got it all on the screen.

You guys, it's not the CGI nor is it the budget. It's the concept. Critics think that the notion that a guy that has a ring that can do anything he can imagine is silly (although had it been an Arab beggar/thief with a magic oil lamp that had a genie that would grant him 3 wishes, it would have been a classic). There is a double standard here and it's really not fair nor is it ethical. I think we should stop this discussion about budget and Sfx since it really isn't a factor here. Films like POTC and Spider-Man had higer budgets and used CG as well, but got a pass from critics. It is the perception of the critics that is the issue here and we should be considering (or discounting) that.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yea. You know what sums this movie up for me? The flashback scene where we see Hal's dad burn up.

That should have been really emotional, really powerful. But it just wasn't, at all. It was like it was tacked on to give Hal some depth or something. It was actually kinda laughable.

God, that was awful. All he was was this face that said one or two lines.

In the first draft the entire crash sequence was the opening of the film. You saw young Hal and how much he looked up and loved his dad, you saw him and young Carol and her father. Then Hal's father dies. It worked great.

You get it out of the way and it shows why Hal acts the way he is and let's his close ones down.

There was also a good subplot with Ferris air being closed down. With the relationship between Carol and her father showing.

Also the first occurance of GL on Earth was so much better. It was at the air show and Hector attacked it.

Plus the ending was great. The entire, if not a lot of the GL Core showed up and helped Hal on Earth.

See here's the problem with this movie. WB threw money at this film in all the wrong places. They seemingly didn't have the right script to go off of and they wasted the money. I know how appealing the exploration of the mythology is for GL, but I think in order to believe all that, you need to look at the man and the Earth stuff first to understand him. Once you do that, you will accept everything else. Because while you're doing this, you're pulling for Hal.

Some stuff they probably would have had to cut for budget reasons. But I truly think if the Earth scenes were strong enough then everything else would have gone much better. That includes the Oa scenes. It's about using your money well and right after you get a great script locked down. This didn't seem to have either.

 

[KalMart]

In general Ang Lee's Hulk holds up really well as far character animation goes. IMO, the action in that movie is very underrated. There are some AWESOME parts.

Too bad the movie was less enjoyable than a root canal.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Marvel Studios' fanboys will hound me for this, but Ang Lee's Hulk still looks a million times better to me.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

In general Ang Lee's Hulk holds up really well as far character animation goes. IMO, the action in that movie is very underrated. There are some AWESOME parts.

I agree... the dog fight isn't bad, and the desert scene is awesome. I will always love the whole tank scene. The reason TIH was a disappointment to me was that the Hulk wasn't destructive at all and hardly even felt powerful. He looked like he struggled to lift that army jeep over his head and Ang Lee's Hulk threw a tank half a mile.

 

[Poni_Boy]

...Critics think that the notion that a guy that has a ring that can do anything he can imagine is silly (although had it been an Arab beggar/thief with a magic oil lamp that had a genie that would grant him 3 wishes, it would have been a classic). There is a double standard here and it's really not fair nor is it ethical. I think we should stop this discussion about budget and Sfx since it really isn't a factor here. Films like POTC and Spider-Man had higer budgets and used CG as well, but got a pass from critics. It is the perception of the critics that is the issue here and we should be considering (or discounting) that.

Oh really? So critics from fanboy friendly sites like Empire, SuperHeroHype SFX, HitFix, UGO, Badass Digest (all which were some of the first to post mostly negative reviews along with us), Screenrant, Collider, MovieWeb don't "get" the concept of Green Latern?

Get real

 

[Doctor Jones]

At least Hulk had strong characters and themes that carried through and were thought provoking. But what do I know. I find the film very underrated. And **** yes to that desert scene. And I still think Hulk looks great. He looks better quality of animation wise than TIH's Hulk.